Dear Sir: I regularly watch the evening news by Tom Brokaw followed by the McNeil/Lehrer N

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

2 Dear Sir: I regularly watch the evening news by Tom Brokaw followed by the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour on PBS. Over the past few years I have observed a tendency for the broadcasters to use the same press releases from the Reagan administration with little or no amplification or interpretation. John Chancellor's short editorial usually follows the party line from the White House since he has been a member of the in-group for many years. He, along with Hugh Sidey, Jim Kilpatrick, Robert Novak, George Will, John McLaughlin and others too numerous to mention echo the White House line almost word for word. They are still calling the murderous Contras "Freedom Fighters". David Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, Jack Nelson, Carl Rowan, Alex Cockburn, Christopher Hitchens and a few others have maintained their independence to some extent. The media spoke of two Libyan boats sunk by our bully boys in the Gulf of Sidra, but no mention is made that twenty six men on those boats perished. Perhaps the news has become so distasteful that these euphemisms must be used to soften the blow to the American psyche. We need more words like 'killed, 'dead', 'torn to bits by bombs', something about grieving families in the third world as well as in Europe and America. They make it obvious that the death of an American is somehow much worse than the death of a person of the third world, especially if they are of a different race or religion. We need the sort of blood and guts coverage that brought the Vietnam War home to the american people and forced its end. We should be reminded regularly that our taxes are buying weapons which are being used to KILL thousands of men, women and children who have never harmed us in any way. In order to try to lend some semblance of balance to the official government economic and foreign policy positions, the interviewers, (such as Meet The Press) try to find someone to take a different viewpoint from that espoused by the government spokesman, who is usually Pipes, Sprinkel, Perle, and even on occasion Meese and Nofziger, neither of whom has ever had an original thought. And then comes Henry K. pontificating about what he did and what he would do. I often quote to my wife the exact words that each of them will say before the interview begins. They all parrot the party line. Most of them can't be blamed since their livelihoods depend on their employment in the administration or their access to the White House breakfasts and news conferences. The guests selected on the interview shows to give an opposing view usually differ only on some slight details. They seldom question the basic assumptions which govern US policy in the Middle East, or South Africa and Central America. Who has the chutzpah to suggest that our government is paranoid about the Russian danger and that if Russia did not exist the Reaganites would have to invent it. The principal purpose that the defense budget serves is apply the traditional Keynesian solution to our economic problems by pump priming through the defense establishment. Without this trillion dollars of defense money over the past seven years, we would be in the middle of the worst depression in our history. Instead, we have gone from being the world's principal creditor to the principal debtor nation. An accomplishment that the administration seems to be proud of. The media need more representation from the academic community, both physical scientists and social scientists, to present differing perspectives on what is happening in the world and what it means and how much credence we can give to the news as presented. Even, heaven forbid, a COMMUNIST. Someone like Vladimir Posner would be a welcome addition to the daily news. I don't think that an occasional exposure to Marx is going to corrupt the viewers, especially since probably less than 20% of the people ever watch one of these shows. Of course, he has his own interest to look out for, so one would have to be very skeptical about his views as well. Except for factual accounts of such events as fires, robberies, elections etc. I believe nothing that I hear, read or see on TV, with few exceptions. Every one seems to have his own row to hoe and his personal interests almost always come before the public interest. Incidentally, I do watch Face the Nation, Washington Week in Review, McNeil/Lehrer, David Brinkley and Meet the Press regularly. I also enjoy (perversely) the McLaughlin Report, even though I disagree almost entirely with everything said on the show. I love to watch those turncoat liberals squirm to follow the party line and remain part of the Washington "IN" group. I believe that Fitzwater embarasses the govenment every time he tries to sugar coat bad news to sound like good news. No intelligent person can believe a word he says, since he is paid to make the government look good. What we really need is a truly adversarial news coverage by both the print and elctronic media. Locally, Ned Day seems to fill this bill. I was disappointed to read his column about Lurie after the election. It should have been written prior to the election. It might have changed a few votes. Perhaps that is why it didn't appear until after the voting was over. Pat and Cathy Rankin 867 N Lamb #180 Las Vegas NV 89110 452-8684


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank