British Coverage of the American Election

[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)

Why? What are they going to do? Do you know something we don't? Communism will finally work?

A majority of (informed and educated) people in Europe want Kerry to win, not because they like him, but because they hate Bush.

You mean the elite intelligentsia. They want Kerry to win here, too. We'll see, but I doubt that their wishes will be granted. This is just. This is democracy.

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.

So much style without substance. So many fools lead like a herd by it.

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

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that. Probably because it's wrong. So Kerry will do in four years what no president has been able to do in fifty? No. If either of them has a chance at helping peace in the Middle East it is Bush because he is the only on who is going after the problem.

- 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.

We already know what to do about them: get them working, contributing to their country while bettering themselves. The best way to grow the economy, precisely what is happening. In fact, recent polls show that 70% of Americans feel either better-off or the same as they were four years ago. Not bad for the period immediately following 9/11... very good, in fact.

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.

Isn't this what we're doing in Iraq right now? It is. And look what happens. Are you suggesting America attack Saudi Arabia?

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.

This is hackneyed rhetoric not worthy of a response. There is not a shred of evidence for any of it. It's a conspiracy theory.

We Europeans despair at the 'fear' that your govenment holds over its citizens

I am not afraid.

it created the threat of terror

Wrong. That's like letting a murderer off because is mommy beat him as a child.

By the way... when did Bin Laden ever try to talk things over with America?

by not dealing with the root-cause of this threat.

So...? What is this "root cause"?

Whilst it persists in not doing what it should do to eliviate the problem

Which is....?

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?

We do know who they are, and where they come from, too. What are you talking about?

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.

Not for long. Remember? A free and democratic Iraq? Not to mention Afganistan.

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.

Three years and not one terror in America attack. Coincidence? I don't think so. As far as the Saudis go... again, are you suggesting we attack? Replace the regime? How about creating a nice big free democracy right on top of them... a place Saudis can go if they hate Arabia so much... a place that on which the entire region will pivot, with Afganistan.

In fact, it is simply remarkable that there will be two democratic elections in the Middle East inside a year. Afganistan is an acheivement to be proud of. It's amazing. And America did it thanks to Bush.

Yeah. Bush is doing a bad job. Ha.

 

[TheCracker]

Why? What are they going to do? Do you know something we don't? Communism will finally work?

China are embracing capitolism like no other nation, they are a much larger country than America and will eventully overtake them as a superpower.

You mean the elite intelligentsia. They want Kerry to win here, too. We'll see, but I doubt that their wishes will be granted. This is just. This is democracy.

No, not just the intelligentsia, but the pond-life who read the Sun or the Mirror or the Star.... infact, everyone exept Tony

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that. Probably because it's wrong. So Kerry will do in four years what no president has been able to do in fifty? No. If either of them has a chance at helping peace in the Middle East it is Bush because he is the only on who is going after the problem.

At least he plans on trying

We already know what to do about them: get them working, contributing to their country while bettering themselves. The best way to grow the economy, precisely what is happening. In fact, recent polls show that 70% of Americans feel either better-off or the same as they were four years ago. Not bad for the period immediately following 9/11... very good, in fact.

Getting them working is of course the best idea, its a shame that Bush has lost more jobs than any president since the great depression

Isn't this what we're doing in Iraq right now? It is. And look what happens. Are you suggesting America attack Saudi Arabia?

No, but something needs to be done, other than asking them to invest even more in your own economy.

This is hackneyed rhetoric not worthy of a response. There is not a shred of evidence for any of it. It's a conspiracy theory.

blah, blah, blah...... usual narrow-minded republican response

Wrong. That's like letting a murderer off because is mommy beat him as a child.

No, its exactly like dealing with a problem that you helped to create.

By the way... when did Bin Laden ever try to talk things over with America?

probably the same time that America asked Bin Laden the question of 'why he did it in the first place' and 'what can we do to stop you doing it again'

So...? What is this "root cause"?

see above

We do know who they are, and where they come from, too. What are you talking about?

No you don't know who they are, or they would'nt be kidnapping UN workers, Charity workers, news reporters, diplomats etc etc on a daily basis, they would have been hunted down and captured within months of the fall of Bagdad.

Three years and not one terror in America attack. Coincidence? I don't think so.

..how many years was it before 'Dubya' became president, that America had last been attacked?????? - Coincidence? I don't think so.

As far as the Saudis go... again, are you suggesting we attack? Replace the regime? How about creating a nice big free democracy right on top of them... a place Saudis can go if they hate Arabia so much... a place that on which the entire region will pivot, with Afganistan.

The Saudis don't hate their own country - just their extremely wealthy, extremely oppresive and uncaring Govenment, they don't want to live in Afganistan any more than you do, all they want is to get rid of their oppresive govenment regime.

In fact, it is simply remarkable that there will be two democratic elections in the Middle East inside a year. Afganistan is an acheivement to be proud of. It's amazing. And America did it thanks to Bush.

Their 'democratic elections' will be just as 'democratic' as your own 2000 election was, ie not very. The Afgan president will be another 'placed' US puppet, just like their last regime, the Taliban and just like Saddam was.

Yeah. Bush is doing a bad job. Ha.

You took the words right out of my mouth! - good to see you admitting it

 

[milefile]

China are embracing capitolism like no other nation, they are a much larger country than America and will eventully overtake them as a superpower.

No they won't. They are embracing some aspects of a free market system, but they are still not free. This is the key difference. This is why their economy is based on cheap knock-offs. Not to mention the fact that a huge percentage of China works for the US. If you think America is oblivious to China's potential you are wrong. But so far that's all it is, potential.

No, not just the intelligentsia, but the pond-life who read the Sun or the Mirror or the Star.... infact, everyone exept Tony

"Everyone"? Amazing. I guess liberalism does create absolute, hegemonic consensus.

At least he plans on trying

Really? How? I haven't heard a single idea from him. In fact, I bet you can't articulate on single"plan" of his.

Getting them working is of course the best idea, its a shame that Bush has lost more jobs than any president since the great depression

Then why isn't the country in a depression? Why is our economy growing? Why was I able to find a good, permanent job in two weeks? Why is everybody I know working? Why is home ownership at an all time high? Especially among minorities?

What does it mean when you say "lost more jobs... since the great depression"? What are you trying to say by that?

No, but something needs to be done, other than asking them to invest even more in your own economy.

Like what?

blah, blah, blah...... usual narrow-minded republican response

And the evidence is still lacking....

No, its exactly like dealing with a problem that you helped to create.

Again, how did we create it? So every time you piss someone off it's your problem?

probably the same time that America asked Bin Laden the question of 'why he did it in the first place' and 'what can we do to stop you doing it again'

Did what? 9/11? What about the USS Cole? The US embassies in Africa? The First WTC bomb? When did he ever try to talk to anyone other than to issue a "fatwah" ordering all Muslims to Kill all Americans? When did Bin Laden do anything other than kill? Why, even those nasty Saudis won't have anything to do with him.

No you don't know who they are, or they would'nt be kidnapping UN workers, Charity workers, news reporters, diplomats etc etc on a daily basis, they would have been hunted down and captured within months of the fall of Bagdad.

Except they came in from other countries and weren't there.

According to your logic this would be true: Somebody will be murdered tomorrow even though we put a murderer in jail yesterday. It's pointless. We just don't know when it will happen next. Let's just leave them all alone. It's a waste and we're just pissing them off.

..how many years was it before 'Dubya' became president, that America had last been attacked?????? - Coincidence? I don't think so.

You should. They were blowing stuff up for years. 9/11 was only the lastest and worst so far. It had nothing to do with G. Bush. If Gore was president it still would've happened.

The Saudis don't hate their own country - just their extremely wealthy, extremely oppresive and uncaring Govenment, they don't want to live in Afganistan any more than you do, all they want is to get rid of their oppresive govenment regime.

Oh. So what are they waiting for?

Their 'democratic elections' will be just as 'democratic' as your own 2000 election was, ie not very.

This just makes me laugh.

The Afgan president will be another 'placed' US puppet, just like their last regime, the Taliban and just like Saddam was.

But Afgans elected him. On what grounds do you say that? Afganistan is a fledgling democracy. It is good. Why do you think it's bad? What would you rather see there?

 

[TheCracker]

....around and round we go....

 

[milefile]

Apparently not.

 

[Famine]

"Everyone"? Amazing. I guess liberalism does create absolute, hegemonic consensus.

Just to remind you, we are governed by a Socialist party - one which was elected into power with just over 23% of the total eligible voters.

To refer to England or Britain (Britain especially so, with Plaid Cymru and SNP forming the major political power in Wales and Scotland) as belonging to any particular political ideal is pretty silly.

 

[milefile]

I know. I was "stooping to his level".

 

[ledhed]

How can you stoop below ground ?

 

[ExigeEvan]

By using the London Underground ?

One of the things that, I believe, worries Europenas is that if Bush does (and seems to have) retain power how does he take that?
I mean does he see it as a 'keep up the good work' vote or a 'we'll follow any decision you make' vote? If it is option one then okay, can't argue too much.
If it is the second one then I will worry. More campaigns in the middle east and further stretching of the American (and most likely British) forces can't be good.

 

[Danoff]

I mean does he see it as a 'keep up the good work' vote or a 'we'll follow any decision you make' vote?

I'd say it's got to be seen as "keep up the good work". At the same time, it also says, "hey, 49% of Americans don't want you to be president". So you gotta keep that in mind too.

 

[rjensen11]

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?

Well, all I really cover for British media is the BBC, I suppose I could read up on articles from The Observer as well, but I just don't have the time. Frankly, I wish America had the level of coverage the BBC had. It was over-run, over-used, and the boy cried wolf about 1,000 times too many. I understand why it would be covered quite a bit on the international news level (let's face it, whatever the US does economically somehow affects the rest of the world, in a significant way or in a slight way), but I can't really comment on the local news. Is it just the US, or does the rest of the world's "local" news consist of things that are basically rehashed from the major news sources (like Deutsche Welle, BBC, etc)?

 

[ledhed]

What are the British the UN and the rest of the world saying about France's involvement and bungling of the situation in the Ivory coast ?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Okay, it's happening again. Why, why, is Stevie Wonder's support in the US presidential election even news worthy?

Now I understand the election this time round is going to be a little different, there will be a new president no matter what. But goddamn the amount of coverage we've recieved of just Obama and Hillary (which is now resolved, hurrah) made most people believe they were the finally 2 candidates. How wrong they were!

So now we have to put up with another few months of Obama and this John guy.

Damn it's like a pokemon battle.

[EDIT]
Oh yeah, forgot the "Holy thread resurection, Batman!"

 

[Danoff]

You think it's bad where you are, imagine how much more painful it is to listen to it over here!

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's gotten to the point where some mornings I'll watch Kids TV in the morning instead of BBC Breakfast. (Forgive me, I only have terrestrial in my bedroom)

 

[Only_in_f1]

It's gotten to the point where some mornings I'll watch Kids TV in the morning instead of BBC Breakfast. (Forgive me, I only have terrestrial in my bedroom)

I'll have you know kids TV is good these days!

And on topic, I know very little. I hear this and that on the news but it doesnt bother me. Too me it was just childish. He said this... She said that... he done this....she didnt do that. Was I just seeing a little bit of whats going on or was that it?

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'll have you know kids TV is good these days!

Fair point. Lazy Town FTW

 

[YSSMAN]

Seems like the foreign press has been "fair," but as always, it often seems like they're reporting just because they "have to," not because they "want to." I personally look towards BBC America most nights for my news, but it depends.

But Danoff said it right, at least your picture is a little more clear than ours... Its sad when we actually have to look for good news these days.

 

[niky]

It's just the noise-to-signal ratio. Gets louder if you're too close to the source.

Outside, since it's not the only thing on, they snip, snip, snip, and report only the big things... but how Stevie Wonder counts as big, I'll never know. Still, the US presidential circus is big across the world, I think... simply because the election results in America, it being one of the only two (US and China... does Russia count again?) existing Superpowers, is a big deal for everyone.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's gotten to the point where some mornings I'll watch Kids TV in the morning instead of BBC Breakfast. (Forgive me, I only have terrestrial in my bedroom)

I work for a company that deals in news transcription and video monitoring. Our sales are down over 30% this year mainly because at least 25% of the news is dedicated to the election. We cannot sell that.

I actually ended up doing some research in January and found that this election has already been covered in the news more than the last four presidential elections combined, and that was at the start of the primaries.

 

[Thiele]

We're getting a lot of info in the news about the American politics down here. I;m personally quite sick of the way it's been going on and on for months. I know it's important because America has the strongest economy and all, but i think enough is enough with the news.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'd just like to point out that untill Bush criticised China I had forgotten he even existed. It seems so long since he was actually in the news over here.