My local PBS (American version of Public Television, for all of you who don’t know) station carries the BBC World News at 6:00 PM. The CBS/NBC/ABC National Evening news comes on at 5:30, so I get to compare the two.
What’s the deal with the American press? We seem to be outscooped by the BBC on many important subjects. BBC had the controversy over Depleted Uranium warheads two days before the Americans got to it. Coverage of the Congonese (sp?) president being assassinated was on BBC every day for a week. CBS caught up after BBC was done reporting the matter.
It seems American TV stations are being hypocritical. They say they are the greatest news sources that the planet has to offer, yet they miss important stuff like the election of a new Filipino President, a flood in Zimbabwe (sp?), and the European Union Nice conference.
The American press is too provincial. No focus on international news and way too much focus on some death row inmate’s heartbreaking story. IMHO, that’s what the local news is for.
I worked for a “major metro daily” for 10 years. My opinion about your question is this:
News outlets in the U.S. are now almost all corporate entities. All the major TV news outlets are. As a result, the fundamental rules in most U.S. newsrooms are 1) Don’t get it wrong (no lawsuits) and 2) Don’t piss off somebody important (advertisers, investors, etc.).
Rule 1) is reasonable, except that the final call on what’s right or wrong is often made by corporate lawyers who are focused on Rule 2).
I’m thinking about starting thread. God Help us all.
I can’t comment on the speed with which the US media addresses international topics. As I recall, the local Networks handle the whole local ‘breaking news’ very quickly and I imagine that’s what pulls in the audiences.
For international breaking news the BBC is very good. You could always check out their enormous web site. They pretty well guarantee the first reports of any breaking story will be online within 20 – 30 minutes of it occurring.
The term “It is being been reported that……” or something like “Reports from the back of beyond claim… “ mean they haven’t had enough time to verify all the sources / accounts of what is being claimed but they do take their credibility very seriously so wouldn’t report it at all unless with good reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/default.stm - World News
The BBC is in the enviable position of not having to pander to advertisers or Government and, because its Charter requires a minimum standard of quality, it does have a little freedom from the usual ratings wars. In other words, Editors determine the important news rather than be led by what is the most sensational what-the-viewers-want to-know stuff.
IMOSHO, the general American public don’t give a hoot 'bout the Outside World. It’s big and scary and full of funny-talking people, after all. (Sarcasm there, folks). Perhaps news sources noticed ratings drop during stories dealing with international subjects? If so, they’d avoid such stories like the plague.