Opinion
 

Letters to the Editor

Pressing matters

Ken Stocks is attacking the partisan press ("Biased liberal media activism fails America," Opinion, Thursday) he views as liberal. Even as a conservative, I take offense to that, because it's a typical cop out. If Stocks is going to criticize the media, he should at least research the media, because then he'd find that most newsrooms are moderate in their views.

Stocks needs to do some reading on World War II as well. For one, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that government censorship was rampant. The press didn't report grandiose "heroics," Mr. Stocks, Hollywood machinations did. You weren't there, but you remember the charade they produced.

We should never be so pro-war that we fail to question the government and the consequences of war. War should be a tough decision and it's not the media's job to build support. 

What's scary is Stocks seems to have forgotten what the free press is all about. It's about being an adversary, calling into question every facet of our society so that we can stand up and find what is good and right and just. The question is, does Stocks want a "passive" press, instead of an "activist" one?

Mike Cervantes
alumnus, class of 1994

While I agree with portions of Ken Stocks' Thursday column, particularly the need to search for the truth ourselves, I think there are some things he should consider.

As far as I know, the U.S. media has not always worked to support war. During the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, American newspapers were bitterly divided on whether or not the war was just and whether or not American should annex territory from the defeated Mexico. During the Civil War, many northern newspapers questioned President Lincoln's strategy and asked for a cease-fire followed by negotiations. 

During World War I, many national papers were against the Unites States sending troops abroad, and afterwards worked hard to push the United States toward isolationism. This contributed greatly to the circumstances surrounding the start of World War II. 

Unity and support for war has generally been the exception, not the rule. Divisions have been closely aligned with political agendas, but such is the case in a popular democracy.

I do not see media in the United States as liberal. An overwhelming majority of news media companies are owned by about four or five conglomerates. When all the news is being streamlined by a few agencies, it hardly typifies liberal media. If you read news from international news agencies, you will find a wealth of reports and stories that will never make the headlines here simply because higher-ups in the media don't deem them newsworthy. 

The so-called "liberal media" is working hand in hand with government administrations, Republican and Democratic, to control information. 

I think Stocks' defensiveness about the phantom "liberal bias" of the news media uncovers his own suspicion that as the situation in Iraq becomes more chaotic, Bush will be exposed as having made a mistake.

Gregory Peek,
history graduate

Letters to the editor are welcome from all members of the UH community and should focus on issues, not personalities. Letters must be typed and must include the author's name, telephone number and affiliation with the University. Anonymous letters will not be published. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, language and space. Letters may be delivered in person to Room 151, Communication; e-mailed to dclettrs@mail.uh.edu ; or faxed to (713) 743-5384.Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu