Gah!  I am normally a bit of a news hound – but here over the pond the tv networks are really trying my patience.   When I first visited mi amour in the US of A I was delighted with the news coverage in this part of the world.  Great, I thought, I can tune in to Fox and see unabashed right wing news, or tune into MSNBC for its left wing counterpart.  I can tune into CNN for something more moderate – but with the added attraction of ‘newscasters’ (really!) with improbable names like Wolf Blitzer (really!).  I loved the evening hosts like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews (although I have yet to actually watch the infamous Bill O’Reilly).  Wow, journalists/people with big gobs (and connections in order to get that tv slot) sounding off and – gasp – giving their opinions on the news, on major news networks!  Good heavens to betsy. 

Having now been living here since January -and added the likes of Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz to my list of big gobs – the novelty has long since worn off.  I believe it was Ronald Reagan who deregulated the news media and allowed this kind of news presentation to take place – that is, it became perfectly legal and acceptable for news media to show bias even in mainstream reporting, not just the personality shows.  This was probaly the worst decision he ever made. 

Since being here I have found America to be wildly more partisan than I ever could have believed.  Ok – everyone knows that there are people on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ (I would add a caveat here that what passes in the US for definitions of these terms is not necessarily  the kind you would find elsewhere) and that they don’t always get along.  The problem here seems to be , despite everyone’s apparent love of ‘bipartisanship,’ is that they never see each other.  When I watch Fox or MSNBC I am often struck by vitriol poured upon the enemy, without that enemy being given a chance to put their view across.  The other side rarely appears on these channels (with one or two laudable exceptions, Pat Buchannan leaps to mind and I must say I am rather partial to MSNBC’s Morning Joe featuring the seemingly lucid minded Joe Scarborough who is a moderate Republican).  I think this trend is very dangerous.

Firstly, if I only watched one or other of Fox or MSNBC I would be under the impression that the country was secretly – or not so secretly depending on who you listen to – run by a bunch of left or right wing maniacs hell bent on destroying life as we know it.  The other side is populated solely by a cabal of self-interested ideologues who will stop at nothing to see their way of life imposed upon the rest of us, aided and abetted by ‘Washington’ this deadly entity which manifests itself as the demon love spawn of Dick Cheney, Creationism and Hitler or Nancy Pelosi, fundamentalist athiesm and Mao depending upon which channel you watch.  I must say I was very struck during the election campaign with both the Democrats and the Republicans claiming to be runnning against the evil power of ‘Washington’.  If neither of you represents ‘Washington’ interests, then who does?  And given that you are the only two viable parties out there and control the presidency, the supreme court, the house of representatives and the senate, how on earth did ‘Washington’ interests gain so much power… well, it’s unfathomable to me.

Where was I? Ah, yes.  So, we have two news networks who basically spout what they believe is or should be the party line of either the left – aka the Democrats – or the right – the Republicans.   The other side is,er, sidelined in various ways.  They are under-represented on these channels, and also their points of view are twisted and misrepresented.  Take for example the ‘Town Hall meetings’.  Here the local senator or congressman holds a meeting where his constituents turn up and tellhim/her/it  what a jolly good chap he/she/it is and how  they’ll vote them in again and so forth.  Well, actually, more recently people have been turning up and – wait now it gets complicated –  forming mass astroturf neo-Nazi mobs where they threaten the president with guns and chant white supremiscist slogans, or was it that that they peacefully question the politician who seems determined to misrepresent their views in Congress and is generally a nasty chap who favours pre-emptive euthanasia for loveable grannies?  Naturally, this all depends on which channel you watch.

One of my personal favourites right now is the obsession with the likes of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schutlz for banging on about how Republicans are blocking healthcare reform.  Er, what?  Now – maths was never my strongest subjecct, but don’t the Democrats have all the votes they need to pass healthcare reform, having filibuster proof majorities?  (Ok Ted Kennedy just dented that… but this has been a running theme for what feels like years) Ah – that’s right the president can veto healthcare refom unless the Democrats have a two thirds majority. What – the president is a Democrat, and for healthcare reform?  And they have the necessary two-thirds anyway?  Wow – these Republicans must be really something if despite it being mathematically impossible for them to block this they are able to anyway.  Wow.  Impressive.  Except it isn’t the Republicans (although yes they are against it, but like I said, given the numbers it isn’t an issue) who are stalling, it is the Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats.  But it’s not as fun to do real journalism as it is to appeal to the ‘base’ and demonise your opponents, so let’s just do that shall we?

Beyond this parodying of your fellow citizens, the language used by the journalists further serves to alien those who disagree with the channels’ view.  I often hear ‘the president wants to do X, but conservatives don’t like it’ ooh – those evil conservatives!  Or, on the other side ‘it seems like a reasonable question, but liberals are trying to stop you asking it’ or somesuch.   Watch out – other people have different opinions to you!  This is scary stuff and they are evil!!!!

What is truly frightening about this is the effect it seems to have on the actual political parties.  It isn’t enough to be a Democrat – you MUST hold certain views on certain issues.  The same goes for Republicans.  Their are oddities who straddle the party lines on major issues, but it seems difficult for these people to get much of a say – certainly on tv.  For example, if you are a Democrat you have to be pro-choice.  Except that isn’t true, as Democrats for Life will attest, the nothing intrinisically un-Democratic about being pro-life.  Likewise pro-choice Republicans must be few on the ground, but they exist.  Their reasons for being pro-choice are just not debated or are ignored.  The problem with this is it that these tv networks encourage a polarisiation of society.  In order to bolster the world view held by the network – and to add to their viewing figures – they only present one line as being acceptable.  If you question it or are a moderate you are enabling the enemy and you are villified or ignored.  If you are a Democrat whop questions the ins and outs of healthcare reform you are a traitor.  If you are a pro-choice Republican you are unpalatable, and not really a genuine Republican, are you?

The result is that discussions on major issues of the day descend into point scoring and tit – for -tat nonsense.  It is incredibly tiresome and counter-productive.    I’m off to watch Wife-swap or the X-factor for some intellectual stimulation. 

******************

 

What America really needs is some political programming along the lines of Question Time or This Week or even the Daily Politics.  I don’t care what CNN says, the world leader in news? Get real, the BBC knocks them for six, if you know what that means.   I may frequently refer to you as The British Bolshevik Company or the Blair/Brown Broadcasting Company – but all is forgiven, I prostrate myself before your undeniable slight left-wingness and I’ll bring endless cups of tea and a stash of McVitie’s (Rich Tea and Digestives – various kinds – I may even stretch to HobNobs, what am I saying? of course I will!) and we’ll spend the whole night together and I promise I won’t flick over to Sky even if you decide to shove the annoying Kate Silverton in my face – how about it?  Please?  Pretty please with a cherry on top?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5990426/Question-Time-Sitting-uncomfortably-Then-well-begin.html

Seems like great news from the Motherland.  The results are coming in as I type, and a quick glance at an electoral map shows  the local councils are turning a beautiful shade of blue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm

A flood of votes away from Labour is no real surprise.  What is of interest to me is the response by the Labour party. Also curious is the LibDem vote, or the lack thereof.

In recent days both Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith (famous on this side of the pond for her refusal to grant Michael Savage entry to the UK, not the he wanted to come over or anything, but -you know – if he did, he wouldn’t be allowed.  Oh, thank-you Jacqui for protecting us British from the rants of someone we have never heard of and don’t care about, but will now seek out online to see what the fuss is about) have resigned their cabinet posts.  Jacqui Smith left due to criticism over her general ineptness, but also her somewhat fruity expenses; Hazel Blears’s expenses also forced her out, but her quite public differences of opinion with Gordon Brown (he thinks he’s pretty good, she does not) would have done for her anyway.  

The two women have been followed in the last 24 hours by James Purnell and John Hutton.  Purnell’s dramatic exit as the polls closed was somewhat predicted:  we knew someone was going, but their identity was guess work.  His was supposedly, doubtless in his mind anyway, to precipitate a rush of colleagues who would similarly declare that they were resigning for the good of the party and that Gordon should too.  Well, like the previous attempted ‘coups’ it has fizzled out.  Hutton did indeed follow – but he declared his support for Brown as he did so.  Purnell’s friends, ie David Miliband,  have reaffirmed their loyalty to the PM.  Whoops!

So, Gordon is safe to limp on for the time being.

And the reaction to the local elections?   Dawn Primarolo has given us her interpretation of the results:

  “[It] is clearly disappointing, lots of good Labour councillors have lost their seats. It’s undeniable that the voters are angry and it focused around the issues at Westminster and MPs expenses. “

Hmmm.  Unless by “issues at Westminster”  she means the dogged refusal to call an election, then she is slightly wide of the mark.  What about these issues:  ID cards, standards in education, bizarre political correctness campaigns, the economy, the Lisbon Treaty, the encroachment of the nanny state … and so forth?

And so to the LibDems.  From the results so far it (and they are by no means all in) it appears that although they have taken seats from Labour, they have also lost out to the Tory resurgence.  As the LibDems are the tradtional ‘protest vote’ this is very interesting should it continue.  It would appear that the protest voters have either protested by abstaining or by voting independent.  The latter is evident as the independent share of the vote has risen, the former is more difficult to judge. 

Is this a sign that the country is in favour of the Conservatives as opposed to merely disliking Labour?  We shall wait and see!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/local-elections/5447195/Local-elections-2009-results-live-blog.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/elections/article6435563.ece