Explaining Galloway and the U.S. media

A ha!

After the befuddlement I expressed in the previous post, along comes Rupert Cornwall of The Independent to explain it all for me. In a fine background piece he's got a pretty clear opinion on just why the U.S. media took a huge bodyswerve over the Galloway hearings. Very interesting! I think he might be overselling the "rigid respect" the U.S. media are supposed to have for Congress (Congressional hearings in particular can get pretty heated). And I still think the underlying problem in the media's continuing current queasiness over all things Iraq. But in his general contention Cornwall is definitely more right than wrong. Here's how he explains it:

. . . the US media too did not know quite what had hit it. For all its imperfections, Congress - in particular the Senate part of it - commands a rigid respect. Coverage of it tends to be strait-laced and humourless. Into this primly arranged china shop crashed George Galloway, to deliver a public broadside against US policy in Iraq, and the US system, unmatched since Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

In Britain, the prospect of such a confrontation would have sketch-writers and columnists salivating days in advance. But that is not the American way. Honourable exception should be made for the New York Post, Murdoch-owned and the nearest thing in the US to a Fleet Street tabloid. "Brit Fries Senators in Oil" was the headline on a news story that noted the "stunning audacity" of Mr Galloway's performance, how he had caught Mr Coleman and his colleagues "flatfooted" (only one of whom was left when the chairman brought the embarrassment to an end).

A brief perusal of the US press suggests that the Post's Andrea Peyser was also the only columnist to weigh in. As might be expected, she excoriated Mr Galloway as a thug and a bully, "a lefty lackey for butchers". Mr Coleman and his subcommittee had let the side down, she wrote. "Our Senators did not pipe up. Rather, they assumed the look of frightened little boys, caught with their pants around their ankles, nervously awaiting punishment." She concluded: "It's time to take the gloves off, senators. Kick this viper where it hurts."

But anyone expecting such colour in the more august broadsheets will have been severely disappointed. The Washington Post and The New York Times devoted only inside-page coverage. The Times noted that Mr Coleman, despite being a former prosecutor, seemed "flummoxed" by Mr Galloway's "aggressive posture and tone". Both singled out the MP's debating skill. It is a skill on which, alas, American politics place little premium.

Well, there you have it! I'm also gratified to see mention made of the exception to the rule provided by the New York Post - "Murdoch-owned and the nearest thing in the US to a Fleet Street tabloid". This fits in nicely with DoctorMedia's recent musings about the Brit-saturated U.S. tabs.

Well, thanks for the (near-) reality check, Rupert Cornwall. I'm left thinking that maybe my trouble is that I'm still thinking more like a Brit than a Yank!

Oh dear.