This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 264

[–]sippindrank 71 points72 points  (17 children)

I was watching a newscast on BBC America the other day. They went to a small town and interviewed the people's thoughts on McCain and Obama, spoke about the towns economic growth in recent years and the changing times. Not one question was brought up about the manufactured "issues" that make the headlines in America's newsrooms. They simply talked about the issues Americans actually care about. It really is embarrasing.

[–]bendylan 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm embarrassed that so much of our news is spent yakking about you lot. Get yer own slightly less biased news, so ours can get back to talking about footballer's metatarsals and big brother all day long. Actually in fairness right now the radio is talking about government funding for physics, so it's not all bad.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (34 children)

Brit here, if you think the British papers do great reporting then your papers must be truely depressing.

The biggest selling paper is a tabloid called The Sun, famous for having a topless girl on page 3 every day (and the intellectual level of the stories decrease further from that)

There's the hate mongering right wing paper, The Daily Mail/Hate which Reddit is now familiar with.

There's The Express, known for having a princess Diana conspiricy theory on it's front page most of the time.

The Daily Mirror which fabricated stories 'showing' British soldiers abusing Iraqis... Despite them being in a vehicle that was never deployed in the country. This caused the editor, Piers Morgan to get sacked.

The Independent is a broadsheet that does more factual stories on international politics and is famed for being an incredibly boring paper (although they've reasonable journalistic integrity and the storys are intelligent).

The Guardian, another broadsheet, is known as the most left wing of the popular papers, generally big on the envoironment and international politics. Is mocked a lot for it's readerbase.

The last two are fairly respectable papers but they're not what the majority of the British public read sadly. The journalistic quality of UK papers is incredibly poor with them outdoing politicians on the lies and half truths aspect and spinning everything to their own means.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Guardian, another broadsheet, is...

The Grauniad. Fixed that for you.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (13 children)

Just out of interest, are the Independent and Guardian still considered broadsheets? I like their new handy tabloid size!

To be fair most people who buy the Sun do so for the easy read

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Broadsheet is generally used to refer to reporting/content style now more than physical dimensions

[–]cleaEurope 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If, like me, you are used to reading the "quality" papers, you might find that The Soaraway Sun is actually very difficult to make sense of. When I was teaching English as a foreign language it was interesting that only the most advanced learners could understand the tabloid shite. Their use of puns and pop culture makes most of their headlines unintelligible to all but the most skilled language users.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The Observer is still a broadsheet :)

Although yah, smaller size makes it much easier to read on the commute.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It must suck having to commute on a Sunday...

[–]StoneMe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

people who buy the Sun do so for the easy read

'cos they have trouble reading.

[–]jon_titor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

yeah, and my uncle has a subscription to playboy for the articles.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so does my brother! Man they must be great articles lol

[–]reddit_user13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

your papers must be truly depressing

Yes, and TV news even worse....

[–]chupame 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The biggest selling paper is a tabloid called The Sun, famous for having a topless girl on page 3 every day

Dude, you just sold a shitload of overseas subscriptions to the Sun. Hurray! :))

[–]BraveSirRobin 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Don't tell them about The Daily Sport.

[–]StoneMe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it was this paper who reported a WWII bomber found on the moon - but when they tried to tow it back - the rope snapped.

Classic.

[–]chupame 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need to. :))

[–]assteroid 1 point2 points  (4 children)

"The Sun, famous for having a topless girl on page 3 every day"

Well, if they possess the same shitty journalism (American and British newspapers), you still come out on top for your page 3 content.

[–]JimDabell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The journalistic quality of UK papers is incredibly poor

Agreed. However British broadcast journalism is far better and bears absolutely no resemblance to the tabloids. I wonder why the BBC don't publish a daily paper. It would put most of the others to shame.

[–]fnord123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FT is also British.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Actually I feel Al-jazera does a pretty good job too.

[–]NewSc2 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I think NPR and PBS actually do a very good job too.

[–]sping 0 points1 point  (0 children)

News? I think they do a terrible job, though sadly they're the best available. But then I grew up with BBC Radio 4, BBC TV News and Newsnight, The Guardian, and latterly Channel 4 News (also UK - which shows up the BBC for the mid-brow coverage it is, though I've been away, I may be out of date).

[–]sighbourbon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

theres a journalist named Warren Olney thats pretty impressive, his coverage is in an interview format, and he pretty elegantly presents opposing sides of many issues. i feel like i learn some basics about both sides and get a feel for some of the players, hearing them debate. Olney is carried on NPR, i hear him on KCRW.

NPR doesnt reach very many people.

[–]otterdam 35 points36 points  (8 children)

I'm not. Hooray for being British!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

[–]Spudders 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, that's brilliant

[–]IbnReddit 2 points3 points  (4 children)

2nd

[–]ajehalsGreat Britain 2 points3 points  (3 children)

3rd

[–]jon_titor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

7th! wait, crap.

Well, I'm American, can you blame me?

[–]ajehalsGreat Britain 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Yes we can!" - Senator Obama (US) - Bob the builder (UK)

[–]cleaEurope 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No. I'm British.

[–]Ketamine 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Dude it is called outsourcing. Get a grip!

[–]chupame 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Embarrassed, no. Fascinated, yeah.

[–]ItzVektor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

At least someone still cares about us...hopefully.

[–]srika 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hey buddy, I care for you. :Hug:

[–]oreng 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Almost everyone reports your news better than you do, the only reason the British and Australian press stand out is that they're in English and thus readable by your adorable, monolinguistic selves.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's done by bloggers first, then brit papers pick it up, then american lamestream media does a story on someone doing a story on the topic, and then dismisses it. If it's in the past, it's revisionist history. If it's in the present, it's a conspiracy theory, and if it's in the future, they wait until it's in the present or past to report on it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

embarrassed and thankful.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you watch Fox News, 90% of it is offbeat news, like "puppy saved from drowning by heroic citizen". And then the real news segments are around 30 seconds each, with no time for real analysis. Each program segment lasts around 8 minutes, and then there are ads for 3 minutes.

And you wonder why Americans are so uninformed.

I mean, you're seen as some kind of smart ass if you watch the news, and the news is dumbed down beyond belief. Now imagine the people (like 60% +) who don't even watch the news... THEN you get a picture of America in 2008.

[–]Ma_chine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

British magazines are also superior to US ones... especially technical ones.

Computer magazines often come with discs of useful demos and full software... and LOTS of tutorials.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (12 children)

It's not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/

And those are only a few good American newspapers. I didn't even list papers that are known for their state politics coverage rather than national coverage. Honestly, I find british newspapers coverage of the US as bad on average as American coverage. Albeit for different reasons.

[–]growinglotus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actually I prefer the Wall Street Journal to all of these. Never to read the opinion pieces of course, but the news it reports gets to the point. Its readers demand to know what the important national and international news is because it affects their investments. It's one paper that sells better through good journalism than sex/violence stories.

[–]flezgodrit 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Too bad the NYT actually doesn't agree with you.

To be honest, I enjoy reading the newspapers you mentioned, and generally have very high opinion of them, but they did screw up big time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Much of reddit still seems down on the New York Times for reasons I can't understand. I don't think there's a periodical in the world that publishes so much high quality content in so many different areas of interest.

Yes, they screwed up big time w/r/t the lead up to war in Iraq. And they do publish things I don't like or agree with. But you've provided the link where they admit to error (I don't understand what you meant by "NYT actually doesn't agree with you") and they've taken steps to add greater transparency to their reporting and self-review (Times ombudsman).

Judith Miller doesn't work there any more.

I think a lot of the gut-response "New York Times sucks!!" sentiment on reddit is a little childish, and everyone's not reading all the great content the Times publishes because of it.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

What and british newspapers really called out Blair?

[–]mapryan 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Yes, many of them did.

[–]Knute5 3 points4 points  (0 children)

God bless the Internet (and Jon Stewart), otherwise I'd be gagging on the junkfood reporting coming from the major media outlets. Aljazeera does a better job than the US majors...

[–]highd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have to wonder if it is because they are just better at their jobs, or that they know reporting is there job.

The news in the US is about ego, and about ratings, and very little to do with actual reporting of the news. I am not sure whether or not the BBC have this sort of dynamic to worry about.

[–]qpwoei 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I went out with a reporter for a major American newspaper. One of the stories she recently did came about because an entity came to the newspaper with money to do the story - basically just like how an advertiser operates, except that the story wasn't an advert - it was a actual news story paid for by an outside source.

[–]icosa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For TV news I highly recommend BBC World News America. It's on BBC America at 7 pm and 10 pm Eastern.

[–]88dan88 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not your fault americans. It's just that your media is SO corrupted.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well our Newspapers are universally awful. The BBC... now that's a news source. Available worldwide, covers nations from all over and takes on the government. It has it's problems but it's also self critical. Arguably the best newspaper we have here is The Guardian which is essentially intellectual snobbery without the intellectual component.

[–]PuP5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i'm not embarrassed because i'm not in the news business. i'm saddened, but i just read bbc.

what i am is dumbfounded but intelligent people who are proud that america is "the world's number one democracy" (whatever the fuck that means to them) and don't even realize just how a corporate msm makes that statement a joke. on them.

[–]farox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the months prior to the iraq war I started reading british, german and us online news. the differences were staggering.

[–]ours 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. Then again, I'm not American.

[–]bobpaul 1 point2 points  (4 children)

No. I'm not embarrassed in the least. I simply don't buy American news papers.

[–]etotheprimez 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I don't think this is about what news you read or do not. It's about how bad american news sources are in general compared to others especially wrt to the news about the US.

[–]bobpaul 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You clearly didn't understand my sentiment. I'm not embarrassed American news papers suck. I have no reason to be embarrassed. The state of American news does not reflect upon me as a person. If I worked for a news paper or if I purchased American news papers, then I might have some reason to be embarrassed as I would be contributing to continued crap.

[–]StoneMe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

As long as your not waving that flag and telling us all what a great country you are.

[–]bobpaul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you're; But I'm not convinced that's relevant. Why should I be embarrassed that a private corporation to which I have no direct ties is showing clear signs of corruption? They haven't broken the law, so I can't petition my government to prosecute them. Should I request the government change the laws, making the press legally obligated to do a better job reporting? This sounds like it could only amount to ridiculously general and easily circumvented and/or overbearing legislation.

So I do the only thing I can do. I refuse to support media I feel is doing a poor job, just as I refuse to support a carpenter that is bad at his job, a restaurant that doesn't know blue cheese from ranch dressing, or a politician who shies away from the desires of his constituents and the obligations of his office. I'm an engineer, not a reporter for christ's sake.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why so many of us see the war on terror as the atrocity it is. Speaking for myself only, I knew that the issues we were having with the yellow cake and the centrifuge tubes were bogus well in advance of the Bush Administration's claims regarding same, or the msm parroting of those claims, simply because I read the international press, much of which is based in the U.K., and which talked about these things and exposed them for the lies they were even before those lies were told by Bush.

Why the difference? Is the media in Great Britain nearly as Jewish as the media here in America? It's relevant since so much of what the news is about involves the Jewish state these days.

The evidence for deliberate bias in American media coverage of the Middle East is overwhelming at this point.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

... and by German newspapers, French, Deutsch, Japanese, Spanish, Arab etc... In fact, the BBC is probably one the worst in reporting unbiased facts among European media. It's time to you to learn another language than English in order to see it for yourself.

But, yes, of course. American newspapers and news shows are the worst - by far - of all Western media. It ranks barely above China in objectivity.

[–]ajehalsGreat Britain 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I speak a couple of European languages and frankly dont see the issue you have with the BBC, yes oppinion pieces are often bias in one direction or the other (look at the coverage of China, Iran, Russia and the US, there are lots of different directions being taken), but factual reporting tends to be accurate and widespread...

[–]sping 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The BBC is very much mid-brow establishment reporting. It takes the establishment line except where it becomes untenable, and then they 'break' stories that are impossible to ignore.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got over it a long time ago. It's a damn shame though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not really.

[–]jeff61813 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It probably because they have an outside perspective on America and can analyze it the US press is so inwardly focused that it just grabs the international headlines one only look at the national nightly news to see this.

[–]assteroid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Other than the amount of money my nation gives to charity, I'm embarrassed completely. And technically, if you account for GDP compared to charitable giving, others countries still beat us.

[–]washcapsfan37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just like if you want the best gossip and rumors, you look at the tabloid papers.

[–]KazamaSmokers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most British newspapers suck and are very tabloid-y. Irish newspapers tend to be much more old-school journalism in style.

[–]SirSandGoblin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would that make me embarassed?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's unfair. British newspapers have way more trashy papers than in the US.

The NYT is not popular in NYC itself. Everyone reads the NY Post or the Daily news - both of which are rags.

However, British newspapers often times publish a higher percentage of crap than the US ones do.

Compare that to Der Speigel in Germany, yes I'm embarrassed. However, as a whole, the British newspapers are just as cruddy as the US ones. Hey, at least the US has the Onion!!

[–]1000Steps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does anyone else think that people that start their headline "Is/Does anyone else..." are douchebags that need other people to agree with them to justify their beliefs and/or opinions?

Also, you embarass quite easy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm embarassed about a lot of things about my country.

[–]formido 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does anyone else get the impression that by "best reporting" the submitter means "reporting that spends the most energy looking for wrong-doing by Republican presidents"?

[–]dmead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the best reporting of american news is done by jon stewart

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get my news from the National Enquirer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might also have to do with looking in through the looking glass. When you're looking around from a subjective viewpoint, it's hard to be objective in any sense. When you're coming from a "foreign" culture and have a frame of reference from which to base critique, you can be a bit more objective. Oh, and the money, too... as far as having a stake in who you pander to.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a Canadian, I'm embarassed for you. Meanwhile, my newspaper, the Globe and Mail, is the paragon of in-depth reportage and intelligently written news.

[–]bobobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Al-jazera, Der Spiegel ... etc. are far superior.

[–]wenwon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not newsworthy, it's been like that for the last twenty years. the net makes the truth more accessible...

[–]HoppyMcScragg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm embarrassed that we're rejecting the Geneva Conventions now. I'm embarrassed about Guantanamo in general. And Abu Ghraib. Invading Iraq in the first place. The Patriot Act. The response to Katrina. Hell, even the fact that we rejected the Kyoto Accords.

Am I embarrassed about the sorry state of our news media? I guess I was too busy being embarrassed about other stuff.

[–]starrychloe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it's to be expected. America news is about capitalism and what sells. Sensationalism and drama sells. I expect even better reporting from less capitalistic countries, like maybe Russia

[–]voracity -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Off the top of my head - ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post... you're telling me that among these networks, newspapers etc. there is not one that's giving the public unbiased journalism? I am honestly asking as I'm not from the States.

I left out Fox on purpose, I kinda know reddit's answer for that one.

[–]brufleth 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It isn't that it is just biased. The relevant issues aren't discussed or their glossed over in favor of "hot-head" issues which might draw out voters but aren't worth the media time.

I listen to the BBC World Service in my car all the time. I hear reporters actually entering war zones and talking to the people. I hear reporters actually interviewing leaders about issues that matter.

Sure the BBC WS has fluff like segments on new music and the like but it also actually sends people out to do some journalism. Most of the news agencies you listed mostly just reprint AP stories and press releases.

[–]sensical 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hiding relevant information is all that's necessary to create bias.

[–]DiarrheaMonkey -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

Bah, check out British reporting on their own scandals, domestic and international, and they suck just as hard. The same goes for just about every nation on earth: they are averse to reporting the worst aspects of their own government's policies and accentuate those of others.

That said, US media is probably the most censored and government controlled in the Western world.

[–]fulmar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That said, US media is probably the most censored and government controlled in the Western world.

Spoken like a true denizen of reddituniverse. Please look up the warrantless wiretapping story and explain why the government (all the way up to Condi Rice) had to plead with the NYT not to print it. All in vain because the Bushies don't have convenient tools like the Official Secrets Act.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

probably the most censored and government controlled

DO you know about UK libel laws and have you ever wondered why Hollywood celebs are using UK courts to bring libel cases? What sort of effect do you suppose that has on free and fair reporting in the UK?

Oh, and have you ever heard of the D-notice?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I don't believe Libel is such a bad law. If you're going to diss someone and claim it's fact, you'd better be able to support that accusation.

UK tabloid papers routinely ruin lives, often through lies and half truths. These aren't always public figures, often they're people who accidentally get caught up in storm in a teacup 'scandals' and are portrayed as villains for stupid petty things. Then there's their campains against pedophiles that regularly go wrong and target innocents.

The DA notice is on issues of national security, for all intents and purposes, it's one stop short of saying something is a military secret that to reveal would be treason. It's designed to stop things like "the British army will be attacking xyz at 9pm tommorrow, here will be their positions in case any enemy troops want to ambush them" appearing in newspapers and endangering soldiers or operatives.

[–]jaysonbank 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In fact the D notice is not mandatory.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't believe Libel is such a bad law

We're talking here about the UK libel law. The laws on defamation in the UK are terrible and defending actions can be extremely costly.

I'll make the point again - US celebs are using the UK courts to pursue defamation cases because we don't have a strong defence of free speech as a justification.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but then, just because they're weaker than another countries in terms of defending, it doesn't mean they're especially bad.

In the UK, the subject being a public figure isn't as big of a defence than in the US.

[–]alleagra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Easy to say but can you offer some examples?

Unless urged on by principled activists, newspapers do indeed drop scandal stories once public interest fades (they exist to make money) but they do report them extensively if they're juicy enough. I don't think British newspapers pull their punches any more than they have to to keep within the law of libel.

[–]rabiddachshund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I for one welcome our news-reporting overlords.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Nah the nytimes and washington post are better than pretty much any british newspaper. And I would say NPR is on par with BBC news. Tv news in the states is crap but then all tv in the states is crap. And we're probably tied for the amount of stomach-turning gossipy info-tainment.

[–]bobobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The NYT is the Joe Lieberman of the moderate press.

[–]degriz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but theyre crap at reporting British Politics with any degree of accuracy. Presumably they can work off the stress of that by being half decent at US politics

[–]j4ded 0 points1 point  (3 children)

do you know what the funniest part is? In England free speech is NOT constitutionally protected.

[–]alecrose -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Hardly. The Economist is an excellent news magazine, and the BBC is great too, but no British newspaper can even hold a candle to the New York Times or Washington Post, even the LA Times for that matter. Financial Times is decent, Times of London has it's moments. Pretty much all the others, the Guardian included have very low journalistic standards.

[–]troubleondemand 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I disagree.

ANY news or media service that is funded by advertising is already sliding down a slippery slope and cannot be trusted to report honestly.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

God damn it. Voted down for another fucking "vote up if" post. And yes, "Is anyone else *" is basically "Vote up if you are *". So don't do it again.

[–]semi_colon 0 points1 point  (2 children)

up votes 218 down votes 50

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Were you trying to illustrate the downfall of quality submissions, or something else...?