Biased reporting in Europe of American politics: A debate

[Franzl]

It is biased in the opposite way to which most of you think, but I'm not sure its safe to say that (is it 'trolling'?) and I'm very sure it would not be safe to explain why.

oh just stop it...how long do you have to continue this?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given that American press is biased in reporting American news and poltical events then no it's not a problem. Such is the nature of a free press.

^^^

Perhaps you missed the part about public media sources.

Yeah, but when European (public) media starts to report in a "balanced" way on American politics it would be a kind of reporting that would actually be considered right-of-center for Europe, and hence not "balanced" anymore. Also see me last post above.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't read a lot of European news sources (mostly just BBC and Der Spiegel), but I doubt that European coverage of American politics is any different, as far as bias is concerned, from European coverage of European politics. The Tea Party is most similar politically and rhetorically not to the Tories or the CDU or Sarkozy, but to any of the European far-right parties, like the BNP or the FN, and thus treated with the same amount of contempt. Obama and the Democrats are the only political force in the United States that fall anywhere within the European political mainstream.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Tea Party is most similar politically and rhetorically not to the Tories or the CDU or Sarkozy, but to any of the European far-right parties, like the BNP or the FN, and thus treated with the same amount of contempt. Obama and the Democrats are the only political force in the United States that fall anywhere within the European political mainstream.

^This sums it all up really.

[Franzl]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

[opebo]

It is biased in the opposite way to which most of you think, but I'm not sure its safe to say that (is it 'trolling'?) and I'm very sure it would not be safe to explain why.

oh just stop it...how long do you have to continue this?

I don't make the rules, I just try to abide by them, Franzl.  I really don't think any of my opinions are permissible.

Anyway I do like to watch the German and French TV channels here - the French is sometimes subtitled, the German about 50% in English.  I won't say why I like them though, and I don't mean to imply by saying I 'like them' that I'm criticizing the american press.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

[Gustaf]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

And we're also less arrogant.

[Franzl]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

Are you really this delusional, or is it just an act?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

Are you really this delusional, or is it just an act?

I'd rather say delusion is thinking, as you seem to, that Tea Parties are a normal, sound and legitimate form of political movement.

[Hash]

European medias are not.

Please, that's just false. I just pointed it out with my comment about French TV's coverage of ETA in regards to the Madrid bombings. Newspapers and media sources are often closely associated with a particular party/viewpoint; more so than even in North America. It's undeniable, also, that European (+Canadian) media coverage of Obama is more favourable to him than most American media coverage.

[Antonio the Sixth]

European medias are not.

Please, that's just false. I just pointed it out with my comment about French TV's coverage of ETA in regards to the Madrid bombings. Newspapers and media sources are often closely associated with a particular party/viewpoint; more so than even in North America. It's undeniable, also, that European (+Canadian) media coverage of Obama is more favourable to him than most American media coverage.

I didn't say European medias weren't biased generally speaking. My argument was about the Tea Parties.

[Franzl]

I didn't say European medias weren't biased generally speaking.

American medias are biased, European medias are not.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

And we're also less arrogant.

lulz, no.

[tpfkaw]

The Tea Party are idiots, but their policies have very little in common with the European far-right.

Their style on the other hand...an argument can be made fir that.

And that's the point. In any developped country, political movements with such a "style" are universally considered as trash by objective media sources. Why ? Because this is how they ought to be considered. American medias are biased, European medias are not.

And we're also less arrogant.

lulz, no.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I didn't say European medias weren't biased generally speaking.

American medias are biased, European medias are not.

Thanks Franzl, quoting without context really helps debate.

[angus]

Is the European press biased when reporting American news and political events? And if so, is that such a bad thing? Discuss.

Probably.  And not just when it reports on American events. 

It is neither a bad nor a good thing.  It's just the way things are.  Our own news is very biased.  Yours is as well, I suspect.  Ever watched the report of firemen battling a fire?  They always cheer for the firefighters and against the fire.  It's downright biased reporting.  I don't really have a problem with it. 

As for specific partisan bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, this is also reasonable.  And it isn't limited to European news sources.  I've lived in Amsterdam and in Germany and noted it in those places, but have also traveled widely in Central and South America and a bit in Asia and have noted the same bias there.  It is understandable.  The Republican party is the nationalistic party.  The Democrats run counter to that.  No one should support the Republicans except the Americans, whereas everyone who is not American should support Democrats.  (Israel being a predictable exception, but for its ulterior motives.)  I really do not think any of this is a problem.  When the President of the United States shows up to talk to the leaders of the world, they will take him seriously (or sometimes they will not), regardless of how the masses feel, and regardless of the partisan affiliation of the President.  For example, when Obama showed up at the G20 summit in Korea, not only did he get nothing, but he was hardly taken seriously.  This, in spite of the fact that he is a Democrat.  The G20 had good reason not to go along with Obama, and its course likely would not have been different had he been a Republican.  The decision-makers of the world have sources of information independent of, and greater than, the mass information outlets designed to sell to the general public.  They are aware of public opinion, but ultimately their decisions in dealing with the United States will be grounded in facts available to them, and not upon the perceptions of the general public.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bias is not an especially useful concept as it is actually impossible to report news in an objective manner. Or, as a character in my favourite novel pointed out, bias comes with selection. And that's that, frankly.

Of course that doesn't make the reporting of American politics in much of the European media any less cringeworthy from time to time. Though it's considerably better than American reporting of European politics and not just because it isn't extremely rare. The fundamental problem, incidentally, is disillusioned idealism not a combination of cultural conservatism (as in 'cultural defence' against American mass culture) and left-wing politics. That's a different issue and one beyond the ken of most journalists.

[angus]

Bias is not an especially useful concept as it is actually impossible to report news in an objective manner. Or, as a character in my favourite novel pointed out, bias comes with selection. And that's that, frankly.

pretty much what I was thinking as well.

extremely rare

This is certainly the most frustrating, although by no means the only frustrating, aspect of US reporting.  On Monday I watched the PBS Newshour hoping to get some news of the Sudan elecections, and maybe something of what's going on in Haiti and Tunisia and Afghanistan.  (I would not have watched CNN or FOX expecting that, but PBS is actually pretty good about actually reporting news.)  What did I get?  Five seconds in, Jim Lehrer announced that there'd be "extended coverage" of the shooting of a congressmember in Arizona.  Extended it was.  They dedicated 45 minutes of their 55-minute program to the shooting.  Somewhere in the world a U.S. Marine was killed in service to his country.  Somewhere in the world a thuggish president refuses to relinquish authority to a newly democratically elected one.  Somewhere in the world millions of people are dying of disease or setting fires in the streets of the capital or bombing buses, but PBS spent nearly 80% of its time trying to have guests who have no training in psychology try to psycho-analyze a killer.  It was deeply disappointing that even PBS has taken to sensationalism and the "Breaking News"/"Extended Coverage" one-story model of CNN and Fox.  

Later I watched the BBC world report and did see some news of the world.  In fact, I've started watching that program regularly for that reason.