| Number 16 | December 23, 1998 |
|
This Week: |
|
Greetings, As far as I know, we do not have a good listing of worthwhile radio programs in the Twin Cities. We could use something like a "TV Guide" for local radio, in my opinion, so that people could know when an interesting speaker, interview, or documentary will be on the air. But we don't have that, so I'll occasionally talk up noteworthy shows that you might want to tune in to. (The "correct" grammar on that would be "in to which you might want to tune." Isn't that silly?) This week's hot pick is a 30-minute show called RadioActive! that airs on Sunday mornings from 9:30 to 10:00 on "Radio K," aka KUOM, at 770 on your AM dial. This is a great little station in general, but this show stands out. They do interviews with activists, report on local happenings, and generally tell you what you need to know to be a good citizen of the Twin Cities. For example, last Sunday's show featured interviews with two local activists who had been arrested for their civil disobedience last week in opposition to the bombing of Iraq. You won't hear that on MPR! So, tune 'em in next Sunday. [Note to readers: I am giving the E-mail addresses of some of you to one of the co-hosts so she can send you notices about upcoming shows. If you don't want to get them, just let her know directly, or let me know and I'll get you taken off the list. If you specifically want to be on the list, let me know that so I don't neglect you. ‘Til next week, Nygaard |
|
I simply must comment on the resignation last Saturday of Speaker of the House-designate Bob Livingston. As you may know, he had to admit last week, after he learned that it was going to hit the newsstands soon, that he had engaged in "several" extramarital affairs during his 33-year marriage. When he admitted that this was true before the House Republican caucus on Thursday night, the Star Tribune reported that "his party colleagues responded with three standing ovations and pats on the back." Democrat Bob Gephardt declared that Livingston "is a worthy and good and honorable man." Hmm. So, this week the Star Tribune published a column on the matter by David Broder of the Washington Post. (Broder is acknowledged in mainstream circles as "the dean of political pundits," as his opinions are so influential.) Under the headline "Livingston's resignation sets an example and offers a challenge" Broder says that the resignation embodies "leadership by example" and evokes "the most basic of values -- responsibility, trust, honor, and courage." Now, bear in mind that Livingston is not resigning because of what he did; he's been doing that for decades. He's resigning because he got caught. What an role model. |
|
How do newspeople decide what is "news?" I.F. Stone once said that he enjoyed reading the New York Times because he liked to see on what page the front-page stories would appear. Last Sunday, the day after Clinton was impeached and when we were in the midst of a massive bombing of Iraq, the Star Tribune devoted their entire 22-page first section solely to the impeachment. The bombing was relegated to the second section, and was allotted only 4 out of a possible 8 pages. A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported Tuesday that only about 1/3 of Americans "paid very close attention to" the impeachment proceedings, while 44 percent "paid close attention to" the attack on Iraq. These facts raise some interesting questions. F'rinstance: What criteria are used to determine what is "news" and how much coverage it gets? What is the relationship between "demand" for news and editorial judgement? Is novelty ("Man bites dog!") a good reason for putting something in the paper, or should other factors be considered? When these decisions are made in a democratic society, should they be different than if they were made in a non-democratic society? Why, and how? These are interesting questions, and I'll give my take on them in a future Nygaard Notes. When I was younger, I used to call the "Reader's Representative" at the Star Trib with questions like these. His answer, with slight variations, was almost always, "Our editors have lots of experience, and their judgement should be respected in this case." "What the hell does that mean?" I would query. "Thank you for expressing your opinion," he would say. So I don't call him any more. We could really use a serious "Media Watch" column in these Twin Cities, don't you think? |
|
I sat down on Monday, December 21, and looked through the coverage of the recent bombing of Iraq in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) to see if I could pick out any patterns, omissions, or other interesting tidbits for the readers of Nygaard Notes. Actually, I read pretty much every word they published from Thursday, when coverage began, through Monday, essentially one (news) day after the bombing stopped. Lo and behold, I found some interesting things indeed. Let's start with Thursday, the first day of coverage, where we had 16 stories, plus a "feature page" (page A18) of graphics, maps, and lists. First off, all of the "news" stories not written by Star Trib staff come from either the Associated Press, Washington Post, Boston Globe, or New York Times. No reporting appeared from other sources with different perspectives, such as Reuters, Agence France Presse, the BBC, or Pacifica News. Missing in Action: Compassion No doubt the most striking thing in the Star Trib's coverage was the almost total lack of concern for innocent Iraqis, and the portrayal of the entire bombing campaign as almost a sort of game. As an example, the entire page A18 on Thursday, entitled "Operation: Desert Fox," featured a logo made up of the crosshairs from a gun or missile sighting device, superimposed over a map of Iraq. (Has anyone yet come across any reference in the mainstream media to the original "Desert Fox," Erwin Rommel, who was a symbol of Nazi aggression early in World War II? I have not.) In a graphic about the bombing headed "Pluses and minuses" on this same page, the list of four "minuses" did not include the consequences of the bombings for Iraq's people or infrastructure. No costs there, I guess. The list did, however, include "The seemingly endless deployments [which] have left the U.S. military exhausted and demoralized." The only other reference to the Iraqi people that I could find was, oddly enough, in a statement from the French government, which deplored "the grave human consequences that the air strikes could have for the Iraqi population." I say this is odd because the article in which this quote appeared bore the headline "Traditional allies back strikes..." I thought France was a "traditional ally," and an article on the same page says that France "has dissociated itself from the bombing." Sweden "deplored" the attack, and they are an "traditional ally" too (I thought). On the subject of Iraqi suffering, Friday's paper contained a rather surreal article entitled "Iraqis appear resigned to strikes," the purpose of which appeared to be to put our minds to rest concerning any possible hurt to Iraqi civilians. According to the article, the bombings just didn't bother people in Iraq much at all. The article claimed that, as the second night of bombings approached, "Baghdad shrugged its shoulders with weary indifference." This premise was backed up with lots of quotes from Iraqis, such as "We've grown used to it. We're not going to let it interfere with our night," and "...this is not so bad." So, not to worry, America, "they" are not like "us." Bombs don't bother them! |