#4141: Norton - Arthur replies to Chamberlain (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Charles Arthur <charlesarthur@hotmail.com>

Keyword: misinformation

Re: posts # 4002, 4034, and 4079

Whoa, Dobbin! (or should that be Dobbo?)

I wish I had as much time on my hands as Greg Chamberlain does.
Then, I could spend all day replying to, and even 'correcting', posts on the 
Corbett list.

As it is, I cannot allow Greg to patronise me, misrepresent my views,
and allude to my 'sympathies' (to which he apparently somehow
has intimidate knowledge), without responding.

Greg tells me that he was not introducing a 'red herring' into his 'reply' 
to my questioning of Mike Norton's reporting on Haiti
when he wrote about the arrests/detentions of politicians and their 
supporters in the aftermath of the 21st May elections. I have to disagree 
with him.

In the context of my question about Norton's reporting (the sole
content of my post), then Greg's 'arrests' issue was a diversion. He did not 
say one thing about Norton's baised reporting, but instead once again took 
the opportunity to rubbish the Haiti Progres newspaper. He is of course free 
to say that, and whatever else Bob allows to go the list, but he should not 
then call it a reply to my post. He did not reply to the issue I raised.

Instead, he asked me for an 'explanation' for the arrests. When
I attempted to suggest reasons for them, and added my own anecdotes to flesh 
out the issue, he accused me of not regarding the arrests as important or 
relevant. Well thanks, I'll remember that next time you ask a question.

I am not so precious that I cannot take Greg's seemingly willful 
misinterpretations of my comments on the elections, but what really gets my 
goat is the deafening silence emanating from his fingertips concerning the 
disgraceful reporting on Haiti by Mike Norton in recent months.

Does Greg agree or disagree that Norton's reporting has reached a new low? 
Yes or no?

He himself wrote in post #4079 "I am NOT trying to cover up for
deficient reporting, which of course exists." Well, Greg, does it exist in 
this case or not? Or is it only Haiti Progres that bothers you.

For me there is a serious difference between Mike Norton and
Haiti Progres - the former masquerades as an impartial independent 
journalist reporting objective 'raw' news for an international wire agency, 
whereas the latter produces unashamedly partial interpretations and analysis 
of the weeks news, events and trends. Everybody knows the political bent of 
Haiti Progres, and the reader can take it or leave it. But Mike Norton 
insidiously slides his own anti-Aristide, anti-Lavalas line into his 
dispatches while pretending that his reports are objective.

The reason why this outrages me is that we have just witnessed the most
dreadful spate of international news reporting on Haiti - so full of
inaccuracies and bias - and it was all picked up and amplified
by other media whose journalists and leader writers have either not the time 
or not the inclination to look further than the last few AP dispatches for 
their news about Haiti. As a result, we have read of 'waves' of Lavalas 
violence (the BBC correspondent called it months of pre-election violence), 
attempts by Aristide to postpone the elections until November (what 
happened?), so many sets of Aristide coat-tails that the Tabarre closets 
must be set to burst open, the kidnapping (or was that just a guy staying 
with his mistress), hacking and stoning to death of opposition candidates, 
and now most recently a 'wave' of arrests. Is this what really happened? - I 
don't think so.

And Greg, please do me a favour and leave out the one about how
the poor wire reporters are under such time and logistical pressures - I 
don't buy it. Mike Norton is not some novice. He has been there for years, 
and clearly knows what he is doing.

Charles Arthur


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com