I'm not getting into this debate again, but I really really wish the non-Americans here would stop assuming they simply know what's going on in America and then twisting every bit of news to justify their own biases. Ian said it was a First Amendment issue. It's not. That was all I was saying. Should there be more public discussion on differing viewpoints? Absolutely. I'm very upset that there is not. However, it doesn't help when the dissenters are being just as bad as the war-mongers in how they present their arguments. When people lay out things honestly and openly then people can make their own decisions - such as the one made below.

-Mike

----
From http://www.cmt.com/news/feat/dchicks.031403.jhtml:

One major market programmer removed the Chicks from his station's
playlist but changed his mind after considering why Americans have
fought previous wars. In a letter to listeners posted on the KFKF/Kansas
City Web site, program director Dale Carter wrote, "Our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines are over there fighting for our rights --
and one of those is our Constitutional right to express an /unpopular/
opinion. The longer this has gone on, the more I had visions of
censorship and McCarthyism. Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with
the 80 percent of you who abhor what Natalie said in London. On the
other hand, I believe in the Constitution."



At 04:14 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Pablo Bose wrote:
It's not so cut and dry as a consumer sovereignty (ie "choose to listen or
tune out") issue.  I would certainly agree with Ian that there seems to be
a witch hunt going on in the popular media at least, one that simply
doesn't jive either with long-standing traditions of vigorous dissent
within the US polity or with a significant element of the population of
the US today.  For every person who seems to want to unquestioningly
follow the little general to Armageddon, there seem to be a lot of others
who question the motives and rationales behind this rush to war.  What I
have seen however, is a marked lack of such voices on the mainstream
American media.  Much more in the independent and certainly a hell of a
lot more coverage in Canadian and European presses.  But on the CNN or Fox
War channels, which have been hyping "a showdown" and an "ultimatum" with
Iraq for months now, the waiting, as Tom Petty once said, really must be
the hardest part.  Woe betide you if you utter a discouraging word, else
you'll get lectured, as Susan Sarandon found out when harangued by Connie
Chung for "betraying our troops" or the French (apparently the
American ass-kissing Alliance now wants to officially change the name to
"Freedom Canadians" and "freedom kissing").  The point isn't whether or
not the Dixie Chicks are being oppressed, but that dissent is still very
much discouraged by both the state and the mainstream media in the US.

Pablo

*****

Pablo Shiladitya Bose
Research Coordinator, Ethics of Development-Induced Displacement Project
Research Associate, Centre for Refugee Studies
Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University, Toronto, Canada
Tel:  (416) 736-2100 ext. 20559


___________________________________________________________
FoIB Mailing List - Bits, Analysis, Digital Group Therapy
http://www.ianbell.com

Reply via email to