Conference yukon::christian_v7

	Well, now that there's a topic for it...

	Pam mentioned a couple weeks ago about the Day One 
	TV show that featured Dr. James Dobson.  I saw about 1/3
	of it; Jamie saw the whole thing.  On the following Monday,
	Focus on the Family aired the entire interview (Dr. Dobson
	was interviewed for 75 minutes, and the segment was less
	than 20 minutes on TV).  As a condition of granting the
	interview, Dr. Dobson required that FoF be allowed to 
	video the interview, also.  It was very interesting to
	see how the segment was cut to project a particular 
	agenda for Day One  The segment was really hinting at a
	political agenda for Dr. Dobson, calling him a stealth candidate for
	political office.  Dr. Dobson laughed at that on the FoF broadcast,
	saying he could hardly be a stealth candidate and be on the air
	nationwide every day.  In the full interview, he made it quite
	clear that as a non-profit organization, FoF does not endorse
	political candidates.  However, in the voiceover on the
	broadcast, they stated how so many political candidates
	are vying for his "endorsement".

	There were more blatant examples of voiceovers that directly 		
	contradicted Dr. Dobson's actual interview.  It was a very
	interesting series of broadcasts.

	Karen

 I'm shocked that the media would stoop to such a thing!




 Jim

On a completely different note -

Your personal name made me laugh, Jim.  And I could really use a laugh today.

Thanks

Paul

 I'm glad, brother.



 Jim

    The Intelligence Web Report had an interesting interview with James
    Harff, director of Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs in February of '94.
    This firm currently represents the Bosnian and Croatian governments.

Harff: For 18 months [Oct 93] we have been working for the republics of Croatia
and Bosnia Herzegovina, as well as for the [Muslim] opposition in Kosovo
[part of Serbia].  Throughout this period we had many successes.

Q: What are your methods of operation?

Harff: the essential tools in our work are a card file, a computer, and a fax.
The card file contains a few hundred names of journalists, politicians,
academicians, and representatives of humanitarian organizations.  The computer
goes through the card files according to correlated subjects, coming up with
very effective targets.  The computer is tied into a fax.  In this way, we can
disseminate information in a few minutes to those we think will react
[positively].  Our job is to assure that the arguments for our side will be
the first to be expressed.  Speed is vital, because items favourable to us must
be settled in public opinion.  The first statement counts.  The retractions
have no effect.

Q: How often do you intervene?

Harff: Quantity is not important.  You have to intervene at the right time
with the right person.  From June to September, we organized 30 meetings with
the main press agencies, as well as meetings between Bosnian officials and
[U.S. Vice President] Al Gore, Lawrence Eagleburger, and 10 influential
senators, among them George Mitchell and Robert Dole.  We also sent out 13
exclusive news items, 37 last minute faxes, 17 official letters, and 8
official reports.  We placed 20 telephone calls to White House staff, 20 to
senators, and close to 100 journalists, editors, newscasters, and other
influential people in the media.

Q: What achievement were you most proud of?

Harff: To have managed to put Jewish opinion on our side.  The Croatian and
Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel antisemitism.  Tens of thousands of
Jews perished in Croatian camps.  There was every reason for intellectuals and
Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians.  Our
challenge was to reverse this attitude.  And we have succeeded masterfully.

At the beginning of August 1992, the New York "Newsday" came out with the affair
of [Serb] concentration camps.  We jumped at the opportunity immediately.  We
outwitted three big Jewish organizations - The B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation
League, the American Jewish committee, and the American Jewish Congress.  We
suggested to them to publish an advertisement in the "New York Times" and to
organize demonstrations outside the United Nations.

This was a tremendous coup.  When the Jewish organizations entered the game on
the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the
Nazis in the public mind.

Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia.  But by a single move we
were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would
hereafter play itself.

Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the
use of words with high emotional content, such as "ethnic cleansing,"
"concentration camps," etc. which evoked images of Nazi Germany and the gas
chambers of Auschwitz.  The emotional charge was so powerful that nobody could
go against it.

Q: But when you did all this you had no proof that what you said was true.  You
only had the article in "Newsday"!

Harff: Our work is not to verify information.  We are not equipped for that.
Our work is to accelerate the circulation of information favourable to us, to
aim at judiciously chosen targets.  We did not confirm the existence of death
camps in Bosnia, we just made it known that "Newsday" affirmed it.

Q: Are you aware that you took on a grave responsibility?

Harff: We are professionals.  We had a job to do and we did it.  We are not paid
to be moral.

    re: .2
    
    >I'm shocked that the media would stoop to such a thing!
    
    
    I used to be, too, but that was before I figured out that they do this
    sort of thing regularly.  The major networks simply cannot be trusted
    to report anything without a particular spin.
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, do any of those "major" networks Christian networks?


Glen

    Re: -1
    
    what's that mean in English? ;-O

	Don't know if you're kidding or not, Mike, but I'll answer it anyway.
Steve mentioned that all of the major networks have their own slant to the news.
I was wondering if he was including Christian networks that have news as well.


Glen

    that's not what your question asked ;-)

	Sigh..... English is something I should learn at some point. :-)  My
hope is Steve will answer the question later on that was asked. :-)

Hey, Glen, dare I say that you'd have the edge on the rest of America then?

		- no ... I thought I wouldn't ;-) ;-) ;-}

								&

	An edge????? Nah..... not me...... dull as a rock. :-)

    I know of no Christian networks that are large enough to be a "major"
    network, as in the "big three" (or that could be 4, Fox is getting
    rather large these days).
    
    The difference between the Christian newscasts from Christian networks,
    and major secular media networks, is that the secular media claim to be
    unbiased.  The spin they put on news is obvious to anyone who has eyes
    and ears and is willing to open both.
    
    Christian networks have their own spin, reporting their news in a
    Christian perspective/light.  The one's I've seen claim one (or both)
    of two things, up front: "news that you won't find in the secular media", 
    or "news from a Christian perspective".  Even if they didn't, they are
    Christian programs, and anyone watching them will know this, and will
    realize that this is the perspective taken.
    
    
    -steve

	Then why not just say all media puts their own spin on things? It is
much more accurate than only bringing out the big 3, isn't it?

    <-- I've been saying this for years.