[Media-watch] Fwd: Not Quite a Parallel Media Universe

[PR Watch]

Thought you all might find this American perspective interesting.

-Laura

>Delivered-To: prwatch-prwatch:org-editor at prwatch.org
>Reply-To: "Norman Solomon" <mediabeat at igc.org>
>From: "Norman Solomon" <mediabeat at igc.org>
>To: <mediabeat at igc.org>
>Subject: Not Quite a Parallel Media Universe
>Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:27:06 -0700
>
>
>BRITAIN -- NOT QUITE A PARALLEL MEDIA UNIVERSE
>
>By Norman Solomon     /     Creators Syndicate
>
>
>      LONDON -- The people of Britain and the United States are
>living in parallel, yet substantively different, media universes.
>Bonds of language and overlaps of mass culture are obvious. But a
>visit to London quickly illuminates the reality that mainstream
>journalism is much less narrow here than in America.
>
>      One indicator of a robust press: Nearly a dozen ideologically
>diverse national daily papers are competing on British newsstands.
>
>      Granted, the picture isn't all rosy. Tabloids feature lurid
>crime headlines and include exploitive photos of bare-breasted
>women. Several major newspapers reflect the distorting effects of
>right-wing owners like Rupert Murdoch (who has succeeded in foisting
>the execrable Fox News on the United States). And the circulation
>figures of Britain's dailies show that the size of press runs is
>inversely proportional to journalistic quality, with the Sun at 3.5
>million and the Daily Mail at 2.3 million -- in contrast to two
>superb dailies, the Guardian (381,000) and the Independent
>(186,000).
>
>      Yet the impacts of the Guardian and the Independent, along with
>the Observer on Sunday, are much greater than their circulations
>might suggest. They're unabashed progressive newspapers that combine
>often-exemplary journalism with a willingness to take on the powers
>that be. Those papers function with vitality in news reporting --
>and left-oriented political commentary -- that cannot be
>consistently found in a single U.S. daily newspaper. Overall, in
>British newsprint, the spectrum of thought ranges so wide that a
>progressive-minded American might be tempted to take up residence
>here.
>
>      In comparison, the leading "liberal" dailies across the
>Atlantic -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- are
>mouthpieces of corporate power and U.S. empire. If the Times and the
>Post were being published in London, then British readers would
>consider those newspapers to be centrist or even conservative.
>
>      The airwaves are also very different. The British Broadcasting
>Corp. has been faulted by some media critics for filtering out
>anti-war voices during the invasion of Iraq in early spring. But the
>baseline of the BBC's usual reportage compares very favorably to
>what's on U.S. networks, including such public TV and radio
>mainstays as PBS and NPR.
>
>      The BBC is audibly far more interested in a wide range of
>information, ideas and debate. Its director general, Greg Dyke, was
>on the mark when he commented several weeks ago: "Compared to the
>United States, we see impartiality as giving a range of views,
>including those critical of our own government's position." He'd
>recently visited the United States and was "amazed by how many
>people just came up to me and said they were following the war on
>the BBC because they no longer trusted the American electronic news
>media."
>
>      Dyke commented: "Personally, I was shocked while in the United
>States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this
>war." And he added: "For the health of our democracy, it's vital we
>don't follow the path of many American networks."
>
>      Arriving in London early this month, I was immediately struck
>by the difference in Britain's political atmosphere. Many
>politicians, reporters and commentators were putting the heat on
>Tony Blair, spotlighting the weighty new evidence that he'd lied to
>the public with his adamant claims about weapons of mass destruction
>in Iraq. He is clearly in big political trouble -- unlike George W.
>Bush.
>
>      Back home in the USA, while several syndicated columnists at
>major newspapers have been raking Bush over the coals on this issue,
>no one can accurately claim that Bush is on the political ropes. A
>key factor is that few Democrats on Capitol Hill are willing to go
>for the political jugular against this deceitful president. But
>Blair's troubles and Bush's Teflon owe a lot to the different media
>environments of the two countries.
>
>      A variety of British outlets are vehemently refusing to let
>Blair off the hook. This is the result of a gradual and constructive
>shift in British media culture over the past quarter century.
>Deference to the prime minister has evolved into properly aggressive
>reporting. With journalists asking tough questions and demanding
>better answers, Blair now faces some rough treatment -- in print and
>on the airwaves.
>
>      The willingness of news media to challenge leaders is a vital
>sign of democracy. But overall, in the United States, the pulse is
>weak.
>
>___________________________________
>
>Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media
>Didn't Tell You." For an excerpt and other information, go to:
>www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target


-- 
=======================================
Let us know if you are interested in subscribing to our free weekly 
email newsletter, "The Weekly Spin."

=======================================
Laura Miller
Associate Editor, PR Watch
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 310
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713
fax: 608-260-9714
email: editor at prwatch.org
http://www.prwatch.org/