« Venezuela, Nicaragua and the USA should work towards a joint foreign policy... | Main | Europe still wants the rest of the world to go away »


Tony Makara

If the BBC believe in giving equal time in their broadcasts to out American cousins they might consider giving some airtime to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. However I can't see it happening. I wonder if we will be able to see the output online?


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.


Tony Makara,

People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Medved and Dennis Prager are right wing hacks that do damage to the Conservative cause.

Michael Medved wrote some unbelievably stupid articles in townhall.com - recently.
1. Six inconvenient truths about Slavery: In which he argued that slavery was not as bad as it is made out to be. Why anyone would write such an article in a nation will almost 40 million African Americans beats me.
2.Reject the White lie of Genocide against Native Americans.

Hannity and co. may present fact and speak the truth, but they sound like brawling children, they don't sound professional.

I once watched a debate between Bill Buckley and Noam Chomsky at the height of the Vietnam War. It is sad that kind of professionalism (and respect for your opponent) is lacking today.

Many Americans will watch BBC, not because of the content, but because of the presentation. At least the BBC sound like adults, I cannot say the same about Fox News.



What do you think of Thomas Sowell?

Just Me

What makes anyone think this will matter? We already have left-wing media in the US - the NY Times, the LA Times, Time and Newsweek magazine, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Some of those media outlets (the newspapers, especially) are doing very badly. Why would left-wing British outfits do any better?

Do you think the accent matters that much?

tim maguire

The Guardian, in particular, deserves credit for providing regular ammunition to America's left-wing netroots. It ran a campaign in 2004 to encourage voters in Ohio to vote for John Kerry.

I beg to differ. That campaign provided regular ammunition not to the left, but to the right. Why would the White House want a strategy to counter the influence of the Guardian? If anything, they should seek to assist the Guardian in expanding its influence. That may be the Republican's best hope in 2008.


Maduka, you are a representative of the BBC anti-American mindset. There is nothing fair-minded or tolerant. There is, underhanded smear.

If you wanna compare conservative Buckley's respect for his guest, Marxist Chomsky 2 generations ago as an example then I can give you example after example today of the utter smear and intolerance of the Liberal/Left media with numerous prominent conservatives.

And you can smear popular conservative radio hosts that I would assume many of the conservative Americans here, like myself will listen to and respect with no problem.

BBC abuse: deceit, institutional bias and smear have been documented and exposed by Brit media, especially of late as the Beeb's disregard of their required mandate cannot be ignored.

Ask me... and I'll bring up your BBC and Guardian's "presentation as adults" about Americans.

Their abuse has been exposed here time and again but it doesn't matter... its time again for the opportunity ignore an abundance of evidence ad nauseam, and try again.


They're late to the party, the USA is larded to the gills with leftist media outlets -- pretty much nearly all of them, actually.

And unlike the BBC, they are accustomed to operating in a capitalist environment. When the BBC realizes that no one is watching their show, they won't be able to raise the television tax to compensate themselves.

Tony Makara

Maduka, the BBC should hire Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes to go head-to-head in a debate, that would draw an audience. I think both are the most dogged debaters from each side. They may lack the intellectual gravitas of a Chomsky but can both carry an argument with passion and conviction.


Well today's Great Britain - that the BBC has helped form - provides little to recommend them. Given craven multiculturalism, birthrates and lack of assimilated immigrants, in a few short decades the BBC presenters will be speaking some Pakistani dialect and wearing beards and burkas.


"The White House, amazingly, does not have a staffer dedicated to the international press. That was unforgivable with the international press being so important for winning hearts and minds in the war on terror."

Bless your heart, child. The White House has staffers dedicated to the press in the USA. Have you seen how helpful the American press is in winning hearts and minds for the war on terror? Wherever did you get the idea that a staffer dedicated to the foreign press would be anything other than useless waste of time and money?



I think Sowell is great, I also think Buckley is great.

However, I cannot stand Coulter and Medved.


I am no leftist, but the conservative movement that produced Reagan (who had the manners of an archduke) can do better than Coulter, Hannity, Medved and Savage.

Traditionally, leftists are the irresponsible ones - the hippies, tree huggers, arnachists and fantasists. Conservatives should not attempt to beat them at their game by being more like them.

Conservatives are supposed to be the responsible ones. Have you watched O'reilly? Haven't you seen this guy shout at guests and turn off their mikes?


This "British invasion" is probably an attempt to influence American politics just before the upcoming election.

Better yet, we ought to allow al-Jazeera and memri-tv to also broadcast in the US; after all, they're all on the same side (the Democratic Party).


Are you appealing to decency Maduka?

That is not stereotyping, PC categorizing or just plain lumping 10s and 10s of millions of Americans with 5 people you don't like. That's just intolerant prejudice.

And the only 'examples' of proof with any of these 'representatives' of conservative Americans is Medved. I agree that Coulter has said stuff I wouldn't. But its not very decent to base your derogatory putdowns relying on image from largely liberal media. You don't lend credibility nor respect to yourself. BTW, there is completely different knowledge, judgment and understanding about the intent of Medved's Inconvenient Truths about Slavery. Let me know, I'll post them all and why HE made them. I think a lot of people here would not see it your way.

It doesn't even matter the nonsense of the hippie libs from the past. That is far surpassed now. Todays 'liberals' have increasingly morphed into the Left. There is nobody more intolerant other than the exception of Islamic fanatics. Nobody more sympathetic to Islamic extremism. Nobody more resentful and hypocritical being American while enjoying their own wealth and narcissism. Free speech is not tolerated, go to many a university largely 'liberal'. And hate speech? There is PLENTY. I challenge you to disagree. I'll post plenty.

The discussion started with the BBC and Guardian whom you claim are worthy and more adult for American media. Nonsense. Claim they have not been unjustly biased and derogatory, I'll give plenty to the contrary (that is for anyone not disingenuous, and with honest consideration to a mere conscience).

It seems all of your disapproval and despising has been against conservatives. You don't do it with the liberal/Left.

BTW who are you planing on voting for? You claimed Giuliani was bad because he would drop bombs. Do you want Hillary or Obama?



"Many Americans will watch BBC, not because of the content, but because of the presentation. At least the BBC sound like adults, I cannot say the same about Fox News."

I got a big laugh from this. So thats all right then. Americans will gladly watch biased sensationalist trash from the BBC not because of the content but because they sound posh.

Tony Makara

Its worth bearing in mind that a lot of Michael Medved's rhetoric is tongue-in-cheek and quite in line with Michael's character. Like myself Michael is a keen collector of Hollywood movies and where my collection centres on musicals from 1930-1960, Michael has a facination with kitch movies.

About twenty-five years ago Michael ran a series which ran on channel four and featured the worst movies of all time. Such classics as 'They saved Hitlers brain' and 'Plan 9 from outer space' featured. At the time I wrote to congratulate Michael on being able to get such rare movies aired on British television, which was rather stiff in those days, and Michael wrote me a nice reply back and was pleased that I had enjoyed the series. So I think people have to understand Michael's off-the-wall sense of humour which very often works its way into political commentary.


The same Americans who are impressed by the British accent are the same ones who already watch CNN. Enjoy the show you snobby commies!


Seems an odd venture.

I can sit in FL and pull up English language news from around the world and yet the Guardian seems to think I need a 'special' compilation of news shaped for me as an American.

The only reason I know of The Guardian at all is anyway that I'm a former Brit.

The thought...Waves, sink beneath...comes to mind.

Ok, I'll admit I watch BBC America but that's only for 'Torchwood'.

I've read some of Matt Frei's stuff on news.bbc.co.uk and it's strange. He's quite happy to play fast and loose with historical fact to shape his current pitch.

Frankly, who needs him unless you're a psychologist with a particular interest in observing stream of consciousness gabble.

It's all just tne media providing poor information and worse, poor entertainment though Wof Blitzer's speaking voice fascinates and amuses me...it's how I think a strangulated hernia would speak.

Oh well, enough of my own stream of consciousness and I'm also way past my Federally mandated attetnion span.

Signing off...fades to white spot on a dark monitor.


I'm fortunate to live next to Canada and get all the major Canadian television channels free of charge. I was shocked out how outright bias CBC was. Things that Katie Couric in her dreams couldn't imagine saying were said without blinking an eye. It was just assumed. I haven't noticed that with the BBC but it's been years since I had BBC America on cable and I only watch it on PBS occasionally.


Why pay for cable news when one can read anything they want on the internet and view many news programs as well?

The Beeb has little different to offer, and the Guardian is sick-making for anyone outside of San Francisco. The freaks that Zombie photographed will love the whining and anti-Americanism. Somehow I think their appeal will be limited to those living in only the most liberal conclaves.

I certainly wouldn't dream of subscribing to them. If I want to hear Guardianista drivel, all I need to do is invite my Brit relatives for a visit, but that will not happen. The aging Trotskyites got on my last nerve thirty years ago.

24/7 news is simply too much. Everyone has their spin, and after awhile it's boring and repetitive. Actually, it's so mind-numbing that I haven't watched television in nearly a year.



You asked maduka what he thinks of Thomas Sowell. I would also be interested to know what he thinks of Clarence Thomas, a man the left should have championed yet attempted to destroy. How about Bobby Jindal?

Nick Cohen's book, "What's Left?" says it all in the title - nothing's left. They are hollow, useless and anything but 'progressive'.



They are TS Eliot's "Hollow Men":

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form shade without colour,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;

...This is the way the way the world ends
This is the way the way the world ends
This is the way the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Eliot's analysis of Liberalism provides a deep insight of its emptiness: It is more a movement AWAY from something rather than towards anything... and because it has nothing in its core, its logical ending is totalitarianism:

"By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified, by fostering a notion of "getting on" to which the alternative is a hopeless apathy, Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos."



I'm thrilled over Bobby Jindal's victory. I see a great career ahead for him.



I think the Left's hounding of Clarence Thomas is wrong. I also think he is a mediocre Supreme Court Judge. (I can't compare him to Scalia or O'Connor).

Bobby Jindal is an example of what makes American great. (Jindal would not be possible in ANY European country).

As an aside, there are serious philosophical differences between the African-American community (even Black Conservatives) and the Republican Party ("Conservative Movement"). These differences need to be understood and discussed.

One side is deeply suspicious of Small Government ("States Rights"), while the other side is deeply suspicious of Large Government. There are solid historical reasons for these conflicting views. Both sides also have very different views of America. (We tend to forget that the "American Dream" did not become reality for the African American Community till the late sixties!).

It will take more than the logic of "Small Government good, Big Government bad" to wean the African American community off the destructive influence of the Democratic Party (and Al and Jesse).

Honestly speaking, I doubt if the Republican Party is serious about making inroads to the African American community. Republican candidates never miss engagements with the NRA, AIPAC and Dobson's crowd yet abandon 12% of the American population to the Democrats.


Let's face it Thomas (unlike Robert Bork)was dragged out of relative obscurity by the president because he knew that the (largely pro-affirmative action) Democrats would find it very difficult to oppose a black candidate on competence grounds. Unfortunately for Bush, they found some other grounds to make his life difficult...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker