Blondes "more aggressive than brunettes"

[Sheilbh]

In the US, we have the Enquirer, so its not like we don't have journalists capable of making up stories.  The difference is that the US has journalists who understand why it is important NOT to make up the stories.

Yeah but you also have timid journalists who seem to be in a defensive crouch when dealing with politicians.  The Spectator over here did a list of biggest political scandals in British history, the American Spectator did a similar one shortly afterwards.  With the exception of Watergate it seems to me that either the American political system is stunningly clean, or the media aren't doing their job.

But you're right I'd generally never say that you should trust everything the British press immediately, in the same way you shouldn't trust blogs.  But it doesn't mean they're not worth reading and it doesn't mean they don't often get the scoops.

[grumbler]

Yeah but you also have timid journalists who seem to be in a defensive crouch when dealing with politicians.  The Spectator over here did a list of biggest political scandals in British history, the American Spectator did a similar one shortly afterwards.  With the exception of Watergate it seems to me that either the American political system is stunningly clean, or the media aren't doing their job.

But you're right I'd generally never say that you should trust everything the British press immediately, in the same way you shouldn't trust blogs.  But it doesn't mean they're not worth reading and it doesn't mean they don't often get the scoops.

I think that there is a different standard of "scandal" at work as well.  To the British press (and therefor public) pretty much anything bar sex is a "scandal" because it sells.  To the US press, pretty much nothing is scandal unless sex is involved.

I agree, though, that American journalists don't have the balls to lie about politicians like the British journalists do. Not sure just why that is.  The American press used to be as yellow as they came.  Maybe it is because Britain got all the Australian newspaper owners and the US just got some faceless corporate suits.  It might also be because US newspapers are local, not national, and so have a niche for sales and don't need to create one.

Neither extreme is particularly good for the public weal.

[Sheilbh]

I agree, though, that American journalists don't have the balls to lie about politicians like the British journalists do. Not sure just why that is.  The American press used to be as yellow as they came.  Maybe it is because Britain got all the Australian newspaper owners and the US just got some faceless corporate suits.  It might also be because US newspapers are local, not national, and so have a niche for sales and don't need to create one.

American journalists don't have the balls to properly question politicians.  What's the last scandal an American august publication uncovered?  I mean in this year I think the two that stick out are Edwards (by the National Enquirer) and ACORN (caught by a right-wing blog).

Also this is my theory.  The US has national TV media - so they're sensational - but local print near-monopolies - encourage dullness and self-satisfaction.  The UK has national newspapers - and they are sensational - and the TV news is basically a duopoly.

[Agelastus]

The Sunday Times is like several of our Sunday papers - so bloated with special supplements that they have trouble filling up the available space and so print sensationalist rubbish for people to read over Sunday Breakfast. Which is the main reason I never touch any of the Sunday papers.

Most of the Sunday editions are also run as completely separate editions to their weekly namesakes; the Times and Sunday Times is not unique in this.

Using the shite examples of their Sunday brethren to tar our serious broadsheets (the few that remain) is crass and short-sighted.

You'll note that the article has been amended at the end to point out that all his problems have been with the Sunday Times, not the Times itself.

[Admiral Yi]

American journalists don't have the balls to properly question politicians.  What's the last scandal an American august publication uncovered?  I mean in this year I think the two that stick out are Edwards (by the National Enquirer) and ACORN (caught by a right-wing blog).

Also this is my theory.  The US has national TV media - so they're sensational - but local print near-monopolies - encourage dullness and self-satisfaction.  The UK has national newspapers - and they are sensational - and the TV news is basically a duopoly.

What possible connection is there between "properly questioning politicians" and uncovering scandal?  Do British politicians regularly start blubbering and confess all the sordid details while under the stern gaze of a reporter with no other evidence of wrongdoing?

The British enjoy and expect trick, loaded questions from reporters because of the debating tradition of scoring points.  The information gleaned is less important than the pleasure of the performance.

[Sheilbh]

What possible connection is there between "properly questioning politicians" and uncovering scandal?  Do British politicians regularly start blubbering and confess all the sordid details while under the stern gaze of a reporter with no other evidence of wrongdoing?

Both uncovering scandals and properly questioning politicians require an adversarial rather than chummy/deferential relationship between politicians and press - even if they are chummy. 

The British enjoy and expect trick, loaded questions from reporters because of the debating tradition of scoring points.  The information gleaned is less important than the pleasure of the performance.

What do you mean by trick loaded questions?

[Admiral Yi]

Both uncovering scandals and properly questioning politicians require an adversarial rather than chummy/deferential relationship between politicians and press - even if they are chummy. 

I thought you said one led to the other.

What do you mean by trick loaded questions?

Questions with no right answer.  Questions designed to make the respondent look bad.

[Sheilbh]

I thought you said one led to the other.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that.

Questions with no right answer.  Questions designed to make the respondent look bad.

Questions in politics don't have a right answer.  If they did it would be easy and there wouldn't be so much disagreement.

[Admiral Yi]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that.

Then what is the purpose of asking "properly asked" questions?

[Sheilbh]

Then what is the purpose of asking "properly asked" questions?

To find out what they really mean or think.  For example there's a decent interview by Johann Hari with David Cameron about Cameron's views on homosexuality and the gays, which was basically trying to address a fundamental issue with Cameron: has he really changed his party?  And is he actually significantly different than he was when he wrote the last Tory manifesto in 2005?

Edit:  I also think it's useful because it seems like this sort of thing in the US is largely done by the other party and as a partisan thing. 

[Admiral Yi]

To find out what they really mean or think.  For example there's a decent interview by Johann Hari with David Cameron about Cameron's views on homosexuality and the gays, which was basically trying to address a fundamental issue with Cameron: has he really changed his party?  And is he actually significantly different than he was when he wrote the last Tory manifesto in 2005?

Edit:  I also think it's useful because it seems like this sort of thing in the US is largely done by the other party and as a partisan thing.

That type of clarification of ambiguity is done all the time in the US.

[Drakken]

The Sunday Times is like several of our Sunday papers - so bloated with special supplements that they have trouble filling up the available space and so print sensationalist rubbish for people to read over Sunday Breakfast. Which is the main reason I never touch any of the Sunday papers.

Most of the Sunday editions are also run as completely separate editions to their weekly namesakes; the Times and Sunday Times is not unique in this.

Using the shite examples of their Sunday brethren to tar our serious broadsheets (the few that remain) is crass and short-sighted.

You'll note that the article has been amended at the end to point out that all his problems have been with the Sunday Times, not the Times itself.

Hence why I left the Nota Bene in the quote.

[Sheilbh]

That type of clarification of ambiguity is done all the time in the US.

Have you any examples, something you've seen recently perhaps (I read the interview today which is why it came to mind)?

[Admiral Yi]

Have you any examples, something you've seen recently perhaps (I read the interview today which is why it came to mind)?

He's dead now, but that used to be Tim Russert's whole schtick.  On such and such date you said this, then later you said this.  Which is it?

A while back CNN was showing a White House press conference on the stimulus and the number of jobs created.  A lot of the questions were directed at what the administration meant by putting 264,128 jobs created on the web site.

[Sheilbh]

He's dead now, but that used to be Tim Russert's whole schtick.  On such and such date you said this, then later you said this.  Which is it?

Ah, see I'm not so keen on that because I think that matters less than trying to find out when someone's opinion changed and if it really did change rather than sort of prohibiting a change of opinion.  Though I've read, from Brit reporters, that they thought Russert was the best interviewer in Washington.

A while back CNN was showing a White House press conference on the stimulus and the number of jobs created.  A lot of the questions were directed at what the administration meant by putting 264,128 jobs created on the web site.

That's not tough.  What do you mean what they meant by it?