Media Criticism

I enjoy reading foreign newspapers when it comes to covering American politics. The American press is largely homogenized in its coverage, relying on formal press releases and news services to fill out their coverage. I was reading the BBC News website recently and came across an entire section called USA Vote 2008 that provides a good primer for British readers. In fact, I think it is an important primer for all Americans who are confused by the issues at hand.

One article I really enjoyed was published at the end of July and discussed the religious right in America and the prospects of gaining religious votes in the Republican primaries. Mike Huckabee provides a nice bit of candor when he says that conservative religious elements had become “intoxicated� with power. While the article is concise, it provides observations of religious power in America from a different perspective.

The BBC name has diminished a bit in value over the years due to questions about objectivity and the quality of their reporting. Nonetheless, it is important to read what the foreign press thinks about an American political system that has immersed operatives in an Election Day atmosphere nearly two years before Election Day. The British political scene is changing as the Blair years have come and gone with a media that is rejuvenated by a new leader to prey on. It seems like a tall task for the typically apathetic American public but we need to understand how the foreign press sees our system to test our beliefs and convictions. We also need to use foreign newspapers and websites to measure what we need to do to create an effective and objective press in America.

Here’s the scoop: Douglas Alexander, a political ally of new British PM Gordon Brown, gave a speech denouncing a “might makes right” approach to international relations. He stumped multilateralism and peaceful diplomacy as an alternative to war.

Alexander’s comments have stirred up the rumor mill, and many are claiming that his remarks were an understated way of breaking ties with the foreign policy methods of the United States, particularly pertaining to the unpopular conflict in Iraq.

However, this article from the foreign Brisbane Times seemed quite odd to me. The headline–Senior British minister hints at shift in US relations–is essentially an argument that the rest of the article subtly refutes.

This media method follows the pattern of a persuasive tactic. Often, if to argue a point, it is effective to acknowledge and deconstruct the opposite argument. This article’s headline postulates that the relationship between the United States and Britain will change, while the article itself makes the opposite argument; quotation after quotation indicates that Britain has no (outward) intention of altering American-British relations.

There are many reasons this formula may have been intentionally placed in the article. A headline claiming that the United States and Britain may shift their relationship catches the eye (it certainly caught mine), so this may have been a way to bring in readers. If so, it worked. Alternatively, the author may be making a deliberate statement that the media frenzy surrounding Alexander’s comments is unfounded.

There is, of course, the simple possibility that the author attempted to write an objective piece, and his/her opinion shone through the words. Maybe Britain just handled the situation well and flooded the media with the quotations they wanted to see in print.

Reading the news isn’t always as simple as it seems.