"Unjust Criticism"
One: On September 30, 1979, the Buenos Aires Herald published an editorial called “Unjust Criticism.” The editorial responded to the outcry in the Western press over a new Argentine law that sought “to establish a defined legal status for relatives of disappeared people.” That is, the new law declared the disappeared to be officially dead — a change from the government’s traditional line, which was to deny all knowledge of the fates of the disappeared.
Not oddly, this didn’t go over well internationally. A French paper, for example, called the law the government’s “final solution” for the disappeared. The Washington Post also harshly criticized the law.
The Herald protested the outpouring of “anti-Argentine” articles: “The government has not been given the benefit of the doubt,” the Herald complained, “and its good intentions have been challenged by most of the Western press.”
Good intentions? The government of Jorge Rafael Videla? Hmm. Why, I wonder, did the Herald feel the need to give the government “the benefit of the doubt"? In what way was that good journalism? What purpose did it serve, apart from ingratiating the paper with the authorities?
Two: I don’t know if it has arrived in Argentina, but in the US right now the movie Fahrenheit 911 is a big deal. It’s a full bore attack on the Bush administration, which many think will have a powerful effect on the 2004 presidential elections. In other words, it’s great.
The film has been so widely seen that “what do you think of Fahrenheit 911?” has become a safe conversation starter. I’ve used it a number of times. The responses I get often show tense, pained internal reactions. People are usually quick to say that they would never vote for Bush, but then they refuse to wholeheartedly like the film. “I don’t know if it was fair,” they say. “Some things just didn’t seem right.”
The essence of objections to the film seem to be that the movie, although it did not make any false statements, implied sinister things about the Bush administration. It implied, for example, that the administration’s military actions were motivated at least in part by the prospect of profits for big US businesses, like Haliburton. In other words, people were bothered that Michael Moore’s film did not give the US Government the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it presumed the opposite: that the government must not be up to any good.
But wait: isn’t suspicion an essential element of good journalism? Would anybody have ever figured out what was going on in Argentina if they had presumed (as most people did) that the government was basically an upright group of men?
Three: In a way, the reaction of the general public (and of most op-ed pieces and reviews of the movie) to Fahrenheit 911 has been ideal: people are suspicious of the movie. It motivates them to explore more. It has even prompted a recent network TV investigation into whether the government really allowed bin Laden’s relatives safe passage out of the US after September 11.
It is exactly this sort of suspicion that people should apply when they read the papers and watch the news. Perhaps the movie will help break down the string of “benefit of the doubt” allowances that has helped the media and US voters to lose track of the reality of “Democracy in America.”
Suspicion of the media is something we in the US could serve to learn from the Argentines.
Not oddly, this didn’t go over well internationally. A French paper, for example, called the law the government’s “final solution” for the disappeared. The Washington Post also harshly criticized the law.
The Herald protested the outpouring of “anti-Argentine” articles: “The government has not been given the benefit of the doubt,” the Herald complained, “and its good intentions have been challenged by most of the Western press.”
Good intentions? The government of Jorge Rafael Videla? Hmm. Why, I wonder, did the Herald feel the need to give the government “the benefit of the doubt"? In what way was that good journalism? What purpose did it serve, apart from ingratiating the paper with the authorities?
Two: I don’t know if it has arrived in Argentina, but in the US right now the movie Fahrenheit 911 is a big deal. It’s a full bore attack on the Bush administration, which many think will have a powerful effect on the 2004 presidential elections. In other words, it’s great.
The film has been so widely seen that “what do you think of Fahrenheit 911?” has become a safe conversation starter. I’ve used it a number of times. The responses I get often show tense, pained internal reactions. People are usually quick to say that they would never vote for Bush, but then they refuse to wholeheartedly like the film. “I don’t know if it was fair,” they say. “Some things just didn’t seem right.”
The essence of objections to the film seem to be that the movie, although it did not make any false statements, implied sinister things about the Bush administration. It implied, for example, that the administration’s military actions were motivated at least in part by the prospect of profits for big US businesses, like Haliburton. In other words, people were bothered that Michael Moore’s film did not give the US Government the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it presumed the opposite: that the government must not be up to any good.
But wait: isn’t suspicion an essential element of good journalism? Would anybody have ever figured out what was going on in Argentina if they had presumed (as most people did) that the government was basically an upright group of men?
Three: In a way, the reaction of the general public (and of most op-ed pieces and reviews of the movie) to Fahrenheit 911 has been ideal: people are suspicious of the movie. It motivates them to explore more. It has even prompted a recent network TV investigation into whether the government really allowed bin Laden’s relatives safe passage out of the US after September 11.
It is exactly this sort of suspicion that people should apply when they read the papers and watch the news. Perhaps the movie will help break down the string of “benefit of the doubt” allowances that has helped the media and US voters to lose track of the reality of “Democracy in America.”
Suspicion of the media is something we in the US could serve to learn from the Argentines.
previously there was Larry Rohter, foot in mouth
afterwards you have wrong side of the wall
“For the big Houston-based oil services outfit, [the action in Iraq] means training new recruits to join a burgeoning Iraq unit. For investors, it means focusing on Halliburton's opportunities to boost profits — and recognizing that the most tragic losses never really drop to the bottom line.”
“Indeed, even as Iraqi expenses mount and safety threats grow, one expert sees little threat to Halliburton's financial well-being. David Edwards of Heron Capital Management believes that others — including U.S. taxpayers — will end up eating the soaring costs instead.”
“ ‘They‘ll go back to the Pentagon and say: ’Pay us more money. We‘re clearly in danger over here,’ ’ says Edwards, who owns stock in Halliburton and other oil service names. 'A lot of the terrorism has relatively little economic impact on the companies.' ”
http://www.thestreet.com/_t... [submitted on 13 Jul 04]