MikeS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony
>
> now I may be wrong, ie. have been watching bad
> news channel/ bulletins, but when I visited the
> States I felt the news channels did a very good
> job of either trivialising or just ignoring much
> of what happens outside the US.



That is correct. It was only in the late nineties that the changes started "kicking in" and gaining ground. The internet has been incredibly helpful in finding the FACTS that are almost NEVER reported on what used to be ALL the media we had here.


> In fact as a
> matter of course I tend to take my long wave radio
> and listen to the BBC world service for a wider
> and more free range view.


Odd. I found it intensenly frustrating because the BBC had the NARROWEST of viewpoints I've ever heard... outside of government media in Egypt, that is...



> Either things have
> changed (and I admit that last time I was in the
> US was pre 9/11, though only just) or what you
> view of lack of variety is missing that they are a
> lot wider in range of world content.



I was shocked at the lack of coverage of major issues regarding the Middle East. I was sitting down to dinner with educated people at various B&B's in the UK and they had no idea what I was talking about with regard to several issues. They were perfectly familiar with EVERY story I saw on the Beeb... but had no knowledge outside of that. They even accused me of making things up, in fact, because if it HAD been real, the BBC would have covered it.

In fact it was real... I am quite sure there's been an Oil for Food scandal at the UN... and Kofi Annan was very familiar with the awarding of contracts, as evidence has shown since those times last year.

That's just the first example I can remember, and what's more "global" in nature than the UN?

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.