Push Me, Pull YouAuthor(s): Thomas O'BrienSource: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 175-176Published by: Council on Foreign RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20048187 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 06:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ForeignAffairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters to the Editor

exploited workers, however, are much

more likely to benefit from effective reg ulation of the labor market, accompa nied by relaxation of internal migration restrictions and privatization of state

owned firms. Such changes are

precisely what the urban labor force would lobby against if it received greater autonomy.

JEFF RIGSBY

Researcher and Writer, The Economist

Intelligence Unit, Hong Kong

ENVIRORATIONAL

To the Editor:

In discussing the environmental

movement, James P. Pinkerton dances

coyly around the question of values,

focusing on what is, not what ought to

be ("Enviromanticism," May/June 1997). One is left to read between the lines. The

title neologism, for instance, insinuates

that environmentalism is fanciful and

emotional as opposed to rational and

pragmatic. If intended, however, that

implication is nonsensical. For as axioms

are to mathematics, so are values to

political discourse. Reason provides the

girders but not the foundation. All policy prescriptions derive from pre-rational beliefs. Environmentalists are distin

guished not by their romanticism or

their reason, but by the relative impor tance they assign to values widely shared.

What values motivate environmental

ists? I would list three, all fairly conven

tional: the sanctity of human health, the

importance of private property, and the

belief that the natural world is beautiful and worth preserving. Perhaps Pinkerton

would consider the first two grounded and rational since they appeal to self-interest.

They explain why environmentalists feel it

is just about as wrong to deliver lead to a

child's brain through a tailpipe as through the barrel of a gun, why we are no more

sanguine about the damage done to build

ings by acid rain than by vandals. In that

light, is it really any more romantic for

environmentalists to call for leadership at

all levels of government to combat envi

ronmental problems than to combat crime?

Pinkerton may consider my third

environmental value romantic, for it has

less to do with selfishness than with a

vision of the good society. But if it is

romantic, then so are many other values

that are rarely questioned in Foreign

Affairs. Can democracy, for example,

really be justified by "rational" appeals to self-interest? Is it the surest path to

collective wealth? Besides, wouldn't a

utilitarian rationale ring hollow in

the ears of most Americans? Perhaps Pinkerton would label the Founding Fathers, creatures of the Age of Reason, "democromantics." If so, I am

happy to join their company.

DAVID MALIN ROODMAN

Senior Researcher, Worldwatch Institute

PUSH ME, PULL YOU

72? the Editor:

Jeffrey E. Garten is correct that uni

lateral trade embargoes are usually

ineffective, but reinventing the boycott could allow policymakers to sting outlaw

nations without crippling innocent cor

porations ("Business and Foreign Policy,"

May/June 1997). The key problem with current embargoes is that they highlight export controls. We need to redesign sanctions to focus on import controls.

Such a reform would dramatically

improve the economics involved: U.S.

corporations would no longer be crip

pled by lost sales, and given the leverage

FOREIGN AFFAIRS July/August 1997 [^7S\

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters to the Editor

of American markets, even a unilateral

embargo could be effective.

THOMAS O'BRIEN

Director for Research, Horizon Institute for

Policy Solutions

NEWS TO ME

To the Editor:

GarrickUtley writes as though there

was once a golden age of foreign

corre

spondence, after which international news

coverage steadily declined ("The Shrinking of Foreign News," March/April 1997). But

America's attention to international affairs

has always waxed and waned. For better

or worse, Americans care about foreign affairs only when those affairs are clearly relevant to their well-being or status in

the world, as when American sons and

daughters are in harm's way. In its short

history, television coverage of foreign affairs has also waxed and waned. Vietnam

was a peak, followed by a trough as news

minutes were spent on Watergate, the

long lines at gas stations, and the reces

sion. Iranians' seizure of the American

embassy sent coverage minutes skyrocket

ing and even spawned a whole new news

program, ABC's Nightline. Then attention

waned once again until 1989-90, when the

Berlin Wall fell and preparations for the Persian Gulf War began. (Incidentally, by choosing 1989 as a base year for proving the recent decline of coverage minutes,

Utley has effectively pulled a fast one on

us, since 1989 was a time of unusually

high foreign news coverage.) Claiming

that "broad viewer interest in world

affairs is declining from its modest Cold War heights" obscures the wavering

television coverage that so neatly coincides

with the American proclivity for

self-absorption.

Utley also mischaracterizes the role

of the foreign correspondent. To put it

crudely, there seem to be two models.

The earlier model, which Utley seems

to favor, is not so much a reporter as a

"storyteller." He or she chooses the

story, produces the report, selects the

subjects to interview and the clips to

use, and offers analysis throughout. In

sum, the storyteller offers viewers a

coherent interpretation of the event he

or she is covering. At the other end of the spectrum is

the "new" or "gonzo" approach to jour nalism. Hunter S. Thompson, perhaps the best-known advocate of this

approach, described the reporter's role

as that of a walking camera: the

reporter simply points his eyes in vari

ous directions, records what he sees,

and then passes it all on to readers and

viewers. There is no analysis, just

observations. CNN's live coverage of

Yeltsin's troops laying siege to the

Russian parliament is perhaps the best

recent example.

Each approach has its strengths and

weaknesses. By disparaging the latter

approach and waxing nostalgic over the

former, Utley confuses style with con

tent. The truthfulness of the broadcast, which is the supreme good, depends not

on the way the report is delivered but on

the content: on getting the facts right,

trying to show all facets of the matter,

and keeping opinion out of the broad

cast. Today's television coverage of for

eign affairs may not be perfect. But has it

ever been?

KEVIN R. KOSAR

Doctoral Candidate in Politics, New York

University

[176] FOREIGN AFFAIRS- Volume76No.4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:57:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions