[Peace-discuss] WDWS clips and beyond

[Ricky Baldwin]

Folks,

I'm happy to say that once again we have a healthy
disagreement within AWARE - this time over the WDWS
interview clips.  The News-Gazette is also planning to
visit us for some interviews and photos on March 15,
so I think this discussion is timely.

I like Kim's point that we are a diverse group, but
that we might want to be a little mor savvy about
dealing with the media.  Her suggestions are good ones
-- but I do think that everyone could tell what kind
of bias was behind the very questions (1) who's worse,
Bush or Saddam; (2) who would you rather see removed
from power, Bush or Saddam; (3) who would you fight
for, US or Iraq; and (4) if a US city were destroyed
by an atomic bomb, would retaliation be okay?  This
sort of question is intended to be near-impossible to
answer, and we should be wary of them.  Kim is right:
we should stay "on message" and say what WE want to
say, not what a reporter wants us to say.

I'll be the first to say that I wasn't at my best
answering these, with the caveat that (as John
suggested) when my answers were not what WDWS wanted,
they simply didn't use them.  (For example, "I
wouldn't fight for either the US or Iraq - I think war
will only create more enemies for the US.") But
overall I think folks did a pretty good job.  I
wouldn't agree with everything everyone said, but I
don't need to.  I think one of the most crucial
services we perform is to make sure that a variety of
opinions enters the public debate, such as it is.

I also appreciate most of what Doug had to say.  He is
very articulate and knowledgeable on these issues, and
I'd hope that he would join us in future Saturdays and
speak to the press himself.  I think we can all
appreciate his frustration.  Of course Saddam Hussein
is a brutal dictator - which some of us told the WDWS
guy, but it must have wound up on the cutting room
floor.  Still, the point that many folks made is
important: Saddam may be a vicious little tyrant, but
he is still a penny-ante pirate compared to the US and
the scale of destruction we offer - from Hiroshima and
Nagasaki to Vietnam to Haiti to Nicaragua, El Salvador
and Panama to Iraq to Kosovo to Afghanistan (twice)...

Finally, a couple more thoughts (which I did give the
WDWS guy):  The serious question is not personal, Bush
vs Saddam.  The serious question is what to do about
terrorism and violence in the world.  The first thing
the US can do about these is: stop promoting it
ourselves - that is, stop training people like Osama
bin Laden, stop backing dictators like Saddam Hussein,
and close down our own terrorist training camps like
the School of the Americas.  Then we can approach the
UN resolutions calling for regional disarmament in the
Middle East with some credibility, in addition to not
creating any more enemies for ourselves.  We might
even want to support the rule of international law,
including the International Criminal Court, instead of
undermining it by constantly playing lone
ranger/vigilante.

But whatever we tell the press, and whatever they
print, it is my opinion (which a lot of folks will
probably disagree with) that we still want the
attention.  In fact, when they mischaracterize us in a
particularly outrageous way, it's better in a sense,
because it gives us the opportunity to respond and
speak for ourselves.  (That's a hint: we need more
letters to the editor!)

Here's to everybody who did their best without any
preparation, and here's to learning from our mistakes.

Ricky

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/