Turn on thread page Beta

UK Media Relationship with US watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If the news isn't relevant, then not many papers will sell. That's basically what it comes down to.

    Shady Lady, many news stories follow Galtung and Ruge's news theory (granted, this mainly works for television news) where news stories are placed into different categories, for example; amplitude, elite nations and people, etc.

    Also, America has a huge influence over many media outputs. For example film and television. Many people can get an idea of American culture from Hollywood films, therefore a lot of people can relate to America and its culture.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I imagine there must be a demand for it, or else they'd stop printing that stuff.

    Wasn't the article part of a Special Report on America? In which case it's fairly natural that they include random things like that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Why on Earth do British people want to know about what's going on in New Jersey? I've seen people post about too much American influence, but the newspaper at some point decided this was newsworthy.
    Usually 99% of the UK media's coverage of America consists of stories on gun enthusiasts, obese Americans, or fanatically religious evangelical christians. I'm not sure why this NJ story was deemed newsworthy when they could just serve up another daily helping of religious gun nut BS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Usually 99% of the UK media's coverage of America consists of stories on gun enthusiasts, obese Americans, or fanatically religious evangelical christians. I'm not sure why this NJ story was deemed newsworthy when they could just serve up another daily helping of religious gun nut BS.
    Gotta love it, though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    Gotta love it, though.
    I guess it is helpful because the Guardian and it's ilk run stories about Americans that we never hear about. Our media is too busy covering relevant stories about regular Americans. We need a new addition to the list of redneck jokes.

    You might be a redneck if:

    You and your dog use the same tree.
    Your father executes the "pull my finger" trick during Christmas dinner
    The people on Jerry Springer's show remind you of your neighbors
    You think fast food is hitting a possum at 65 mph
    You were the subject of a major story in "The Guardian"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the UK and US defintaly share a lot of media outlets. curtosey of rupert murdoch

    on sky news at night theres always the american CBS news on sky news. also sky news are always going to "their colleague in iraq, fox news corespondent...."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I'm from New Jersey, and earlier this week our state had to close down beaches, state parks, and casinos due to a budget impasse in the State Senate. I was on Google News and found that the story was being reported, with regular updates, in The Guardian.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1814487,00.html
    I also saw it in the Sydney Morning Herald (not British but still foreign).

    Why on Earth do British people want to know about what's going on in New Jersey? I've seen people post about too much American influence, but the newspaper at some point decided this was newsworthy.

    Why does American current affairs feature so prominently in UK news? Is it the news media or the public that demands it? Is it a problem for British people?

    Discuss.
    You mistake an interest in bad news for an interest in objective news. A story in the Guardian will have a word count proportional to the amount of suffering, loss or failure inflicted upon Americans. It must have felt like Christmas when Hurricane Katrina struck.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    A story in the Guardian will have a word count proportional to the amount of suffering, loss or failure inflicted upon Americans. It must have felt like Christmas when Hurricane Katrina struck.
    :rolleyes:Paranoia:rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There does seem to be an undue amount of focus on the US. One major example is the US death penalty. Last year, the whole US only executed 60 criminals, all of them after lengthy trials and ridiculously lengthy appeals processes. And eventually the punishment which was decided on by a jury and is legally upheld and supported by a majority was enforced. And there were so many stories on it. The BBC ran 21 stories surrounding individuals being executed, and 7 about the death penalty in the US generally.

    US: 60 Executions, 28 BBC Stories

    How many executions did China carry out? Best estimates (on the low-side) are 3,400. And knowing how fair and just the legal system is in China - you can bet that none of them got anything like the process and appeals they get in the US. How many BBC articles? 1 article on China's top court getting back its right to review death sentences, and 1 generally on China's HR, with a mention of executions.

    China: 3,400 Executions, 1/2 BBC Stories


    Last year was also the year that the US executed its 1,000th criminal since the death penalty came back 30 years ago. That triggered 3 BBC stories. China whacks that many by April in any given year, no stories.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    There does seem to be an undue amount of focus on the US. One major example is the US death penalty. Last year, the whole US only executed 60 criminals, all of them after lengthy trials and ridiculously lengthy appeals processes. And eventually the punishment which was decided on by a jury and is legally upheld and supported by a majority was enforced. And there were so many stories on it. The BBC ran 21 stories surrounding individuals being executed, and 7 about the death penalty in the US generally.

    US: 60 Executions, 28 BBC Stories

    How many executions did China carry out? Best estimates (on the low-side) are 3,400. And knowing how fair and just the legal system is in China - you can bet that none of them got anything like the process and appeals they get in the US. How many BBC articles? 1 article on China's top court getting back its right to review death sentences, and 1 generally on China's HR, with a mention of executions.

    China: 3,400 Executions, 1/2 BBC Stories


    Last year was also the year that the US executed its 1,000th criminal since the death penalty came back 30 years ago. That triggered 3 BBC stories. China whacks that many by April in any given year, no stories.
    The subtle difference being that while China is run by a totalitarian 'Communist' regime, America is supposedly a rather liberal democracy which prides itself upon upholding human rights and liberty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So 60 Americans are worth more than 3,400 Chinese?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So 60 Americans are worth more than 3,400 Chinese?
    Who the **** said that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That is simple the logical extension of the 'but that country claims to be that line'. i.e. It doesn't make any sense to excuse or ignore bad behaviour on the basis of a long-line of bad behaviour, or a regime that doesn't claim otherwise.
    So, China is run by dictatorship, and America is a liberal democracy, SO WHAT?
    Does that make any difference to the numbers they are executing? No.
    Does it mean that the actions are morally different or different in legitimacy terms? No.
    Does it mean that Chinese actions are more excusable? No.

    You don't excuse or ignore the offences of a serial killer just because he's done it before, and give him a pass that you don't give to a one-off murderer, so why do people try so hard to do it on a large-scale?

    Essentially, WHAT IS YOUR POINT. You claim there's a 'difference' because of how the countries are run. I want to know what you think that difference is (the one caused by the different systems) and what that means in reality.

    I'm sick of people slamming countries such as the US and Israel for everything, whilst giving a free pass to far more egregious abusers - China, Saudi, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. and defending this by simply going 'but they are democracies', as if that changes anything, as if it means that being a brutal dictatorship gives you a free pass to be brutal and remain unchallenged.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Of course there's a difference. What's the point in a newspaper printing about all the deaths in China, when it's no real surprise to us given the Chinese government's openly totalitarian and dictatorial stance? The Chinese government doesn't really pretend to be otherwise - there is nothing new here. America claiming to be all liberal, democratic, progressive bla bla bla and then executing its citizens is hugely hypocritical, and that's why more of a deal is made of it. Of course I'm not saying that American lives are somehow more valuable, so don't twist my words.

    In case you hadn't noticed newspapers don't have an infinite number of pages to print on. If we went by your warped logic they would somehow be obliged to print stories on every single murder/death in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Do people think the UK press only focuses on bad stories from the US?
    It would explain the story on the New Jersey budget crisis--makes the US look bad.
    But I don't really know. Opinions?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The UK press generally focuses on bad stories full stop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Do people think the UK press only focuses on bad stories from the US?
    It would explain the story on the New Jersey budget crisis--makes the US look bad.
    But I don't really know. Opinions?
    I wouldn't worry shady lane theres no mass conspiracy here lol. our media if you hadent already noticed is undoubtedly cynical and generally negative. we take as much **** from our own media as you guys across the pond. Maybe they shouldnt be reporting what happens in America but its only a report, they're a private corporation and are free to report what they want in a free society. Just don't pay attention if you dont like what they're saying
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    What's the point in a newspaper printing about all the deaths in China
    What's the point in a newspaper printing about all the deaths in the US?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    America claiming to be all liberal, democratic, progressive bla bla bla and then executing its citizens is hugely hypocritical, and that's why more of a deal is made of it.
    So you make more of a deal, despite far less of it being done because America claims to be things, even though you don't agree that it is those things? And you can't see how that is totally warped and backwards?
    So, if tomorrow, Bush decided to assume permanent control of the US and rule like China, would we get an end to the obsession with the things the US does?
    Anyway, that line is palpable nonsense, Zimbabwe CLAIMS to be democratic, etc., so why is it not held up as the US and Israel are? Answer: Because everyone knows it ISN'T what it claims to be, whereas, despite your hypocritical, nonsensical slanders, you know that the US, IS what it claims to be.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    The Chinese government doesn't really pretend to be otherwise - there is nothing new here.
    Hey, message to all world leaders: If you want to escape criticism from the left, stop having any pretense for protecting liberty and rights, and just rule through bloody totalitarian dictatorship - if you just do that then they stop giving a **** what you do, and will move on to criticising countries with far BETTER Human Rights, Democracy and Liberty.

    You are a complete fool if you cannot see how excusing the worst, simply because they are the absolute worst, and instead attacking the better, simply because they are better, is completely moronic.

    Anyway, I disagree on it being hypocritical - how is implementing a policy that has the support of a CLEAR MAJORITY of people (you know, democracy), employing it sparingly and subject to stringent judicial oversight (you know, the rule of law), going against what America stands for?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    If we went by your warped logic they would somehow be obliged to print stories on every single murder/death in the world.
    Erm, what? Sorry, how does your mind come to that bit of idiocy? If we went according to my 'warped' logic, the BBC would spend more time covering the Chinese death penalty, than it does covering the US death penalty, rather than covering the one that kills 60 people far more than the one that kills 60 times as many.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What's the point in a newspaper printing about all the deaths in the US?
    Please don't quote me out of context. It displays a certain lack of imagination.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So you make more of a deal, despite far less of it being done because America claims to be things, even though you don't agree that it is those things?
    I don't, the BBC does. I am justifying their actions and interpreting their reasoning.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So, if tomorrow, Bush decided to assume permanent control of the US and rule like China, would we get an end to the obsession with the things the US does?
    No. US foreign policy, economic decisions etc. have an incredibly large impact on the rest of the world. Have you not been paying attention?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Anyway, that line is palpable nonsense, Zimbabwe CLAIMS to be democratic, etc., so why is it not held up as the US and Israel are? Answer: Because everyone knows it ISN'T what it claims to be, whereas, despite your hypocritical, nonsensical slanders, you know that the US, IS what it claims to be.
    Yes but while Zimbabwe calling itself a 'democracy' is clearly a complete farce, your point about the US being what it claims to be demonstrates well the problem the BBC and others are trying to make clear - America isn't as liberal or progressive as it might appear.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Hey, message to all world leaders: If you want to escape criticism from the left, stop having any pretense for protecting liberty and rights, and just rule through bloody totalitarian dictatorship - if you just do that then they stop giving a **** what you do, and will move on to criticising countries with far BETTER Human Rights, Democracy and Liberty.
    World leaders don't make those kinds of decisions based on what the rest of the world thinks - hence why there exist both democracies and dictatorships. Do you honestly suppose that the Communist Party give a **** what the BBC think, considering they have complete control of the media and actively go about censoring the press and internet (including, incidentally, BBC's website)? What's the point in making a fuss about the Chinese when they're not going to change their views based on what the BBC or the British people say? Instead what we're seeing on the part of the BBC is sound reasoning - put most effort where you can make the most impact. By its very nature as a democratic system, America is deeply susceptible to attacks like these.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    You are a complete fool if you cannot see how excusing the worst, simply because they are the absolute worst, and instead attacking the better, simply because they are better, is completely moronic.
    And you, sir, are a complete fool for suggesting that I am 'excusing the worst'.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Anyway, I disagree on it being hypocritical - how is implementing a policy that has the support of a CLEAR MAJORITY of people (you know, democracy), employing it sparingly and subject to stringent judicial oversight (you know, the rule of law), going against what America stands for?
    Because, from a British point of view, it is both backwards and illiberal. I don't really see how it can have the support of a clear majority of people, unless the people as a whole are asked to vote on the matter for each individual state.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Erm, what? Sorry, how does your mind come to that bit of idiocy? If we went according to my 'warped' logic, the BBC would spend more time covering the Chinese death penalty, than it does covering the US death penalty, rather than covering the one that kills 60 people far more than the one that kills 60 times as many.
    And thus making less of an impact on the world. I don't see what you're complaining about, it's not like they haven't reported on the executions in China, and it's not like information isn't available. How did you find out, out of curiosity?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think blaming some sort of anti-American conspiracy is looking a bit too hard.

    A big factor in the news value of a story is the familiarity of the event. Since America and Britain are so similar/linked in terms of culture and media, it makes sense that there'd be more emphasis on America's actions than China's, which is a comparitively alien culture.

    That's why coverage of anything more foreign than America or Western Europe is confined to David Attenburough's latest documentary.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.