Where You Can Hear Names & Words Pronounced Correctly

I listen to the BBC World News Service regularly. The Internet NPR station in San Antonio (Texas Public Radio—KSTX-FM—89.1 Mhz—on the campus of San Antonio College) doesn't have enough transmitter power to provide a clear signal in Geezerdom (Sun City, TX), but Internet radio overcomes that problem. Texas Public Radio provides the BBC World News Service daily. I haven't watched network news in years and I don't plan to go back. I watch less and less cable news, too. Too much perky cuteness will bring on diabetes. Even Greta Van Susteren (gasp) underwent a facelift for Fox News. If this is (fair & balanced) Ratherphobia, so be it.

[x British Journalism Review]
For many, British is better
by Christian Christensen

Since the start of the war in Iraq, much has been made of the fact that a significant number of Americans are turning to British news sources – such as The Guardian and the BBC – for information regarding the conflict. Figures from The Guardian, for example, indicate that about 40 per cent of the newspaper’s online readers are located in the United States. Similarly, audiences for BBC World News bulletins aired on the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) increased by almost 30 per cent during the first weeks of the war. The BBC website has also seen a dramatic increase in the number of users from the United States, as even a cursory glance at BBC message boards and chat rooms will indicate. These developments have been cited by media critics as evidence of a broader dissatisfaction on the part of the American public with the state of the press in the United States. The highly commercialised and nationalistic nature of the U.S. news media, so the argument goes, in addition to an uncomfortably close relationship between the press and the military, has made it impossible for the average citizen to get “objective” or “unbiased” information about events in Iraq.

Before September 11, CNN was the flagship international news channel, with coverage of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 solidifying its status. In light of recent events, however, it now seems plausible that the BBC could replace CNN as the definitive word in international 24-hour satellite news. While CNN news programmes – with their pert, perfect-hair-and-teeth presenters – leave many with a saccharin taste in the mouth, there is no denying that the organisation always seemed to be in the right place at the right time for the right pictures. Of course, many of the outstanding visuals obtained by CNN could perhaps be attributed to the slightly better-than-average relationship cultivated by CNN with powerful individuals in certain countries.

Let us be clear about one thing: CNN has never obtained huge ratings internationally, or in the U.S. Much of the mythology surrounding Ted Turner’s baby is self-created, and the marketing of the CNN brand has, more often than not, been more effective than the actual product. CNN’s ratings in the U.S. – home turf for the channel – are dwarfed by those of the three national networks (NBC, ABC and CBS). While between five and eight million households tune into the main evening news on one of the three networks, the Nielsen Media Research company revealed that in early 2004 CNN had trouble attracting 500,000 viewers during an average day, let alone for one programme. To make matters worse, CNN is also being trounced in the U.S. cable market (by a ratio of two viewers to one) by the ultra-conservative Fox News Channel.

In many ways, the arrival of Rupert Murdoch’s nationalistic, bombastic Fox News has been a harsh blow for CNN, and could account for the upswing in interest in UK news outlets in the U.S. While making CNN look almost statesmanlike in comparison, Fox News has tarred CNN, and many other U.S. news outlets, with a broad “ugly American” brush. Fox is like the loud, brash American tourist who tramples through London: we know we should not see this crude stereotype as representative of all Americans, but it is very tempting. The unapologetic, unquestioning nationalism of Fox News has, fairly or unfairly, become a symbol of what is wrong with journalism in the United States. To a certain extent, and to certain people, U.S. news media such as Fox also reflect what is wrong with American foreign policy: an excessive focus on U.S. interests above all other interests, an uncritical attitude toward unilateral power, and a near-religious belief in the infallibility of the free market.

What has disappointed many Americans is not that news outlets have openly supported the war (many have not), but that most have been so relatively timid and uncritical. The scandalous, uncontested and lucrative Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Halliburton (former executive: U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney) by the Bush administration, for example, would be enough to bring down governments in other nations. In the U.S. the contracts have raised knowing eyebrows, but not the wrath of the mainstream media. A typical and very effective ploy of the political right in the United States to keep critique of the war to a minimum has been to attack the supposed “liberal bias” of the mainstream news media. Or, alternatively, sceptical journalists who dare to question national policy are accused of “supporting the terrorists” or “hurting the morale” of the troops. The logic of such attacks beggars belief, especially when considering that the corporate owners of the four television networks, the major suppliers of news in the U.S. are the multi-billion dollar conglomerates Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), Viacom (CBS) and News Corp (FOX) – hardly breeding grounds for Marxist-Leninist reactionaries.

Following the 1991 Gulf War, the long-time CBS news anchor Dan Rather was asked about the relationship between patriotism and journalism during times of conflict. Without hesitation, Rather stated that, as an American, when it came to the crunch he would always be on the side of the American troops – this, from the anchor of one of the most-watched news programmes in the United States. Despite the disturbing implications of Rather’s comments for U.S. democracy, this unashamed lack of objectivity or neutrality (the supposed hallmarks of American journalism) garnered little or no media attention. Not much has changed over the past 13 years. In the current U.S. media environment, unquestioning patriotism is a virtue, while sceptical critique is a vice.

A positive image

British news outlets have, to a limited extent, cashed in on this situation. It is not without a dash of irony that many of the attributes that made the BBC the brunt of so much criticism in the past – stoicism, paternalism, a certain degree of pompous self-righteousness – have come back into fashion. The events in the days following the release of the Hutton report illustrate the point. While many media insiders considered the BBC handling of the Gilligan affair to be incompetent, the image of the BBC among the general public post-Hutton, both inside and outside the UK, was generally positive. Many Americans were shocked by the openness with which the BBC dealt with the fallout. The appearance of Greg Dyke on the evening news to answer questions over the bungling of the affair was proof-positive to many that the BBC works to a different standard than news outlets in the United States.

To illustrate the point, I tried to imagine one of the board members of Disney (owners of ABC) or General Electric (owners of NBC) going on their own evening news programmes to get a grilling from one of his/her own journalists. I couldn’t. Over the past year I have seen numerous U.S. politicians, advisors and military personnel interviewed on the BBC by the likes of Tim Sebastian or Jeremy Paxman. In almost every case, the interviewee was clearly unnerved by the aggression of the interviewer and the tone of the questions. Officials from the U.S. are simply not used to having either their word or their authority questioned. While a full-on Paxman inquisition might be old hat, and occasionally irritating, to viewers in the UK, to many Americans, a seasoned politician developing sweat just below the hairline is an unusual, if not refreshing sight. What makes the BBC coverage all the more stimulating for certain American audience members is the fact that these hard-hitting interviews are mixed with relatively levelheaded field reporting and news presentation.

The case of The Guardian is somewhat different. Unlike the BBC, it has a clear position vis-à-vis the Iraq conflict. There is no veneer of pseudo-neutrality, and that is perhaps the major selling point to American readers. As with the BBC, The Guardian can be accused of smug self-righteousness, yet the occasionally preachy nature of the newspaper affords readers the opportunity to take a position on what they read. No one is under any illusion about what The Guardian stands for, yet its stories are generally well researched and well written, and its opinion columns clear and to the point. Newspapers such as The Guardian also allow readers in the United States the chance to read stories containing perspectives otherwise unavailable to them in the domestic market. A frequently cited example by readers from the U.S. is the more balanced coverage in The Guardian of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The rise in the popularity of news organisations such as the BBC and The Guardian illustrates that the “packaging” of news and information at the production end remains an important factor in influencing audience preferences. A major influence on academic media studies over the past 20 years has been the recognition that audiences can make meaning out of what they see, hear or read, regardless of the intent of the producer of the media text. In other words, one cannot assume that all audiences understand the same message in the same way, news included, nor should they be treated as mindless lumps soaking up and believing any piece of propaganda hurled in their general direction.

One problem about this line of thinking, however, is that an excessive devotion to the notion of the “empowered audience” can downplay the role of economics and politics in the production, distribution and exhibition of media texts, thus divorcing media products such as news from the ideological environments in which they are made. In this scenario, audience power could be seen to be a sufficient counterweight to economic power – an argument that comes perilously close to the crudest forms of neo-liberal thinking in which the “audience member is king”, and blameless media companies exist merely to provide stimulation. While viewers, readers and listeners are free to “decode” messages as they wish, the increased use of British news outlets suggests that some in the U.S. are, in fact, very much interested in the original “coding” of news by journalists and editors. Audiences might very well be able to “resist” unappealing messages and reinterpret them to suit their own political or ideological beliefs, but that does not necessarily mean that they want to be forced into a position to do so.

With this in mind, who are these Americans reading The Guardian online, watching the BBC on PBS, or listening to the BBC World Service? Because this phenomenon is relatively new, there is a paucity of research on the subject. An informed guess would be that these individuals are predominantly liberal, relatively affluent, university-educated Democrats. In other words, the type of people who dislike President George W Bush and were opposed the use of military force in Iraq from the start. In fact, the public broadcasting system carrying the BBC World News bulletins, PBS, is known as a haven for slightly dull, slightly middle-aged, slightly upper-middle-class east coast Democrats.

A disturbing gap

It would be both elitist and arrogant to suggest that it is only the educated anti-war crowd who are interested in British news, but it seems highly unlikely that hardcore, fundamentalist Republicans are breathlessly going online to read a Polly Toynbee column on prisoner abuse, or to download a video of Jeremy Paxman’s interview with Noam Chomsky. There is no doubt that over the past two years a sizable number of Americans have turned to outside sources of news and information. The “discovery” of the BBC and other British news outlets by segments of the American public speaks to a disturbing gap in the supply side of the U.S. news market. Despite all the hype surrounding the “democratic” nature of the free market, many in the U.S. simply cannot find the information they are looking for. Online technologies have made access to alternative sources of news much easier, enabling news consumers around the world to obtain otherwise unavailable information and perspectives.

It is important to place these developments in their proper context and to avoid the temptation to romanticise. The fact remains that mainstream news sources in the U.S. – network and cable television, newspapers, etc. – continue to dominate. The increasing audience for British news sources is an interesting development in the field of journalism, but the future is uncertain. As with all things web-related, the spectre of technological determinism looms large. A belief in the power of technology can be appealing, but should be tempered by the realisation that technology is a tool for change, not an end result. While it is also tempting for foreigners to regale organisations such as the BBC, particularly when compared to the gung-ho Fox News, it is worth remembering that every organisation must play power games. All news outlets, regardless of funding or political persuasion, are subject to political-economic pressures. The licence fee is not an act of God, and owners want profits.

While it would be nice to believe that Americans of all political stripes are surfing to the UK in search of balanced reporting, “preaching to the choir” is probably a more accurate summary of what is going on with Americans and their use of British news outlets… at the moment. If mainstream journalists in the United States continue to hug the centre rail and avoid asking difficult questions, however, this could change. Faith in the “the free market of ideas” has served the U.S. media well financially over the years, but with rapid technological developments, and the potential for an increasingly dissatisfied audience, it could come back to bite them.

Christian Christensen is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Communication at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul. His areas of research interest include international news coverage, the political economy of media and media policy. He has lived and worked in the United States (his home country), the UK, Turkey and Sweden.

© 2004 BJR Publishing Ltd.