« All you need to know: Evening of 4th January 2008 | Main | All you need to know: 5th January 2008 »

Comments

Umbrella man

There isn't a US domestic media or a UK domestic media anymore. The internet has made it one seamless English speaking world media. Obama obviously gets that. Clinton doesn't.

CCHQ Spy

Clinton is a control freak.

I am in Britain and get my news from The New York Times and from CNN as well as from the BBC and Times.

The same sort of thing must be true for American electors.

rightsideforum

And the British media has seemed to embarce Obamas backside.

Disgusting bias from our so called independent media.

Clinton is a control freak, Obama is a relative nobody.

Obama is the man who says he'll talk with Americas enemies and yet he refused to take part in a fox news debate.

Clinton has done so many U turns she's making John F Kerry look like a straight talker.

Willy Eckerslike

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I would have said there was no such thing as an 'important journalist'.

David Boothroyd

I've been checking to see if The Times' endorsement of John McCain has made waves in America. So far, it hasn't.

Tony Makara

Anyone who thinks they are unaccountable to the media is a fool. I read the US media every day and of course the American's like to read the UK media. One of the advantages of sharing a common language. C-SPAN and the IHT are a must for following the election in depth. Hillary Clinton runs the danger of thinking she is above debate.

Steevo

Its too bad some of the Brits who post here aren't Americans, if I didn't know better I'd think they were - but just plenty ignorant presumptive know-it-all wannabes. I say some of course.

"Call me old fashioned if you like, but I would have said there was no such thing as an 'important journalist'." You may be old fashioned to some, very much in touch and modern to others, but real either way.

"I've been checking to see if The Times' endorsement of John McCain has made waves in America. So far, it hasn't." What do you know :)

"There are a number of Britons who are already stars in American politics. Christopher Hitchens, John O'Sullivan and Andrew Sullivan stand out in that regard." Well Hitchens is known and regarded by some on the left for his anti-religiousness and by some on the right for his advocacy in the fight on terror. O'Sullivan is not that known and Sullivan is, well, known by some and by some as a fool. I think they're "stars" only in the eyes of Brits.

My opinion is that if a substantial portion of the readers are from the Daily Kos that doesn't bode too well, yet, for Britain's self-appointed with the American public at large. The loony anti-American left, well probably kinda, if this is compared with the BBC or Guardian and some want more NY Times and MSNBC.

Alan S

I expect that UK influence will only increase. UK journalists are less deferential than American reporters. There'll be a growing appetite for that...

ladygreenslippers

I don't get it. Shouldn't HRC, with all her experience, understand that American politics and policy will be on a world stage. Having "access" to media in all countries and formats is an asset, and crucial to America reaching out to Americans and the rest of the world.
Obama gets that.

Marie

"Clinton is a control freak"

And that's surprising? Most politicians are. Many regular" people are as well. Doesn't make her a particularly bad person.

Mary Fernandez

I agree with Steevo re: Andrew Sullivan. Americans who are familiar with him regard him as a fool. His influence is mostly in Britain and he bills himself there as somebody who 'knows' America. Americans who've read him easily see that he's full of it. His popularity here doesn't extend beyond the extreme left (troofer and Keith Oldermann fans).

As of April 2007, Christopher Hitchens is an American. He is influential. Even people who disagree with him like to hear what he has to say. I'm glad to have him. His Jefferson book was brilliant. His God book, I didn't bother with. My favorite Hitchens' book was "No one left to lie to" about the Clintons.

Alan S., "I expect that UK influence will only increase. UK journalists are less deferential than American reporters. There'll be a growing appetite for that..."

British reporters (Brits, in general, for that matter) either fit right in like a native (Toby Harnden) or come off as pompous, arrogant twits tut-tutting the colonials (BBC, Guardian). The latter are just as likely to be tarred, feathered and thrown into Boston Harbor now as they were 234 years ago.

BTW, the figures for the BBC, Guardian and the Times are probably redundant. Americans reading one are likely to scan the others. In a nation of 300 Million, it still only represents 1 or 2 percent of the population.

Mary Fernandez

Just to clarify:

"Less deferential' British reporters come off as rude foreigners to American ears. I doubt there will be a growing appetite for it. Americans don't like bad manners in their politicians or their reporters. (If there were a market for it, we are quite capable of being rude ourselves.)

Norman Weinstein

Toby Harnden, US Editor of The Telegraph, it seems to me has committed two semantic blunders in his choice of various American liberals and conservatives. Easily the majority of those he lists as “liberals” are really conservatives in the true sense of the word, pre-Reagan, not in the false application of “conservative” to such as Bush and Cheney - reactionaries, not conservatives despite the abysmal denigration of the term by writers who should know a damn sight better. I believe neither of the Clintons a liberal, except as perhaps regards some single issue or other; and perhaps Evan Bayh’s father was a liberal, but Evan Bayh? As to applying to morally diseased people like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney such a gentle euphemism as “conservative” is to render the concept totally meaningless. Perhaps Mr. Harnden is well intentioned, but most of us do know all about that road to hell.

OC Guy

First, the author forgot to mention the independent. Many thoughtful US residents rely on British Media sites as well as on alternative US-based sites to get a sense of what is really hapenning without the tint of our famouse "merican exceptionalism". With Op-Eds like Friedmann, J. Miller, and now the infamous, always worng, Bill Kristol, in the US's paper of record (NY-times), put together, british news sites, both on the left and on the right are probably more trusted, and in fact more trustworthy than US main-stream media sites, which were instrumental in facilitating the past 7+ years of disasterous US, and I am sorry to say, UK policies.

Other than some alternative sites (libertarians, or left) no main stream media in the US publishes articles such as those written by the independent's own Fisk. The Ny-Times recent attempts to be cirtical of some US policies are, at best, hypocritical attempts at white-washing the paper's culperability in enabling GWB and his Neocons over the past 7+ years.

billm99uk

Agree with Umbrella man - British and American media are all one continuous item these days if you get your information via the internet. Both US and UK media appear equally prone to 'groupthink' and have similar proportions of sloppy journalism and complete rubbish - but each has a different style and interests so it's slightly different sloppiness and rubbish in each case.

Mary Fernandez

I just add one thing that always makes me roll my eyes every time I see his mug at the top of the Times:

He always has a soft-focused picture with his head cocked every so come hither-like to the side, and his bald pate cropped from view.

If you don't believe me, check out his comparison of Obama as the 'liberal Ronald Reagan' (yuk).

Mary Fernandez

Oops: I was referring to Andrew Sullivan above.

rightwingprof

I highly recommend The Right Nation. It has a well-deserved place on my library bookshelf.

jaybs

Hilary Clinton is the PAST - Yes 35 years too late. Last night she lost the debate with even her own supporters, it is only natural that BARACK OBAMA with his open approach appeals to UK Media.

billm99uk

The centre of British (and European) politics is somewhat to the left of the American. So it's hardly surprising the more leftist candidates, such as Obama and Hilary, have more appeal in Europe than the others.

jim

It's interesting to watch the US and UK media worlds interbreed at a faster rate than before. Of course, it's been happening for hundreds of years, just at a slower rate.

Dickens was hugely popular in the US in his day. My grandpa grew up in Ohio singing bits from The Mikado (Gilbert & Sullivan), my Dad grew up with the Beatles and Stones, and I grew up watching Monty Python and reading The Lord of the Rings.

I'm a right of center American, and America is, on average, to the right of Britain to begin with, so most UK commenters seem pretty lefty to me. Also, media by it's nature attracts more upper class lefties, so UK media is even more to the Left than UK society as a whole.

Chris

Funny - she didn't mind participating in a Spanish language debate that was moderated by a loyal citizen of Mexico.

Hillary's trying to have it both ways: trying to demonstrate her phony dedication to American sovereignty while not offending any racial interest groups. If it was a Mexican, Chinese, or Indian press rep would she have excluded them? Unlikely.

As a proud British-American (some 300 years removed), I take offense and I demand reparations.

Adam in London

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the British media had bugger all to do with the Iowa result. Rather, Obama did well because of his ability to appeal to first-time voters and independents. Edwards did well because he targetted the rural districts ruthlessly. Clinton suffered from this pincer attack, and also because her staff and supporters are on such a tight leash - they're not allowed to say anything, and that can't play well in somewhere like Iowa which is all about 'retail politics'.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker