The Independent's impact in the U.S.
The left-of-center UK newspaper Independent on Sunday (the Sunday sister paper of The Independent) reports new evidence that British Prime Minister Tony Blair committed his country to supporting a Bush invasion of Iraq "as early as April 2002, when the Prime Minister met President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas" - and almost a year before the attack actually started.
The Independent is one of the many UK media outlets that has substantially increased its U.S. presence in recent years – and especially since the runup to the Iraq war. Its message has been spread primarily via the media channel of the World Wide Web – both directly, through its own independent.co.uk web site, and indirectly, through numerous U.S.-based blogs and independent news sites such as common dreams and truthout (which is where the Blair-Bush story mentioned above was republished).
It’s clear to me that the post-9/11 era has spurred an unprecedented desire in Americans for international news. However, the events following 9/11 – and in particular the buildup to the Iraq war and the war itself – have also seriously polarized U.S. public opinion. And with that polarization came a drift away from mainstream media (at least among left-leaning, technology-savvy groups in society). In contrast, the right-wing seemed well relatively served during the Iraq War – after all the mainstream media had effectively been neutered (thanks to the loss of a liberal opposition in Congress with which the media could index its coverage – something I’ll come back to later). Those on the left or of an anti-war persuasion – concentrated in the big cities of the Northeast and the West Coast – felt that they had "nowhere left to go" in the U.S. media system, i.e., no mainstream outlets expressing their point of view (and of course, the left has no partisan media system equivalent to Fox and talk radio – Air America only went on air in early 2004, in six US markets, and its future still remains uncertain.)
What I think Americans wanted – and still want – is a source of news that they can trust but which will also give them news that is less filtered than what they get at home. And many of these Americans look at the British press (as well as the BBC) and see how these media consistently challenge not only President Bush but also their own prime minister and government. This only enhances the credibility of these media in comparison with their more anodyne U.S. counterparts
I'm reminded of an interview published last year in the Columbia Journalism Review ("Brits vs. Yanks"), comparing British and American styles of journalism, Leonard Doyle, the foreign editor at The Independent, was harshly critical of the U.S. elite press’s performance over Iraq. Doyle notes the debilitating effect of so-called "objectivity" on the American mainstream press. He makes the point that "What we consistently find is that the loudest demands for objectivity are made by groups or lobbies who want to ensure they get equal time in any story".
Doyle, who looks like quite a mild-mannered Brit in his CJR photograph, nevertheless slams U.S. media coverage – pointing out how it failed to challenge a neoconservative elite that drove the US into an "illegal" war, how the media ignored Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector who "got it right," yet gave voice to "dubious experts with no inherent knowledge of WMD". He continues:
Doyle blames "the structure of U.S. print journalism, where big media organizations like the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are lumbering beasts with no real competition breathing down their necks. The result is an overcautious press that has fantastic resources at its disposal, but frankly disappoints when it comes to exposing the administration to rigorous scrutiny".
The Independent is one of the many UK media outlets that has substantially increased its U.S. presence in recent years – and especially since the runup to the Iraq war. Its message has been spread primarily via the media channel of the World Wide Web – both directly, through its own independent.co.uk web site, and indirectly, through numerous U.S.-based blogs and independent news sites such as common dreams and truthout (which is where the Blair-Bush story mentioned above was republished).
It’s clear to me that the post-9/11 era has spurred an unprecedented desire in Americans for international news. However, the events following 9/11 – and in particular the buildup to the Iraq war and the war itself – have also seriously polarized U.S. public opinion. And with that polarization came a drift away from mainstream media (at least among left-leaning, technology-savvy groups in society). In contrast, the right-wing seemed well relatively served during the Iraq War – after all the mainstream media had effectively been neutered (thanks to the loss of a liberal opposition in Congress with which the media could index its coverage – something I’ll come back to later). Those on the left or of an anti-war persuasion – concentrated in the big cities of the Northeast and the West Coast – felt that they had "nowhere left to go" in the U.S. media system, i.e., no mainstream outlets expressing their point of view (and of course, the left has no partisan media system equivalent to Fox and talk radio – Air America only went on air in early 2004, in six US markets, and its future still remains uncertain.)
What I think Americans wanted – and still want – is a source of news that they can trust but which will also give them news that is less filtered than what they get at home. And many of these Americans look at the British press (as well as the BBC) and see how these media consistently challenge not only President Bush but also their own prime minister and government. This only enhances the credibility of these media in comparison with their more anodyne U.S. counterparts
I'm reminded of an interview published last year in the Columbia Journalism Review ("Brits vs. Yanks"), comparing British and American styles of journalism, Leonard Doyle, the foreign editor at The Independent, was harshly critical of the U.S. elite press’s performance over Iraq. Doyle notes the debilitating effect of so-called "objectivity" on the American mainstream press. He makes the point that "What we consistently find is that the loudest demands for objectivity are made by groups or lobbies who want to ensure they get equal time in any story".
Doyle, who looks like quite a mild-mannered Brit in his CJR photograph, nevertheless slams U.S. media coverage – pointing out how it failed to challenge a neoconservative elite that drove the US into an "illegal" war, how the media ignored Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector who "got it right," yet gave voice to "dubious experts with no inherent knowledge of WMD". He continues:
And blaming the media’s failures on the Bush administration just confirms what I have felt all along – that the mainstream American press is often spineless in the face of government bullying, terrified of getting on the wrong side of public opinion, and thus was cheerleading from the sidelines as the nation charged into war."
Doyle blames "the structure of U.S. print journalism, where big media organizations like the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are lumbering beasts with no real competition breathing down their necks. The result is an overcautious press that has fantastic resources at its disposal, but frankly disappoints when it comes to exposing the administration to rigorous scrutiny".
posted by hdougie at 11:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home