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
