18999: Dorce: Re: 18911: Dailey on 18855 & 18846 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 2/20/04 6:47:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, Peter Dailey
<phdailey@msn.com>writes:

<< Greg Chamberlain is absolutely correct to say that in discussions of Third
 World etc. media "independent" is understood to mean "independent of
 government control." This is not a value judgment, whatever it may once have
 been, but merely a matter of usage. >>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I understand in Journalistic parlance, "independent media" means independent
of government control.  However it is misleading when the government is not in
control of the power in a country.  When the wealthy non-government types are
calling the shots, and we know they do wherever in the world we are talking
about, then independent means not under the control of the power machine.  In
Haiti, "independent media" though hard to come by because of assassination (who
had the most to gain from killing Jean Dominique??) or because of money,
means those not under control of the elite class.  This is a Haiti listserv,
therefore the parlance should reflect the socio-econo-political situation there.
Can we agree at least that money trumps office holding in Haiti?
The only power this government has is the people supporting it.  If they
weren't supporting Aristide and Lavalas.....do you honestly think they would still
be there?  After all the squeezing/strangling of an already destitute people
(and let's debate the ethics and morality of THAT, shall we?) so that they
would abandon Aristide, and they HAVEN'T...what does that tell you?  They would
rather die than go back to the way it was....(cue the Barbra Streisand music
for all the nostalgic Duvalieristes).  NOU PA MAWON ANKO!

thank you,

Kathy Dorce~