of Instapundit fame has up a column in the Guardian that makes some good points and links to this blog. (A good point in itself, we always think.) Here’s a quote:
Those of you across the Atlantic may wish to take a lesson from this. As the BBC’s atrocious handling of the Gilligan affair – and, indeed, its war coverage generally – illustrates, media bias is hardly limited to the United States. In fact, it’s probably stronger elsewhere, and less noted, because there are fewer alternatives. Most countries have nothing like American-style talk radio, for example, because it poses far too great a threat to elites to be permitted. Still, British blogs like Samizdata, Biased BBC, Harry’s Place and Normblog are providing alternative voices. Since I don’t think that elite media have done a very good job during the decades of their dominance, I look forward to seeing alternative media make a difference around the world.
Amen to all that of course.
Stephen Pollard has picked it up:
http://www.stephenpollard.net/001846.html
Undoubtedly the UK has been slow on the uptake in blogging and getting independent talk radio on air. I can recommend Charlie Wolf for night owls at 1.00am on TalkSport (Fridays and Saturdays).
For as long as I did follow the election I was online and also watched tv at he same time. Frankly, blogs and realtime updates online were vastly superior to the mainstream media. Its taking its time but the future’s going our way.
I think part of the problem with the BBC regarding the US elections is that their correspondents did not make much of an effort to interview Republicans/Bush supporters.
Kevin Anderson’s BBC election blog, for instance, was embedded with the Democrats last night. He apparently only talked to Democrats, hence his ending with a plea: “So, Republicans out there? What’s the mood out there in the Red States?”
Gee, who would have thought there’s diversity of thought in America?
You guys need talk radio if just to vent.
Maybe you’d vent less at US.
I don’t think talk radio is a British kind of thing. Just doesn’t seem to go with their culture.
Susan has hit the nail on the head. It is a cultural thing. Unlike the USA, Britain is saddled with a monolithic state funded public service broadcasting monopoly which is dependent on the regressive tax of the BBC license fee which every TV owner has to pay.
Inevitably, an organization dependent on what is in effect a poll tax is always going to be indulgent to the party which supports big government and will look askance at private enterprise. If the BBC had to live in the real world and pay its way, I suspect it would be more even handed.
2000 and 2004 US elections have embarrassed ‘old media’ in the USA and ‘new media’ has been proved to be sharper and more accurate – Ever since the Drudge report probably. The BBC is the epitome of old media.
OFF MESSAGE –
It just struck me – the timing of the final episode of The Power of Nightmares – the day after the US election. I suppose it was meant to deliver a modish coup de grace to the Bush era. How sad and pathetic it looked in view of the election result.
The programme was reduced to claiming (a) that Al Queda did not exist although it seemed to admit this non-existent organisation had
training camps all over Afghanistan (b) that all these people training with Al Queda were not Islamists but “radical nationalists” – no evidence supplied (c) that there is nothing to worry about when you find a group of people living down your street who have trained together in one of these camps (d) mentioning on terrorists outrage as though that were the only one – when there have literally hundreds of Islamist attacks across the planet since 9/11 from Sudan, to Bali, to Chechnya, to France, to Israel, Kashmir, Iraq and so on.
David
People tired of the BBC can go one step further and give up television altogether, as I did in October, 2003. The more people do this, the less revenue for the BBC.
Recommend you also read Neil Postman’s ‘Amusing ourselves to death’.
OT
The Guardian’s intervention in Clark County, Ohio, annoyed lots of people over there.
Maybe they antagonised a couple of hundred thousand in Ohio ? Energised them to really campaign for Bush ?
In which case, as the margin in Ohio was so slender – maybe the Guardian won the US election for George Bush ? What a delicious thought – “Clear off, you leftie Guardian (read BBC) Limeys”
Or as James Thurber of Colombus Ohio once said “Touche”
(As
Justin
“Susan has hit the nail on the head. It is a cultural thing. Unlike the USA, Britain is saddled with a monolithic state funded public service broadcasting monopoly which is dependent on the regressive tax of the BBC license fee which every TV owner has to pay.”
This is exactly why we need independent talk radio and why it has worked so far in its limited form. The closest show we have is Charlie Wolf in the small hours. He’s a Israel-supporting Republican who’s never short of callers. Its clearly the best show on air> I just wish they’d put him on at a more convenient time. It’ll come.
In the interests of fairness and objectivity just a few corrections:
“… (a) that Al Queda did not exist although it seemed to admit this non-existent organisation had
training camps all over Afghanistan.”
It didn’t claim it didn’t exist, but that it was very small with no organised structure. The training camp in Afghan was set up by the Taliban to train foreign fighters to recruit Islamic nationalists.
“that all these people training with Al Queda were not Islamists but “radical nationalists” – no evidence supplied”
Agreed. But the same can be said for contrary.
“That there is nothing to worry about when you find a group of people living down your street who have trained together in one of these camps”
Not if they’ve been under constant surveillance since they’ve returned and haven’t done anything, was the point.
cont. “mentioning on terrorists outrage as though that were the only one – when there have literally hundreds of Islamist attacks across the planet since 9/11 from Sudan, to Bali, to Chechnya, to France, to Israel, Kashmir, Iraq and so on.”
According to the US state department, terrorist attacks have fallen since 2001. Not that the the doc. said that, but I’d though I’d drop it in anyway.
For me the most interesting bit was about the ‘sleeper cells’ and how flimsy the cases that were brought to court against the guys from Detroit were…
Anton V -Re Kevin Anderson’s BBC election blog “So, Republicans out there? What’s the mood out there in the Red States?”
This reinforces the messaage that the Red States of Hicksville USA are 100% Bush whilst in sophisticated Blue States its 100% Kerry.
In truth most states are within the 60/40 band. BBC’s Anderson didn’t need to go to a Red State to find Republican supporters.
GORK –
We’d have to get a transcript of the Power of Nightmares to see if what you say is correct – but of course the programme was also about clever juxtaposition of images appealing to ingrained steroetypes. If the programme says Al Queda was NOT a large organised conspiracy but a small organisation of fanatics whilst showing genie materialising
out of a bottle and then disappearing again, while the programme goes on to intone that the “nightmares” were not real…a particular effect is beign strived for.
As for the “flimsy evidence” we only heard from defending lawyers and academics. We did not hear from the prosecutors. That “holiday video” looked highly suspicious to me. When you take such videos you tend to focus on the people you are with or teh sights on view – you don’t tend to pan from left to right all the time as appeared to be happening.
David
Another spot from Stephen Pollard. Follow the link. Its a damn good question!
http://www.stephenpollard.net/001848.html
Sorry to see Reynolds falling victim to the same loony paranoia about “elites” not permitting alternative sources. That ‘s the kind of tinfoil hat logic that leads to panic about black helicopters.
Media in the U.S. is driven by the market. Talk radio exists because it is cheap. Thousands of AM radio stations in the U.S. would have gone broke without it because they could not afford to sustain any other format. A station that carries nothing but franchised talk shows has almost no local production costs.
Limbaugh and his imitators dominate this market, but that’s because they pull in the advertising revenue. If/when something better comes along, they’ll be replaced. Commercial AM radio would run white noise 24/7 if people would listen.
Reynolds is right, however, about the comparative lack of media variety outside the U.S.
“Limbaugh and his imitators dominate this market, but that’s because they pull in the advertising revenue.”
And that’s because they pull in the listeners.
David: “We did not hear from the prosecutors.” Fair point, but being that the prosecution lost the case it’s hardly surprising, no lawyer wants to look like a numpty on TV.
“That “holiday video” looked highly suspicious to me.” Do you work for MI5 David? I’m not sure we’re in a position to cast such aspersions. It looked pretty normal to me in any case, and the lads were acquitted in the end, so where’s the guilt?
I’m with Bill Hicks as far as Limbaugh is concerned. 🙂
In West Virginia, the Democratic Senate candidate won by a comfortable margin, while Kerry of course lost,
What this suggests is that it is the Democratic leadership, which is dominated by a metropolitan elite, and not the Democrats per se, who are distrusted by rural America.
If the Democrats were to re-connect with rural America, they would win states like West Virginia and Arkansas easily.
red ken:
Dead?
Now that would be clever. No, i’m sure you can find the quote somewhere on the web though…
Pete: Thanks for proving my point. When they stop pulling in the listeners, or when someone comes up with something that costs even less to produce and boradcast, Rush and his legions will be off the air.
Zevilyn: I live in one of those states that keeps electing Republican presidents and Democratic governors. Rural-ness has nothing to do with it. Most Americans live in cities and the suburbs. That’s where the votes are. Democrats keep losing the presidency because they (we, since I’m one) insist on taking stands that placate minority elements in our party but anger and drive majority elements of the Republican base to the polls. That’s a no-win strategy. A political party that values being right above winning is useless.
Off Topic:
Moonbat Bingo is Back on (Don’t) Have Your Say…
“I would be so sad to see Yasser Arafat pass away. He is an inspiration to so many of the peace-loving, but oppressed, Palestinian people. What a contrast this news item makes to the inexplicable re-election of the war-mongering George W Bush.
Assim, Bradford, UK”
I know this one was probably a bit easy, especially giving myself a Muslim sounding name, but do I win a prize anyway?
Cheers,
(Not)Assim
billg:
“Thanks for proving my point. When they stop pulling in the listeners, or when someone comes up with something that costs even less to produce and boradcast, Rush and his legions will be off the air.”
Aren’t free markets great?
“A political party that values being right above winning is useless.”
Try being right for once.
Otis:
You kill me. Good work. Let the bingo begin!
Just posted my effort:
Die you evil bastard! Die!
D’you reckon they’ll post it?
That depends – not if it went on the Arafat article … maybe if you put it on the “Why did they vote Bush” item (aka page 27 of the Democrat funeral wake)?
OT, though on the subject of Arafat, this one has probably got it about right…
http://thecandidatespeaks.blogspot.com/2004/11/fingers-crossed.html
Pete-in_London:
When did this become a dicussion about free markets? There’s no logic, only bias, in assumng that support for free markets is confined to proto-fascist rightwing bigots like Rush.
As for parties being “right”, the Republicans have sold out to a minority of so-called Christian conservatives who use that veneer of faith to hide the class and race based bigotry that controls them. Even if you take them at their word, it is clear that they don’t really believe in what America is all about. To them, America is a place for people just like them, and everyone else is here with their approval.
I suspect that this sterling post from the “Why did you vote for Bush” dirge at (Don’t) Have Your Say is a submission to Moonbat Bingo:
“I voted for Bush because I a run a larger corporation that needs him in office. Without the Bush administration’s alterations of previously existing law, my company would not be able to make such large profits. The administration has provided the necessary loop holes in environmental and fair competition laws. They have allowed us to exploit the intent of the law without fear of prosecution.
J Black, Atlanta, GA”
Okay, ‘fess up — who here is J. Black from Atlanta, GA?
billg, did you post that with or without embarrassment? You’ll be telling us it was all because of the military-industrial, Joowish, neo-con, mega-corporations next.
I was under the impression that Bush won because more people voted for him than for the Nuanced One. Maybe it was his message that hit home. Imagine that, eh? “Politician Wins Election Because Majority Prefer Him” shock.
Yep, without any embarrassment. And, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with how Bush won. He won, in fact, by getting his base to the polls. That base is still a minority of Americans.
Look, I can live with Bush. But the arrogance that drives many of his supporters to assume that their religious beliefs give them the right to use government to force other Americans to behave according to their rules is anathema to me. It is unAmerican, undemocractic, and, ultimately, drawn from the same pool of fear and hatred that drives Islamic fundamentalism. After all, fundamentalism is fundamentalism.
I don’t care what other people believe. I expect them not to care what I believe. I have no right to control how they live their lives, and they have no right to control mine.
“Cough! splutter! wibble wibble aardvark …
There are les Republicans in the US than Democrats? Get out of town. You’re seriously telling most people in the US want big-government, high-tax policies? Look, Bush won, he received a majority of electoral votes and won the popular vote, Republican majorities grew in both the Senate and the House. It was a clean sweep. Your comments are without credibility.
By the way, if you’re stating the case for a more small-government, low-tax government then I’m with you, comrade.
Can we get back on topic?
“In West Virginia, the Democratic Senate candidate won by a comfortable margin, while Kerry of course lost,”
I like to know which Senate candidate that was as neither Byrd nor Rockefeller were up for reelection this year.
OT: The Beeb has had to apologize for a program that depicted a crucifix smeared in excrement.
Do I even need to ask if a similar program featuring excrement smeared on a Koran would even see the light of day in the first place?
And note that said program was initially cleared by the BBC complaints dept.
Says it all, really.
Threee interesting references on this evening’s C4 News, also, supposedly, a public service broadcaster:
1) Item about the Black Watch building a bridge in Iraq – a gang of children appeared – C4 described them as “curious and frightened children” – other broadcasters haven’t mentioned any fright – indeed they looked like normal children just interested in watching what was going on;
2) Jon Snow speaks of “the passing of Yasser Arafat, and alas we must talk about it in those terms…”
3) Jon Snow again, wondering how Yasser Arafat emerged as leader of the Palestinians, “an exceptionally able and talented people” – I wonder, by comparison, which people(s) he thinks are unable and untalented…
Just another day in Biasville, and there’s still another ten minutes of C4 News to go!
Does this blog extend to all liberal ‘old media’ bias as well as Auntie?
In passing, of course, but the BBC is the main focus for several reasons:
1) it is funded by a regressive telly-tax on every British television owner, whether they watch the BBC or not;
2) it is so large it that it distorts and molds British society to its worldview;
3) it is so large it distorts the market for all manner of commercial products and media.
If the things I referred to above from C4 news were on the BBC I’d have done that as a main posting on the blog – but since it’s not the BBC I mentioned it here as a comment – it’s likely still of interest to people who hang out here.
I trust that is okay with you!
C4 is, unnoticed by most people, a government owned company with its own remit to provide a certain amount of news and public service broadcasts.
Andrew
Good points – The key issue is the poll tax (aka TV license).
In addition to funding the skewed news coverage I also object to my money being spent on a lowest common denominator ratings’ war with ITV. Is the prime time diet of bland lifestyle and makeover shows really public service broasdcasting?
Good point, Justin.
An income guaranteed via extortion under threat of a fine and/or imprisonment should at least present the leeway to raise the standards somewhat. In any case, the BBC loves to tell of its ‘quality’. Well let it put that quality to the test and go subscription-only. Even better, let it be privatised.
No, Pete, I didn’t say Democrats outnumber Republicans. (But, I suspect you know that.) I said Bush’s base — conserverate born-again Christians — are a minority in the U.S. Neither party has a base that comprises 50 percent of the population.
People who mouth slogans about big government and high taxes don’t have clue. No one wants an intrusive government, but conservatives say “big government” when government does things they don’t like. They don’t say anything when government gets bigger to do things they want it to do. And, of course, no one likes higher taxes. But, these Repulicans are the ones that are spending the country broke, a bill that will be paid, soon, by higher taxes.
But, in any case, why would you assume I want “big government” and “high taxes” simply because I oppose people who want to force their beliefs on others?
Pete
Absolutely – Why should they have anything to fear from the market on the quality issue? After all the private sector in US creates some of the best TV in the world – Sopranos, Frasier, Six Feet Under etc. Not the West Wing though – A soft left fairy tale which makes the Waltons look like gritty realism.
(Sorry Susan I’ve duplicated your O/T point about BBC offense to Christianity as an O/T point to oil item above.)
Re Channel4 – may soon be quite appropriate to include on this site.
Times reports (not online?) that C4 is lobbying for £100m pa of taxpayer funding.
billg
I’m making assumptions about your stance because you won’t make your position clear. ‘Conservative born-again Christians’ do not form Bush’s base, they form part of it. As you say they are a minority in the US but everyone can be lumped into some kind of minority. On the broader point though: the US IS a conservative, Christian nation. It IS built on morality and traditional values. They may not be hip in parts of New York or in San Fran but … suck it up, as they say. Decent, moral, conservative values underpin the civilised nature of the US. Anyway, why should YOU be allowed to impose YOUR ways on others?
Pete:
Bush’s election victory is attributed to his success in getting conservative born-again Christians to the polls, largely motivated by the 11 anti-gay state constitutional amendments. If that’s not a political base, I don’t know what is.
Saying that the “US IS a conservative, Christian nation…built on morality and traditional values…” is pointless. Name a nation that would not assert the same thing.
The issue is not that some people are moral and other immoral. The issue is that people differ on what is moral. Some people think they know what God wants. I would not presume to be so arrogant.
There’s also no connection between political stance (conservative, moderate, liberal) and personal morals.
Pay attention: I haven’t said I want to impose my ways on others. I just don’t want them to impose theirs on me. In a democracy, that’s the greatest immorality. Democracy cannot survive if one group, even a majority, loses the will to be tolerant.
Pete, more on this:
At different times in U.S. history, support for slavery was considered a Good Family Value. So was enforced segregation and Jim Crow, as well as disenfranchisement of women. We’ve seen times when Good Family Values allowed “moral” people to practice open anti-Semitism and other forms of open racism.
If we allow one group of people to use government to compel others to behave according to their religious rules, then what’s to stop them from sayng God told them that women should not vote, or work, that African-Americans should be forced to live in certain parts of town, etc. All these things, and more, have been espoused, practiced and enforced by law in America by people who said they were doing God’s will.
They were — and are — enemies of democracy who do not understand why this country exists.
That’s why I, and millions of Amricans, want to defeat these people. We believe in democracy. They don’t.
billg:
Bush’s election victory is attributed to his success in getting conservative born-again Christians to the polls, largely motivated by the 11 anti-gay state constitutional amendments.
Wrongly attributed, in my view. I have a post showing the percentages of votes going to the two main presidential candidates, compared to those in favor of the same-sex marriage bans.
In nine of 11 states, the percentage of those in favor of bans was greater than those who voted for Bush. This means that a substatial fraction of those voting for Kerry also voted for a gay marriage ban (up to 65% of them in Mississippi, down to only 16% in Oregon — and that’s assuming that all Bush voters approved the ban, which is not a very good assumption).
That would make sense, Angie, since both Bush and Kerry oppose gay marriage. Only lies from Rush and Rove argue something different. Kerry differed, too, by not supporting tampering with the Constitution for transient political gain.