27 October, 2008 | Leave a Comment
There’s a story on the homepage of the Guardian’s website right now that is emblematic of how the British media is covering the American presidential election and how they cover America in general:
You see, most of the British papers and television stations have “journalists” traveling around America right now. Ostensibly, these “journalists” are covering the election, but that is not actually their purpose. These smug “journalists” seek out crazy American conspiracy theorists and gun-toting hillbillies, interview them and then present them to the British public as being representative of all Americans. This is called having a theory (Americans are idiots) and then looking for evidence to validate that theory. Anything that contradicts the theory (sane, rational Americans) is ignored. This is not journalism. This is a distortion of reality.
Case in point, today’s story about a guy who thinks Obama is the antichrist. From the screenshot I’ve provided, you see that this is a major news story for the Guardian editors — he gets a video AND a blog post. The wacky views of some loon in Missouri get major real estate on the homepage, dwarfing stories about the financial crisis and other news events. Nevermind that for every nutjob who thinks Obama is the antichrist, thousands more are not plagued by such paranoid and insane thoughts. This is borne out by the polls that put Obama way ahead of McCain.
These sorts of stories appear almost everyday in the British media (and quite possibly in newspapers across Europe). This anti-American bias also sneaks in in other ways. Yesterday I read an article in the Guardian about the murder of actress Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother. This line jumped out at me:
“The horrific deaths have plunged Hudson into the depths of an all too common American shooting tragedy.”
Really? Is having your mother and brother shot dead “all too common” in America? What is meant by “common” anyway? If one follows the news here in London, it would be easy to assume it’s “common” for teenagers to be stabbed to death, but I don’t think the statistics bear that out. I expect newspaper articles to contain facts. An assertion that shooting tragedies are “common” in America should be backed up by evidence. Such sloppy commentary has no place in a news story.
If you’re American and you’re interested in seeing how the British media portrays Americans — as brainless idiots, lawless killers, Jesus freaks — then regularly scan the headlines of the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, the BBC and the Daily Mail. It’s a real eye-opener. One of the great things about living abroad is that I know from my own personal experience that England and France have *plenty* of nutty people as well, from religious fantatics to people who are completely ignorant of world events to violent people to conspiracy theorists (chat with a French or English taxi driver for proof of this). But unfortunately, unlike the Guardian crew, American journalists don’t ride around in a bus looking for such people to interview and humiliate.
- Comments RSS
-
A yellow-toothed limey Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pmThis is called having a theory (British media always seeks to represent the American people a certain way) and then looking for evidence to validate that theory. Anything that contradicts the theory (other news articles that are printed in the Guardian or elsewhere) is ignored. This is not journalism. This is a distortion of reality.
-
Is a personal blog and a newspaper the same thing? Are a blogger and a journalist the same thing? I don’t think so.
You write that my theory is contradicted by “other news articles that are printed in the Guardian or elsewhere,” thus implying that some articles do contain bias. I wonder if biased articles belong in a newspaper at all, especially a respected newspaper like the Guardian.
-
pj_bukem Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm‘Some loon in Missouri’ is actually the manager of a large ethanol factory, a position of quite some responsibility, wouldn’t you agree?
You’re incendiary commentary is as one-sided as the guardian’s coverage of the US election. But the Guardian is a left-leaning newspaper, what do you expect?
I have been to America several times and find Americans to be a diverse, exciting and warm-hearted yet polarised society. I think most Guardian readers would agree with me. However, the Guardian has little to do with my opinion that religeous fundamentalism from evangelical christians has had a strong impact on the US political scene for quite some time now, which is the underlying point of this video. My opinion is a commonly held one that is nearly impossible to dispute. I’m sure Evangelical Christians themselves would agree with me.
You also failed to mention the many unbiased interviews with Americans from all walks of life which also co-exist alongside the clips of fundementalist christians on the Guardian website.
The fact that the journalist Ed Pilkington was at the ethanol plant to talk about biofuels and had this man’s views thrust upon him is why its made the homepage of the guardian website; it is shocking to watch and unsettling to say the least. This makes for an interesting piece, and one to debate on. You yourself commented on CiF and have posted a blog here, too.
By the way, an ‘all too common shooting tragedy’ is being put into the context of Americans having some of the largest gun ownership rates in the world. If you look at shooting related deaths, the UK’s statistics pale in comparison to that of America’s. Last time I checked, there were 81 UK deaths to the US’ 30,000+ in one year alone. No wonder a point has been made about this being an ‘All too American tragedy’.
As with all media, you have to take it with a pinch of salt and look at the bigger picture. I mean, it’s not like the US media is a corporation-saturated, biased and deeply flawed industry now is it?
-
Mark Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI can appreciate your frustration at things the way you see them, but hopefully the fact that you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a couple of aspects of British media might ease your irritation.
Firstly, you’ve misunderstood the way The Guardian’s website works, which is to have several “ooh, that looks interesting”-type click-through fluff pieces on the front page of the site every day, with accompanying interactive media such as videos or quizzes attached – it is NOT the equivalent of a ‘front page story’ in the newspaper proper, but rather a bit of titiliating gossip – rather like the tabloid websites have, but in The GUardian it’s a political tidbit rather than a photostory about a celebrity boob augmentation. It’s not supposed to be Scoop Of The Week, it’s just there for fun. And it is fun. In this case, it’s funNY.
Secondly, the Guardian has been running a regular (almost daily) series of video interviews and mini-documentaries on the townsfolk in Roanoke, Virginia for the last few weeks, which is perceived as an area representative of ’swing’ regions in general and therefore a very influential demographic in the outcome of the election. These interviews have shown the people of Roanoke, just like people across America and the world, to be wildly diverse in terms of political insight, religious beliefs, social persuasions and every other aspect of their personalities. The Guardian is not attempting to portray America as ‘dumb’, nor would it bother trying – British people wouldn’t dumb enough to believe it if they did.
In addition, there have been little mini-interviews and soundbites from American election analysts, political academics and regular people on the streets running daily in between programmes on several of our TV stations, giving their diverse opinions on who will win the election and why.
I don’t understand why so many of you feel so annoyed that so many of us over here take a keen interest in, and feel comfortable voicing an opinion on, the US elections. In your case, is it because you don’t personally take any interest in or know anything about ours, perhaps? If so, you could always make the effort next time…hey, maybe we could all learn to express worldly political opinions together.
-
A yellow-toothed limey Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pmWell you’re trying to score a few cheap points against British media insofar as you feel it represents America a certain way – you may as well be factually accurate if you’re going to do this. The headline is in a smaller font than the recession headline, but it happens to have a video appended, as a lot of smaller articles do. And anybody reading that article can tell that it isn’t painting “America” or “Americans” in a certain bad light, but speaks of the reporter’s experience as an isolated example within a certain area. He then suggests that the opinion is shared by many other people “on the internet” – NOT “in America”.
> thus implying that some articles do contain bias
I’m not saying that the Guardian’s article was biased in the slightest. I was saying that you’ve selected an article that YOU feel supports your theory, and it’s one that doesn’t support your theory at all. You’ve meanwhile ignored countless other articles that show we DON’T regard America to be stupid in the slightest. It is only your opinion that this article means “America is full of idiots”.
In the comments that follow the article, several Americans say things like “why seek NOT to offend muslims?!!” but there’s not one reaction to such an offensive comment that places these as “typical American” comments. They are taken as isolated examples of highly vocal bigoted idiots, and not as representative of an entire nation. The article itself has no agenda against America, and the people who have read the article have no bias against America. So what’s the problem again?
-
Mark Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pmEdit to the above: My apologies, I’ve only just been over to the ‘about’ page and seen you’re living in the UK now, and have been for a while – shouldn’t have theorised quite so wildly on your probable lack of UK election knowledge, as I’m sure you do indeed know a fair bit. Didn’t mean to sound so sarcastic and bitchy in general, even – I’m just very nervous about these elections and genuinely terrified that people like the Ethanol plant guy might decide the outcome. That idea is really, really worrying to people who aren’t religious – and it’s completely unfair that having a religious belief should give anyone any additional power, in any sense, over those that don’t. When it comes to electability, having a religious belief should be no more a qualifying criteria than having long legs or a blue car. :/
I hope that things work out for the best in America, because their influence over the rest of the world is huge, and I don’t think that’s always appreciated WITHIN America in the right way.
-
Mark Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pmAck, in fact, the more I look at what you actually wrote and what I read, I’ve got a feeling I’ve rather misjudged the whole thing – I erroneously thought you were arguing from a religious perspective when it seems fairly clear in retrospect that you weren’t…just one of a feeling of misrepresentated nationality. Tell you what, can I slope back into my tower of righteous know-it-all-ism with my tail between my legs now, and we’ll forget I was ever here..?
-
There are too many detailed comments here for me to reply to each point, but here are some general thoughts:
*The people commenting here are British and thus may not notice the many insidious ways that anti-Americanism (in the form of the perpetuation of stereotypes and false assumptions) fills the British news media. As an American, I can tell you that the way America is portrayed here in the UK is often not the America that I know. I am not a cheerleader for America. In fact, I have been called anti-American before by other Americans. So I hope that you will trust my point of view is not biased in favor of America. Rather, I would prefer accuracy in reporting. I particularly don’t like this trend where one person or a handful of random people are viewed as representative of the whole when there is no evidence to support this.
*My attacks against the British media do not contain an implicit endorsement of the American media, which is in a disgraceful state. I used to think the British media was better than the American media, but now I think they are just as bad.
*I agree that there are a lot of Evangelical Christians in America and that they are a powerful group. In the past I have written about this extensively. I grew up in Utah, which is a place filled with religious Christians of a different variety. I’ve run as far away from those people as I can get. However, I think the amount of coverage American evangelicals get over here gives the impression that the majority of Americans are religious fundamentalists. That is simply not the case. The British coverage of American evangelicals has a “freak show” aspect to it as well. While I am not fan of the religious right, I don’t think bias has any place in the news media.
*As for the story at hand today, the story’s placement is a big reason I got upset about it, which is why I took the screenshot. While some may say that the homepage of a newspaper’s website is not the same as the front page of a newspaper, I disagree. Many of us read newspapers online nowadays and rarely pick up a paper copy, so I think whatever is on the top part of the newspaper’s homepage is indeed equivalent to the front page. They normally put the most important stories there, just as they do on the front page. As such, it is sickening that this story about the guy who thinks Obama is the antichrist has been placed there. He is one man. If the Guardian has evidence that a substantial number of Americans think Obama is the antichrist, then they should present that evidence. I would be extremely interested to read it.
In the video, the journalist attempts to take his experience with the plant manager and draw a wider conclusion about Americans. What evidence does he present that the plant manager represents any significant number of Americans? 1) He says that while traveling around America, he’s met “many many people” who think Obama is a Muslim. Thinking Obama is a Muslim and thinking he’s the antichrist are two completely separate things. 2) He does a Google search for Obama and the chapter in Revelation that the plant manager quoted and finds over 900,000 pages that reference this topic. Wow, that proves a lot. Sure there are probably “many many people” out there (to borrow one of his phrases) who think Obama is the antichrist. There are also people who think they’ve been abducted by aliens and have all sorts of theories about the Kennedy assassination.
So basically, he met this kooky guy and has blown it up into a big story — what I would call a “non-story.” If my first-year writing students submitted an essay to me with the kind of research this journalist has done, they would not be receiving a passing grade. The fact that this video was posted at all, let alone placed on the homepage of the Guardian’s website, is irresponsible. Apparently there is no difference now between the “news” and opinion-filled blog posting.
-
Mark Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pmAnglofille – a calm and level-headed response, thanks for that. Probably more than one or two of us deserved…ahem.
For the record I agree with you on all the points raised above, with the exception of the following:
“However, I think the amount of coverage American evangelicals get over here gives the impression that the majority of Americans are religious fundamentalists.”
I don’t think it gives that impression, but I *do* think it reflects the amount of power and influence that minority is able to exert, and therefore their newsworthiness.
I think you’ve got a very valid point regarding the placement of the story and video – regular users know that the spot they’ve used is often given over to a lighter story or a quirky human interest angle, but they shouldn’t rely on that knowledge. If you click through by following the headline link on the story, it’s very obvious on the resulting page that the story is merely a blog post – but the Guardian should’ve used the ‘Road To The White House 08 Blog’ graphic on the front page to mark out the embedded video as opinion/silliness, too, I totally agree.
-
A yellow-toothed limey Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm> In the video, the journalist attempts to take his experience with the plant manager and draw a wider conclusion about Americans.
In my opinion he doesn’t. He speaks about this guy called Hill and says how unexpected his views were. Then he googles two keywords and says the theme is rife on the internet (not America). At no point does he attempt to draw a larger conclusion about America or Americans. I really think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill over this.
-
pj_bukem Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pmOK, so I guess the moral of the story is that most media institutions are biased and sensationalist. What’s new?
All the Guardian journalists in the US are doing is talking to a cross-section of the public. They have to contextualise it, or else it will be a boring video. That means we’re going to get ex-soldiers, fundamentalists, liberal californians, ethanol plant managers… basically anyone with an opinion which might provoke interest/debate.
I wouldn’t feel disappointed that the Guardian has revealed a number of unusual characters in their videos, it makes for interesting viewing. It shouldn’t affect your overall opinion of the paper. In fact, the Guardian can claim to be one of the ‘good guys’ in this industry, being a charity based organisation as opposed to being owned by a media conglomerate, like Fox News or the Sun.
So to echo your original estimation, you ‘gotta love the British media’!
-
Mark: No worries! I have forgiven you for your earlier sins and I appreciate your views.
“Yellow-Toothed”: At no point does he attempt to draw a larger conclusion about America or Americans. He does not explicitly draw this conclusion, but he doesn’t have to. Media reports like this often aim to highlight a trend through the views of one person. It’s a genre, of sorts, and a dangerous one. If the Guardian believed this man was completely alone in his views, they would not have posted this video. It would have no no relevance as a news item. I really think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill over this. I would agree with you if this were an isolated event, but in my view it’s part of a pattern.
pj: OK, so I guess the moral of the story is that most media institutions are biased and sensationalist. What’s new? There’s nothing new about it, but I hope we all don’t grow so hopelessly jaded that we don’t call the media on their behavior. While it’s clear that everyone commenting here reads the media with a very critical eye, I wonder what percentage of the general public does.
-
pj_bukem Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pmI absolutely think you are right to pull the media up on this, but I would suggest that the Guardian aren’t the chief culprits of this kind of behaviour. And as for speculating at what percentage of the general public views the media with a critical eye, I would say most people that bother to keep up with the news probably have a good enough grasp of the ‘bigger picture’ not be swayed by sweeping statements and stereotyping often found on these websites. A good indicator would be the CiF comments, most of them are valid and interesting points of view, if not a little cynical!
Thanks for the discussion.
-
Greig Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pmThe English forget so much. After Yorktown, my ancestor, Colonel Fitzwiliam Gardiner Wickham, was tasked to attend, upon various ‘departures’,
the rebellionists, had accepted the obligation to the French of not asking for a separate peace,
“we are not asking, we are offering”
my ancestor, who was a sadist butcher and half-Hessian on his mother’s side, had to fight away a tear as realised how part of our bone and blood these American patriots were.
