We didn't learn a great deal but it is good to see the White House acknowledging the importance of the BBC and in a two-way with BBCtv's Kirsty Wark, Matt Frei talked about the time he spent with the President after the formal interview. Frei reported that President Bush said that he hoped to conclude a settlement of the Palestinian question during his period of office and that it would be the most important thing that he hoped to achieve.
Asking God for good weather has been a characteristic of mainstream Christian traditions. It is the subject of some beautiful petitions in the Book of Common Prayer:
"¶ For Rain.
O GOD, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ hast promised to all those who seek thy kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, all things necessary to their bodily sustenance; Send us, we beseech thee, in this our necessity, such moderate rain and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth to our comfort, and to thy honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. ¶ A General Collect for Fair Weather.
O ALMIGHTY Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again; We humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season; and learn both by thy punishment to amend our lives, and for thy clemency to give thee praise and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
But even if praying for rain appears odd to many people today, I have a more pertinent question: Should Justin Webb, the US Editor of the "impartial" BBC, be likening "praying for rain" to "a get-together of Stone Age men"?
It's probably not as cool as when the Beatles led the first British Invasion but the second British Invasion is well underway. Then it was the Beatles, Freddie and the Dreamers and Manfred Mann. Today it's the BBC, The Guardian and The Times.
Facing increasing competition at home, Britain's leading media groups are crossing the Atlantic in search of new revenue and advertising streams. But, if the motivation is commercial, the implications will be cultural and political.
The most successful British exports to America - The Guardian and BBC - lean towards the liberal-left in their worldview. Both, for example, have an institutional respect for multilateral institutions like the United Nations, are supportive of a Kyoto-based approach to climate change and are biased against small government solutions to socioeconomic challenges. A BBC journalist for 25 years, Robin Aitken, has written about his former employer's biases here and BritainAndAmerica's Joe Loconte documented them during his six month stay in the UK.
A previous post on this site showed that the BBC and Guardian - in terms of online readers - were already competitive with the likes of the Washington Post.
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. That campaign backfired but the newspaper has not been discouraged. Some estimates suggest that GuardianOnline now has as many readers in America as in Britain. The Guardian is determined to increase its US penetration further and has today launched 'GuardianAmerica'.
Its opening day features with Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton (of which more later) give a clue to where GuardianAmerica will be coming from ideologically.
Underneath a post about the launch of GuardianAmerica, one commenter writes: "I give it 6 months before Cheney demands you be bombed." That comment betrays the average Guardianista's view of the Bush administration but my guess is that the initiative will be a problem for Republicans.
The White House and Republican candidates need a strategy for this second British Invasion. While it's certainly the case that the BBC and The Guardian will
largely appeal to already left-leaning Americans - and will take some
traffic from, for example, the New York Times - these UK platforms may
appeal to a wider audience, too.
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. Now that the British media is set to become a big player within the US population it's poor domestic politics, too.
Bill Clinton is in London to promote his new book on Giving. He has given interviews to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper.
He tells the BBC that he’d be the happiest person on Earth if his wife won the Presidency next year.
Asked why anti-Americanism is so strong at the moment, Bill Clinton said the Bush administration “squandered” the goodwill that America received after 9/11. He highlighted…
…the “failure” to allow the UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq
...the withdrawal from Kyoto,
…the withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty,
…walking away from the non-proliferation movement,
…getting out of the International Criminal Court,
…stopping military aid to Latin America.
We went on a go-it-alone, ‘our way or the highway’ course, the former President continued, that has alienated much of the world. Much of President Bush’s own party, he said, do not agree with this approach. Grassroots citizens across America have never been more interested in foreign affairs, he said, and restoring America’s standing in the world. There is a great awareness that no country can solve any major problem on its own.
Bill Clinton’s BBC interviewer John Humphrys was recently described as a “superior Brit” and “extreme Leftist” by former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Humphrys has a reputation for being a tough interrogator but, incredibly unusually, he did not interrupt Bill Clinton or pose any hard questions. A good interviewer would have asked Bill Clinton about the failure of the multilateral institutions he so admires to do anything about Rwanda, Darfur or Burma. A fair interviewer would have questioned whether the Democrats’ deepening protectionism would do anything to restore American standing or its support for quitting Iraq with the work unfinished. A robust interviewer would have quizzed Bill Clinton about the unchecked growth of al-Qaeda whilst he was sat in the Oval Office.
Bill Clinton tells The Guardian that Hillary Clinton, favourite to become America’s next President has given him the job of helping to restore America's standing in the world. He’ll be charged with telling the world that:
“America was open for business and cooperation again after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have "enrage[d] the world".
Reasons why American Democrats may struggle to tackle anti-Americanism are listed here.
Clinton praised Gordon Brown for his “exemplary” handling of the economy. He described him as an "intelligent, disciplined, profoundly concerned person". He said that David Cameron is an “interesting fellow” who he’d like to meet:
"He is very well-spoken and that is about all I know, because I haven't had the chance to meet him or study the back-and-forth of where they are on the issues. He is a good presence for the Conservative Party, but that's about all I know."
Listen to the full BBC interview here and read The Guardian interview here
Earlier this week BritainAndAmerica spotlighted the growing impact of the British media on US politics. Toby Harnden, US Editor of The Telegraph, has taken up the issue on his blog. The whole post is worth reading but this section on the relative strengths and weaknesses of British and American journalism is very fair:
"I think the notion that Americans read British media websites because of their generally more sceptical view of Bush is only part of the story. For a start, those Brits who think that there isn't a pervasive centre-left bias in the US media are deluding themselves. But there is clearly a different media culture in the UK. We cut to the chase more quickly. In general, our stories are shorter, less ponderous and academic in tone, more "spun" or skewed towards a particular conclusion, punchier and more entertaining.
Of course, the flip side of this can be that - in the worst cases - they can be tendentious, inaccurate, shoddily-researched, lacking in rigour and unfair. In general, you can be sure that the quotes in an American newspaper story are genuine and the facts have been checked. Pick up many a British newspaper and you'd be foolish to count on either. American newspapers tend to devote many more resources to proper investigations. British journalism is more irreverent, more anti-establishment, more cynical. Sometimes this can be good. But on occasions public figures are needlessly mocked and torn down - the ridiculing of Tony Blair at times being a case in point. But I digress. British newspapers across the political spectrum are attracting millions of American readers who want to read about what's happening in their country through a different prism."
By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of BritainAndAmerica.com.
Paul Wolfowitz gave what I think was his first interview this morning since giving up his battle to stay World Bank President. He chose to give it to the BBC World Service. Mr Wolfowitz, like an increasing number of American politicians, understands the importance of the BBC within the global media marketplace. Far fewer understand the increasing importance of the British media to the USA's own domestic political debates.
In this morning's Guardian - arguably Britain's most influential newspaper because of its penetration of what Australians call The Opinionators - there is an important article exploring the growing US readership of London-sourced news. It highlights BBC news online (with five million Americans visiting every month), The Guardian (4.5 million) and The Times (3.3 million). The graphic on the right compares that data with October 2006 data for some major US media platforms (data originating from comScore).
The Guardian's Susan Hansen argues that Americans are partly turning to online British newspapers because of their more feisty scrutiny of politicians - particularly the much greater scepticism about Iraq that was evident from the BBC, Guardian and Independent during the run-up to the decision to go to war. She also notes the efforts of British newspapers to tailor more and more products to the US marketplace. "The Guardian," she writes, "has been beefing up its reporting staff in a bid to drive still more Americans to its site."
'The American rise' of the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent should worry US conservatives. Although the BBC is supposed to be impartial it leans towards a left-liberal worldview. It favours multilateral institutions like the United Nations, for example. It is consistently criticised for its tendency to favour anti-Israel viewpoints. A recent book by Robin Aitken - a BBC journalist for 25 years - documents the extent to which the BBC favours state intervention in the economy and is suspicious of Christian conservatism. Joseph Loconte's week with the BBC series on this site has also documented the Corporation's many biases. The Guardian and The Independent are not inhibited by any charter responsibilities to impartiality. Their bias is not just institutional but also overt.
There are some media platforms where there is less anti-Americanism and fairer coverage of Republicans. The Murdoch-owned Times, for example, and The Telegraph. The Economist (with its readership of 600,000) and the Financial Times are also more balanced but both endorsed John Kerry at the last presidential election.
In recent years Fox News, talk radio and the blogosphere have given US conservatives the tools to fight mainstream media bias. 'The British invasion' may be giving new power to the left although Gerard Baker, US Editor of The Times, told BritainAndAmerica that most American conservatives won't be fooled by the BBC:
"It seems to be popular with left-liberals who, one assumes, share its general worldview. I doubt its steady diet of anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-religion, anti-capitalism coverage goes down all that well in the heartland, however."
My guess is that the BBC will influence more moderate, independently-minded voters, however. The internet audience figures also understate the BBC's impact. There is BBC America television and the Corporation supplies a lot of foreign coverage to ABC News and general news to many local radio stations. The World Service also has a significant reach. Talking to BBC journalists on recent trips to Washington I found them disappointed at the lack of interaction they receive with the White House and the Republican Party. I have mentioned this repeatedly to White House staffers since 2002 but nothing seems to change. In a close election it could be British media coverage that wins the election for the Democrats.
As BritainAndAmerica goes forward one of our key themes will be monitoring BBC coverage of US politics.
Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy
Center and a commentator on religion for National Public Radio.
Restrained praise is in order for the BBC’s Radio 4 series on anti-Americanism called “Death to America.” The brainchild of senior Washington correspondent Justin Webb, the three-part program examined the hatreds toward America that are bubbling over in France, Venezuela, Egypt and beyond. “A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered,” Webb said of his experience of anti-Americanism in Europe. “A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion—or to magnify those indiscretions—while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched.”
It was this realization, he said, that launched him into the series, which aired three consecutive weeks last month. Any regular consumer of the BBC, if he’s honest, must admit that Webb’s simple insight is rarely if ever heard across the BBC’s media colossus. It took guts for Webb to approach his superiors about the program concept, and a refreshing measure of fairness for the BBC’s top brass to sign off on it.
The program is not without its flaws. Its promotional plug, for example, promises to question “the common perception” of the United States as “an international bully” and a “modern day imperial power.” It’s still debatable how common that perception is outside of the elite dining halls of London, Paris, Geneva and Brussels. (The election of Nicolas Sarkozy as French President — unashamedly pro-American — contributes to that debate.)
On the day that BritainAndAmerica launches its CAN AMERICA TRUST THE BBC? video ad,
Robin Aitken, twenty-five years a BBC journalist, warns Americans that the BBC has a number of serious biases.
I was delighted - as any young journalist would be - when I landed my first job as a reporter with the BBC back in 1978. I felt I was joining the finest broadcasting service in the world, one with a matchless reputation for truth-telling and objectivity.
Twenty five years later, when I walked out of BBC Television Centre in London for the last time, I was a disillusioned man. The BBC turned out to be not the infallible truth-teller of repute but just another player in the media market - just as biased and one-sided as the rest.
But the BBC isn’t like the rest; and what makes it special also makes it more dangerous and insidious than the others.
Let me explain. The problem is that because the BBC is the best-known, best-respected broadcaster in the world people believe what it says – even when it seriously distorts the news according to its own internal biases.
The BBC has a very strong internal political culture – I call it ‘institutional leftism’. In practice this means that arguments made by groups and individuals who come from the right are often ignored, misrepresented and marginalized. In the process, because the BBC is so powerful the political debate itself gets distorted.
At 11.00 today on BBC Radio 4, [LISTEN AGAIN LINK] Peter Snow presented a programme analysing the role played by the USA during the Falklands conflict. The programme revealed that whilst President Reagan was ‘instinctively’ supportive of Britain, his officials were ideologically divided over whom to support. The thirty minute interview with former administration officials highlighted the roles of the three key players during the conflict.
Earlier today George W Bush sat down with BBC America's Matt Frei and recorded an interview - ahead of his Africa tour.
Recent Comments