Like the general public, University journalism students have expressed a wide array of opinions on the news media's coverage of the Persian Gulf war.

"I think the reporters are doing a very good job because they are under a lot of pressure from the government and the readers," said Stacey Vanstone (junior-journalism). "I don't think the readers should be so critical of them."

But Dawn M. Kopecki (sophmore-journalism) said, "I really don't like the broadcast coverage," because she believes it does not represent the overall picture.

Patrick Parsons, an assistant professor of communications, said the subject has been discussed in the media ethics course he teaches. He included a question on a recent test asking students to express their reactions to the coverage.

"I would say mixed is a good word for it," Parsons said. "I have been getting a lot of different feelings from students."

Students were concerned about the restrictions on journalists and censorship of reports from the Middle East, Parsons said. They generally showed support for the Western correspondents reporting from Iraq, he said.

Parsons said he thinks the coverage is "absolutely horrible" because it is "so tightly controlled." The layers of governmental control are frustrating for journalists in the region, he added.

Robert Baukus, associate professor of advertising, and Susan Strohm, assistant professor of communications, conducted a poll that asked University students how they felt about the coverage.

More than 67 percent of the students felt the reporting reflected a pro-military bias, but 64 percent said enough coverage was given to anti-war activities.

More than 78 percent of those asked said the news media are not giving the whole truth about the war, but only 39.5 percent said reports should not be censored by the military.

Reaction to Peter Arnett's reporting from Baghdad and CNN's overall coverage also brought a variety of opinion.

"At this point I think (Arnett) is a propoganda tool," Lynne Percival (sophmore-journalism) said. She said the first night of the bombings was a "comedy scene" because Bernard Shaw made the point of announcing he was broadcasting from under a table in his Baghdad hotel room.

Scott Hnasko (sophmore-journalism) said the reporting is "definitely overdone" because of CNN's dramatic music and "War in the Gulf" graphics.

"Just because we have the media doesn't mean we should abuse it," Hnasko said, adding that other important events, like the Soviet crackdown in Lithuania, require CNN's attention.

Kopecki agreed, saying CNN is "unprofessional" and Arnett is "kind of cheesy."

But not everyone shared this belief.

"Peter Arnett is God," said Matt Weaver (sophmore-journalism). Weaver said CNN has done a good job and the other networks should not criticize it because they aren't allowed to have their reporters in Iraq.

Vanstone said, "I don't understand why everybody is complaining about (Arnett) being a stooge for the Iraqi government. He is reporting what the Iraqi people are being told by their government. He does not claim to be telling what is actually happening."

Parsons said he is concerned that many people are reacting favorably to the broadcast coverage because everything is reduced to pictures and sound bites.

To get the best coverage people have to look at good newspapers, he said.