GUARDIAN DISMISSES U.S. WAR COVERAGE
There is a story in London's Guardian newspaper today about the flag-waving still going on at many American media organizations. The story, by Roy Greenslade, is dripping with snobbery. He manages to dismiss the seriousness of all U.S. media outlets after reading 12 issues of the Los Angeles Times. Rather than dip to his level - which I admit was my first, second and third inclination - I'll just say I disagree with part of his assessment. Granted, you can find exceptional journalism from the Economist and the BBC. Then there's the Independent, the Guardian and the Financial Times, which has a very nice search engine. But the Guardian story exists in a blissful vacuum inhabited only by Fleet Street and the LA Times. There is no mention of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker or even that thing called CNN.

However distasteful his framing may be, he does have a legitimate point about the patriotic turn American reporters have taken since the September attacks. "It is as if the (F)irst (A)mendment has been put on ice while America is at war, the very moment when it is most necessary to use it," Greenslade writes. That may be true up to a point, Mr. Greenslade.

Equally troubling is a recent Pew study found that 53 percent of Americans prefer their news censored for them during a war.
- posted by Amy @ 12/03/2001 08:22:00 PM