variety of sources in order to receive a balanced and diverse view on an issue. My research on the crisis in Kosovo proves this point.

On April 21 and 22, USA TODAY had three sections about Kosovo. These

sections were on pages 1,8, and 18. On the front page, the article talks about sending in ground troops. It had small sized headline that said "U.S. to take new look at troops." The story didn't really go into depth regarding the issue of sending in troops. All it really contained was a few quotes by high ranking officials that said things along the lines of "we are just reassessing. This doesn't mean it is a definite." Th

facts. The media is dominated by big business interests and functions as a Pentagon propaganda machine...." . Another Internet editorial gives "101 reasons why NATO's War Sucks": obviously biased but with some unique ideas that make you think, such as "The United States is stating that its goal is to protect the predominantly Muslim Albanians in Kosovo, but our policy of sanctions and war kill 300 Iraqis every day--half children under five. Most Iraqis are Muslims". Other editorials strongly support the US such as "UExpress" which is presented by Universal Press syndicate2. This site allows journalists to present their views on a topic. Cynthia Tucker wrote an article titled "Doing the Right thing in Kosovo" which strongly supported President Clinton and urged him to "hold out against naysayers, isolationists and, not least, an array of recently declared and soon-to-be declared presidential candidates who gain headlines by taking potshots at this policies". The number of editorials on the Internet (and in newspapers) is

commence bombing . These articles had a totally bias opinion on this issue.

In the major media companies in America, there is a media monopoly. One can not receive diverse views on an issue such as Kosovo because of the extreme biases that all of the journalists share. On the contrary, there isn't a media monopoly in the independent or unique sources, most specifically international newspapers. While almost all of these newspapers exhibit some type of bias, they don't all share the same one. Therefore, by reading many different international newspapers and independent sources such as editorials, one can receive diverse and intriguingly different opinions on an issue. This allows one to make their own decision about an issue without relying on the monopoly view prevalent in the American Media.

contained the "same stories" as USA Today. The funny thing is that not only did both papers talk about the Apaches and refugees, but they both put them in the same location in the paper. This shows that not only is there a media monopoly in these major newspapers, but they both have the same bias. This is not a good thing if one wants to receive unbiased, objective, and diverse views on an issue.

I reviewed The New York Times on April 21 and 22 as well. Generally, it

A newspaper from Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald was also biased

did present a balanced view of the story and did not chastise NATO for their involvement although it stated that the West had to step up its efforts to help the refugees.

Some common words found in the essay are:
NBC ABC, President Clinton, Albanians NATO, Belgrade April, Russian Times, Paris Tribune, Capital Weekly, Flood Kosovo, Serbia Kosovo, Serb TV, bias nato, diverse views issue, views issue, ethnic albanians, media monopoly, diverse views, international newspapers, american media, russian times, inflammatory language, nato's actions, receive diverse views, media monopoly major, major bias nato, april 21 22,
Approximate Word count = 2731
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)