British Coverage of the American Election

[ExigeEvan]

Just to clear things up. This thread is not about-

• How Britain will benefeit from Kerry entering power/ Bush retaining power
• Who the British would like to win the election

It is simply about how you feel about the amount of coverage American presidential election is getting in the British media.
For example, recentley it has been 'American presidential election heats as election day grows closer' and then 'black watch troops move into danger zone'. It seems rediculous that the safety of our own troops is dwarfed by something that, yes may effect us, but otherwise has little to do with us.
I remember going into the newspapers and seeing John Kerry on the front page, running on the beach...surrounded by body guards.
Yes we would like to know what is happening near the other side of the world, but domestic news should come first. Even if it is 'cat gets stuck up tree'. [/rant]

So what do other Non-americans (and maybe even Americans) think?

 

[king jame II]

I do find it odd that other countries takes such a role in media over the US election. I mean seriously, if there were elections in another country, the odds are the US media could care less.

However, it could be that alot of people and governments have something to win or lose come this election. We'll eventually find out in the aftermath. Ah well.
James-

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. I think the rest of the world should know what's going on. Plus, America is basically England's product and they are the closest allies.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. I think the rest of the world should know what's going on. Plus, America is basically England's product and they are the closest allies.

So you could tell me the other main political parties in the UK? Maybe just the lead 2/3? Could you say when the next election is?

I don't deny that alot of peple need/want to know what is happening in America, my argument is the fact it is over shadowing more important domestic issues.

 

[daan]

I don't deny that alot of peple need/want to know what is happening in America, my argument is the fact it is over shadowing more important domestic issues.

I agree entirely. The way it's being reported over here, it's as if we're going to be voting for our new president.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Just to prove my point the BBC 10 o'clock news is headlining 'The American Election' right this minute.

 

[Arwin]

On the short 11:30 PM news in the Netherlands :

- prime minister reveals that his life was in danger because his foot infection involved a deadly combination of two different bacteria strains
- Elections happening in Ukraine, with some irregularities being reported
- Maserati factory burnt down in Hengelo, with lots of vintage cars of up to 900.000 euro.
- accident in the subway in London (I think it was, was typing here and missed it half)
- heavy rain in Venice causing some serious flooding and threatens the city's structure
- local weather

But we do get a lot of coverage. One channel devoted the whole evening on the U.S. elections. Much of that was reporting on the lesser known parts of the U.S., where Bush traditionally does very well. I also noticed that our dutch BBC equivalent (not really the same, but comparable) has a special website devoted to the American Elections:

http://www.nos.nl/amerikakiest/voorpagina/index.html

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So you could tell me the other main political parties in the UK? Maybe just the lead 2/3? Could you say when the next election is?

I don't deny that alot of peple need/want to know what is happening in America, my argument is the fact it is over shadowing more important domestic issues.

I will agree on that.

As for our news, it sucks. It caters to the majority, who don't care about the rest of the world.

 

[ledhed]

I know very few people who do not care about the rest of the world. Where do the majority you speak of live ? At any rate the US media gives very little time for elections in Europe except for England. England and the royal family get tons of coverage compaired to the rest of the world...must be because we are " cousins" ..

 

[High-Test]

Arwin, I wish our news was luike that tonight, I'm getting sick of the election business, and the lawyers arent going to make it any better.

 

[Arwin]

I know very few people who do not care about the rest of the world. Where do the majority you speak of live ? At any rate the US media gives very little time for elections in Europe except for England. England and the royal family get tons of coverage compaired to the rest of the world...must be because we are " cousins" ..

How many people in the U.S. actually vote? How many of those care about the rest of the world? What percentage does that leave?

Anyway, I don't think you can talk about U.S. Media that way. There are huge differences between the different networks and their audiences.

But as a small test - did you guys hear anything at all about the election of the new European Committee? Buttiglione?

 

[daan]

Buttiglione?

You can get a cream for that.

 

[ledhed]

It was in todays news paper and on the world news ..The Itallian Buttholiogione dude was running for the post of european Union Justice commisioner and gave it up because he was critical of homosexuals..he called homosexuality " sinfull "..seems his religion and beliefs are not welcome in the context of a " justice " commisioner..Manuel Barrosso the president of the commision and chief butthead withdrew all 25 candidate nominees to stall for time to find a new buttholio dude..could have been a story from a town near Boston...or san francisco.
@ Arwin...If you make a claim that the "majority" feel a certain way you should have some kind of proof to back up this claim besides your feelings....but I thought you new that.

 

[vladimir]

the german tv seems to be dominated by the american election for the last two weeks. you can switch on the tv at any time and you will find at least one report, one discussion and news about the latest survey on air. especially the public channels and the news channels are devoting lots of time to the election.
on the two channels phoenix and arte its US election week with reports, documentations, discussions and news about the election taking up half of a days programme.

as i had autumm holidays the last two weeks and therefore lots of time, i have probably seen more on the election on tv than the average american.


the US election has a lot of influence on the whole world...

 

[milefile]

Kind of reminds me of hearing about Princess Dianna every day.

 

[Arwin]

@ Arwin...If you make a claim that the "majority" feel a certain way you should have some kind of proof to back up this claim besides your feelings....but I thought you new that.

I know what the turnout percentage was for the last election, I just assumed you did too and I didn't have to back them up. Starting with that percentage, it doesn't take too many voters who are only interested in domestic issues to dip under 50%.

As for Buttiglione, correct, but there were a number of other candidates not liked by the Parliament either (5 were considered 'questionable'). The parliament does not have the right to refuse an individual candidate, only the selection as a whole. As it appeared the parliament was ready to vote off the whole selection, Barroso decided to withdraw and regroup (literally ).

It was a historic moment because the European parliament is still rather weak, and it was the first time in a long while it had any visible impact on European politics.

 

[ledhed]

Arwin what 's that have to do with the majority of americans not caring about what is going on in the rest of the world ? thats the statement I am responding to , not our voting record. Its also important to note that a large amount of eligable voters do not vote because they see little difference in the candidates or that they do not care for the candidates or they just do not give a rats ass about voting period they'd rather smoke crack or steal hubcaps or pimp a sibling.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Kind of reminds me of hearing about Princess Dianna every day.

Is that a serious comment or did you forget the [sarcasm] tags?

 

[milefile]

Is that a serious comment or did you forget the [sarcasm] tags?

I was serious. America and the UK have some weird morbid-curiosity thing going on. It's not just Bush.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Well we don't get much talk about Diana, there's kind of a gentlemen's agreement over here. Keep talk at a minimum and we'll give you interviews with Harry, Williams and Charles.

The last I heard, which wasn't that long ago too be honest, was when Harry lashed out at the paparazzi photographer. And everyone was saying:
"Who can blame him? his mum suffered so much to them. About time he snapped"

 

[FozzyFan116]

As an American, I find it funny how people in Europe worry as much or more about our politics as they do their own. I also find it disgraceful how they misrepresent our president every chance they get 👎 The hatred over there is unreal, just look at that paper that was calling for Bush's assasination.

 

[TheCracker]

People in Europe do worry about the American elections a lot, America is currently the most powerful nation in the world (watch out for China in the not-to-distant-future) and holds the worlds destiny in its hands. A majority of (informed and educated) people in Europe want Kerry to win, not because they like him, but because they hate Bush.

I also find it disgraceful how they misrepresent our president every chance they get

Your president has access to all the best political minds and all the best speach writers, but still manages to look like a retard. - He manages, to those with open minds, to 'misrepresent' himself without any help from the euro media.

The hatred over there is unreal, just look at that paper that was calling for Bush's assasination

Show me proof of this!! - no european paper would say this!!!

A lot of British coverage of the election has been not on Bush being an dangerous idiot, or Kerry being the worlds only chance of peace in the middle east - but on the fact that vast amounts of money has been spent on election campagnes 'smearing' each candidates reputation, instead of the things that should be talked about like what to do with the millions of poor people in your country with no health care insurance or money to feed their kids.

Bush's administration has the power to stop terrorists attacking your country and your people. By stopping Israel persecuting the Palastinions instead of funding them, they would stop the biggest reason for unrest in the middle east. If they stopped sucking-up to the Oil-rich Saudi govenment, and tried to help the oppresed Saudi people live in a democracy instead of a country with an appaling record of human rights abuse, they would by less inclined to become radical extreamists, and much less inclined to attack the powerful nation who helps these govenments to suppres their own people. America does hold the key to these problems (and therefore its own problem of homeland security) but chooses not to, instead it half-heartedly attacks/invades other problematic countries so it can shoe-horn some of its own companies (run by republican cronies) into the 're-building' budget and drain their already weak resorces for their own gain.

We Europeans despair at the 'fear' that your govenment holds over its citizens, it created the threat of terror that exists by not dealing with the root-cause of this threat. Whilst it persists in not doing what it should do to eliviate the problem, you will always live under the threat of terrorism. How can you stop terrorists when you don't know who they are until they have already attacked and killed your people? By causing unrest in the middle east, you are only going to create more of them - and there are plenty more where they come from, especially since the difference between the mega-rich and the incredibly poor in the middle east is just getting larger and larger.

I hate to see my American 'cousins' been told that terrorist hold a great threat to their lives by a govenment, who at the same time, is ignoring the Israelis whilst they bulldoze another Palastinion village or letting the Saudis torture and oppress their own people.

 

[milefile]

People in Europe do worry about the American elections a lot, America is currently the most powerful nation in the world (watch out for China in the not-to-distant-future) and holds the worlds destiny in its hands. A majority of (informed and educated) people in Europe want Kerry to win, not because they like him, but because they hate Bush.





Your president has access to all the best political minds and all the best speach writers, but still manages to look like a retard. - He manages, to those with open minds, to 'misrepresent' himself without any help from the euro media.





Show me proof of this!! - no european paper would say this!!!

A lot of British coverage of the election has been not on Bush being an dangerous idiot, or Kerry being the worlds only chance of peace in the middle east - but on the fact that vast amounts of money has been spent on election campagnes 'smearing' each candidates reputation, instead of the things that should be talked about like what to do with the millions of poor people in your country with no health care insurance or money to feed their kids.

Bush's administration has the power to stop terrorists attacking your country and your people. By stopping Israel persecuting the Palastinions instead of funding them, they would stop the biggest reason for unrest in the middle east. If they stopped sucking-up to the Oil-rich Saudi govenment, and tried to help the oppresed Saudi people live in a democracy instead of a country with an appaling record of human rights abuse, they would by less inclined to become radical extreamists, and much less inclined to attack the powerful nation who helps these govenments to suppres their own people. America does hold the key to these problems (and therefore its own problem of homeland security) but chooses not to, instead it half-heartedly attacks/invades other problematic countries so it can shoe-horn some of its own companies (run by republican cronies) into the 're-building' budget and drain their already weak resorces for their own gain.

We Europeans despair at the 'fear' that your govenment holds over its citizens, it created the threat of terror that exists by not dealing with the root-cause of this threat. Whilst it persists in not doing what it should do to eliviate the problem, you will always live under the threat of terrorism. How can you stop terrorists when you don't know who they are until they have already attacked and killed your people? By causing unrest in the middle east, you are only going to create more of them - and there are plenty more where they come from, especially since the difference between the mega-rich and the incredibly poor in the middle east is just getting larger and larger.

I hate to see my American 'cousins' been told that terrorist hold a great threat to their lives by a govenment, who at the same time, is ignoring the Israelis whilst they bulldoze another Palastinion village or letting the Saudis torture and oppress their own people.

You're nuts. I wish I had time to pick this apart, but t'll have to wait for another time.

 

[vladimir]

You're nuts. I wish I had time to pick this apart, but t'll have to wait for another time.

very convincing argument you have there!

sadly, he is right. bush is doing all those mistakes by himself (or by karl rove). we just judge his actions and the facts. your media has been extremely uber-patriotic in the recent times, that is the reason why bush even stands a chance in this election...

 

[milefile]

very convincing argument you have there!

sadly, he is right. bush is doing all those mistakes by himself (or by karl rove). we just judge his actions and the facts. your media has been extremely uber-patriotic in the recent times, that is the reason why bush even stands a chance in this election...

You're crazy, too. Ever heard of Dan Rather?

 

[vladimir]

You're crazy, too. Ever heard of Dan Rather?

and you are funny, if you want or not!

you mean that guy with that false document about bushes time at the national guard?

oh yes, that is one person and one false document. whats the problem? the bush administration has used truckloads of false documents to persuade the congress of the need to start a whole bloody war.

 

[TheCracker]

You're crazy, too. Ever heard of Dan Rather?

So one liberal idiot news anchor equals out a whole right-wing network? (Fox)

 

[milefile]

and you are funny, if you want or not!

you mean that guy with that false document about bushes time at the national guard?

oh yes, that is one person and one false document. whats the problem?

What's the problem? You're kidding, right? I already know I can't persuade your type, so I won't bother trying. But you're indignation is embarassing and nauseating.

the bush administration has used truckloads of false documents to persuade the congress of the need to start a whole bloody war.

Really? Which ones? Name one document the president used that was not also used by every last member of the US government, and other governments.

 

[milefile]

So one liberal idiot news anchor equals out a whole right-wing network? (Fox)

Isn't FOX the network that broke the story of Bush's DUI? Don't bother looking it up. It is.

 

[vladimir]

What's the problem? You're kidding, right? I already know I can't persuade your type, so I won't bother trying. But you're indignation is embarassing and nauseating.

you can persuade me, but that needs evidents, facts and arguments. but calling me crazy won't do it, thats for sure. why didn't you reply to crackers post? you said you had no time, but you seem to have plenty of time writing useless posts and calling people "nuts" or "crazy". you could just as well take that time and at least try to write a reply and to defend your position.

Really? Which ones? Name one document the president used that was not also used by every last member of the US government, and other governments.

what document should exist that only the president had used? the goverment is one body and blair repeated everything bush said like a parrot.

but i will name one and that is the paper that stated saddam had aquired uranium from afrika in order to equip those nuclear weapons he was supposed to be building. the paper may have been provided by blair, but before bush or rumsfeld or cheney or rice talked about it in public, they could have checked whether it was true or not. it was not true, it was faked.
i don't like blair either but today is the election in the USA and not in britain.

furthermore there were those evidents for the WMDs, but these evidents were so convincing that they could not even show them to the UN's security council. so they were either nonexistant or faked.

Isn't FOX the network that broke the story of Bush's DUI? Don't bother looking it up. It is.

in 2000...with "recent times", i of course meant the time after 9/11...