« How can the UN improve its human rights advocacy? | Main | Join BritainAndAmerica's mailing list »

Comments

JF

R.C., it looks like you're trying to fill in for Andrew Lilico. Tell me, what broadcasters are funded by the US government that interfere in the domestic politics of our democratic allies? We can start with the subversive broadcasts in Britain, if you like. What US government-funded broadcaster is attempting to influence your elections, and which party does it favor?

Or perhaps there is no such broadcaster, which makes your ridiculous statement even more foolish. Better that you leave these arguments to Andrew.

M. Simon

Uh,

To quote a famous British person:

"Won't get fooled again".

M. Simon

R.C.,

The internet is big. Plenty of room for them.

John

On the one hand I think Americans have the right to express their criticism of the BBC. On the other hand whether the BBC is to be funded by the British people I think is completely up to the British people. Just because the BBC might have an impact on the US elections, it doesn't mean that the US has any "special" right to crtisize the BBC anymore than do the Brits in critisizing McDonalds.

But to pretend that the BBC reflects the British people (on foreign policy as well as domestic policy) within a reasonable margin is just rubbish. This especially British conservatives should not be willing to put up with.

Davod

John:

I would suggest to you that if it was put to a vote then the British people would be quite happy to forgoe paying for the BBC. I believe the cost of a broadcast license is upwards of one hundred pounds per TV set per year.

Additionally: The BBC has been living off an underserved reputation of being unbiased. It has has always been biased.

I recently read an article which suggests that those working for the BBC were polled and found to be overwhelmingly left wing.

Maybe it is the British accents which lull the unsuspecting American into a false sense of security. Or maybe what the BBC says reinforces the listeners view of the world.

For those Non-Americans: The US does have a mostly government funded network - The Corporation for Public Broadcasting which supports several organizations. Like the BBC this group purports to be non partisan but in actuality leans far to the left.

Clyde

I'm far more concerned with our local anti-Americans like George Soros, who probably has more influence than any foreign press on American elections. I suspect that British coverage of our elections is the equivalent of watching a Fourth of July fireworks display across a river: It makes for some "oooos" and "aaaahs" but the sound is muffled.

Teddy Bear

Quite a few very good points above.
It's because of the license fee, and the mandate that goes with it to be fair and impartial, that gives the BBC the 'cloak of balance'. We all know that this reputation is now complete bullshit, but we can expect the liberals and lefties and those with the agenda to use them, to grant the BBC a status totally undeserved. It is this status that makes the BBC far more dangerous than the Guardian, Independant, or other outlets of that ilk.

I think Americans should opppose the license fee on principle, as the meddling in politics by the BBC is highly dangerous in the future of our world.

rich

Drudge is probably the reason.

He reads and links to the British News outlets.

It would be interesting to see the the percentage of referrals from drudge at the British web sites.

John

Davod, you should have probably put me in that group "Non-Americans". Not that I really mind.

Davod

John:

Sorry. I was fooled by the accent. I should also mention that I am shocked to read the Brits would criticise McDonalds.

Ms Baroque

Can I just point a couple of things out?

1. MacDonalds is a multinational business. It is not owned by the American people. Can you see the difference there?

2. What you people are calling "left of centre" would, in the UK, more accurately be called "the centre." You all, and I've read most of the comments down this post, seem to think that your own right-wing views constitute a "centre." The Economist is NOT left-wing! Maybe you are applying some formulae based on their coverage of particular issues of concern in American politics - but these may not tally with current thinking outside the US. Please be loath to impose your standards and opinions on the entire world.

3. If this really is a blog about the special relationship, the need the UK and USA have for each other, maybe you should be a little less |Ameri-centric, and a bit more tolerant of the actual UK - AS IT REALLY IS, and not as it would look if it were your mirror.

My favourite quote from this comments thread is from the guy who is "less concerned about what those outside the U.S. think about us," saying: "They already live in La-la land and there is nothing we can do about it except disregard their ravings."

This exposes an arrogance, and a dismissal of the rest of the world (everywhere except one country - all opinions except one - "La-la land"??) that are just as dangerous as the jihadists. In fact, that the jihadists share. Or hadn't you guys noticed?

JF

Ms. Baroque,

1) If you were a bit less elitist, you would know that it's properly referred to as McDonald's, and even if it is a publicly traded multinational corporation, it is still headquartered in the US

2) Just the same, your perspective is different from ours. Who are you to say that it is our perspective which is incorrect? If the British want to understand our politics, they need to understand politics as we define it, not as you define it. From our perspective, the Economist is libertarian at best, left-wing at worst. Left of center is a nice compromise, but never let it be said that it has written anything that could be considered right of center.

3) I think both sides of the "special relationship" are becoming a bit disillusioned as to whether it even still exists, let alone the benefits that are derived from the relationship. The problem with we Americans is that we look to the Britain that we admired in the past (the Britain that provided the world with representative democracy, common law, free trade, and a willingness to stand up to the enemies of freedom), but the Britain of the present doesn't leave much to be admired. Tony Blair may be the last PM to have held us together, and when we move into the Brown years, it will soon become clear to the average American how much the average Brit really hates us.

In regards to your favorite quote of the site, I would only say that while the British may be content to surrender their sovereignty to the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Americans are not prepared to do the same. We do not react well to foreign entities trying to interfere in our politics; several posters have asserted that the US similarly interferes in UK politics, but when I challenged them on this point, they slithered away. In other words, if you want to influence our politics, move here, pay taxes here, and become a citizen.

Comparing us to the jihadists... very original, and it shows the great depth of your intellect. Now excuse me while I get back to bombing women and children and sawing heads off while screaming "allahu akbar!" And you wonder why we ignore the rest of the world?

tom atkins

Oddly enough I get a lot of my news from the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor websites.

I know they have a liberal bias but don't bang out the NuLab agenda. - you get a world view not a Blair view.

englandism

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian, Francis Fukuyama is detailing why everyone hates the USA with comments joining in with predictable glee. A bit of an odd marketing strategy.

His name probably predetermines Mr Fukuyama's views.

Hello JF

Ignore the MsBaroques and the Mr Headfullofrocks of this world. If you probe a little deeper you will find that JFK was shot by the CIA and 911 was carried out by space lizards on behalf of Davros creator of the Daleks (and the CIA).

Everyone used to hate the British: Success breeds contempt abroad and self-loathing in the domestic lefties.

Tamasher

Do not be so quick to downplay the influence of the BBC on American viewers, particularly with regard to Ohio.

From Rolling Stone online:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

"According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert [and giving Bush the victory] are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.'' (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Amy

Im a young British student currently doing a study between media and politics. I studied british politics and American politics for a year and I'm extending what I know to lookignnat the relationship between politics and the media. I find this case very interesting. All british papers are biased in some way. Murdoch has high influential power over the British papers he owns and he now seems to have an influence in America too. I doubt the BBC are trying to influence the next US election. If you look at British politics, its the newspapers which influence the voters here. Im currently reading "Newspaper Power- The New National Press in Britain" by Jeremy Turnstall and it gives a clear indication as to how the media can make or break a political personality. I think that America should be more watchful of Rupert Murdoch and the increasing power that he has. For he clearly overshadows the BBC. I'd like to hear further opinions which could contribute to my research. Thank you

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker