Again, this is not something peculiar to the US. The biggest Middle East-related news story here in the past week has been the shooting of an Irish peace activist in Jenin. I’m sure the media in all countries do things like this.
I think it is largely cultural. In America, politics and current events isn’t considered a good thing to to talk about around the dinner table, or in bars, or with strangers on the bus. In many other countries, discussing current events around a bottle of wine is considered a good way to while away an evening.
My personal theory is that American culture tends to delegitimitize leisure activities that don’t involve spending money. Our culture works better when more cash is spent, so we would rather that people go to McDonalds and a watch a movie than sit around the dinner table and then go for a walk. We consider leisure activities that cost money to be “real” and ones that don’t involve money (including good old fashioned conversation) to be less preferable.
The problem has some pretty important implications. An ill-educated populace is unlikely to make good voting decisions. The other day, on another messege board, I heard someone say we need to attack Iraq so that they “don’t do what they did to us on Sept. 11th again”. I heard others saying that Iraq would be happy because America would bring them electricity and running water (Iraq is a fairly developed nation- with things like cities and pop musicians- but most people believe that Iraq is pretty much the same as Afghanistan)
An ill-informed populace is a danger to democracy. An ill-informed populace with a nuclear arsenal is a danger to humanity.
I think the answer lies in our schools. We need to find a way to encourage debate and foster an interst in current events at a young age. Requireing people to bring in newspapers articles to discuss in their senior year of high school isn’t going to cut it.
** even sven **
That is an interesting theory though I have seen politics discussed in the workplace and at gatherings, albeit mildly. I also don’t buy into the “Americans work hardest” idea because from my little experience people work pretty much 8-5/9-5, and only on weekdays. The truth is in developing countries, those in the workforce easily work 10-12 hour week days including weekends!
As you said, I do believe there is a cultural proclivity to work, come home, kick back and relax (which implies doing little to tax the mind) with the idea that the leisure time is substantially spent when it involves money!
It is hard to get background information. I find that your usual network news or CNN or newspaper simply ignores other nations—or relegates them to a small piece buried somewhere in the paper. The only place I know to go for international news is NPR. Even then, I am still confused most of the time because I don’t know the background story. News in the Middle East still confuses the heck outta me. It doesn’t seem to directly affect us to the major news sources, so they ignore it.
Without exposing the depths of my ignorance, could you explain how each of these countries is influential? Some I can understand. Some I know nothing about. A few seem about as far from influential as a country can get.
Back To The OP-The Philadelphia Inquirer has been having financial troubles. Besides other cutbacks, they’ve reduced the the international news department. The editorial staffs of Philly’s 2 free weeklies, The City Paper and Philadelphia Weekly, described this as incredibly stupid and said that the Inq should have expanded the department in order to increase sales.
It’s because the news media in the US don’t provide it, pure and simple. If they provided it, there woul be a market for it. Saying this is a cycle because media polls don’t find people interested in it is absurd – the media itself determines what people see and hear, and to a large degree what they are interested in.
I used to get this question a lot when I taught ESL in Europe.
It really is a simple answer. I personally watch the German newscast on digital cable from Deutsche Welle every morning. It is mostly international news, almost nothing about Germany. I probably know a lot more about what is going on in Turkey, EU, South American and Africa than most Americans.
But as I said above, the answer is simple.
You look at your country’s news and then you hear about America. The same goes in Mexico as it does in Germany, France, Bulgaria and India. Your country, and the USA. No, I am not a jingoist. Those are the facts, folks. At last count, I was in 28 different countries and every one of them covered their news, and then the USA.
Regardless of the fact that the USA is popular or unpopular in your country, it is still news.
Now…that is how many countries?
So, just because you know the capital, the president and the laws of your country and the capital, the president and the laws of the USA, does that make you well versed on international news?
I used to ask my German students:
Who is the president (or equivalent) of Bolivia, of Turkey, of Iceland, of Austalian, of Austria?
Let me know if one person reading this knows the answer without the use of Google.
What? You don’t know? So how do you expect a citizen of the US to know you? When you are the “big man on campus”, everybody knows your name. If you are not, then few people do.
I will bet money that most people reading this have TWO countries in mind…theirs (or the one they adopted) and the USA.
Again, this is not a matter of pride or honor or ego…the fact that Americans seem to know little about the rest of the world is simply because, in comparison, the rest of the world knows so much about the USA.
America is a nation of immigrants, & the decendents of immigrants.
But there is also the mindset that reads–“You’re here now, so stop thinking about where you came from & get with the program.”
We & our ancestors came from “the Old Country”, & we tend to view it as something left behind, & perhaps not important.
This may explain about our news attitudes.
I’ve lived in the States, and have always found access to world news abysmal. The internet, or a 1-hour “international” special on CNN late at night, were the only times I ever came up against non-US news.
I think the reason is very simple: it’s a business. They want advertisers to advertise so they can make a profit. In order to attract advertisers, they need popularity. And what’s more popular to someone in Kansas - the latest mini-tornado, or an earthquake in Mongolia?
The funniest thing I’ve heard (quoted by comedian Paul Merton) was a CNN story that essentially said “and finally… England! Yup, it’s still there. Isn’t it quaint!”.
Bosda has hit on it–the reason most of us are here is because our ancestors got tired of the constant wars and conflicts and corruption of their old countries. It’s the same old same old stories.
Oh wow, the Italians are going on strike again, oh wow, the British are shooting the Irish again, oh wow, the Russian economy is in trouble again, etc. etc. etc. It’s always the same stories. It’s often not NEWS. Hearing how screwed up other countries are gets frustrating–America changes and strives all the time and I think a lot of people lose patience with these countries that are just dead in the water. And since we have to work for a living and get no vacation time and can’t spend months at a time gallivanting around the world like Europeans and Australians can, we just don’t NEED to know a lot of this stuff anyway. Life is too complicated here.
And there’s 280 million of us, almost the whole pop of the EU in one country. There’s so much going on here it’s hard to keep track of every little place in the world.
And I’ve had plenty of current events discussions here in America. But at least in my circles, there are so many different viewpoints that the casual discussions often stop short as soon as people start getting offended. Social harmony is very important here, believe it or not; we don’t start rioting over soccer games and beauty pageants like some parts of the world.
JMO.
May I be the first to say that, even though it’s JYO, this is patronising and nonsensical, and, if you’ll forgive me, possibly revealing a little bit of a gap in your knowledge of other countries…?
What, the Russian economy is NOT in trouble? You’ve been whooshed.
Anyway, any American who exerts themselves in most parts of the country can find all the news they want, especially since the advent of the Internet.
BTW, just looked at the front page of today’s ‘Irish Independent’ on the web–not a smidgen of foreign news there. Hmmm.
Er, that’s precisely what I said. Where exactly do we disagree?
We have to work for a living too. And generally we’re poorer than Americans. It’s just that our priorities might be different. When I travel, it’s because I’ve worked my ass off to save, and taken a career break.
Really, this is just so much condescending crap. Specifically, the Russian economy is indeed in trouble. The reasons for this is worthy of discussion, even if it isn’t “breaking” news. And it “changes and strives” too. The British certainly aren’t “shooting at the Irish” - there’s been a ceasfire, an enormous political breakthrough during the past five years and, despite numerous setbacks, is on the verge of major peace. But you missed that, I guess. The Italians are on strike, I’ll give you that.
I’m sure some people don’t need to know anything outside your own city, county or state, but that’s not the point of this thread.
I don’t have a TV, actually, but I do not find it surprising that visual media is deficient. There is no shortage of print media that covers international affairs very deeply.
I am an American, and yes, I am an international news junkie. Most of my information comes from print media, especially The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and Current History. When I need my lunchtime international affairs fixes, I surf the internet.
Really, it’s not that hard. It is not very hard to educate yourself with respect to background information, too. All it takes is a little discipline, which is apparently not a big priority for many people.
even sven, this ties in a bit with my contribution (which I ripped off from an American writer who lived in France for a while). He felt that in the U.S., the conversations people (even strangers) would hold would be about sports, whereas in Europe people would talk about politics and international events. Sports in the U.S. is the safe common-ground discussion topic at work, on the bus, etc.
Oh, I so totally agree with this it’s sick! I used to get frustrated reading Canadian newspapers because I had to then go online to get background info.
When I gave up on North American media, I read a BBCi article and was pleasantly surprised to see that it contained basic historical background info on international affairs right there in the article (with time-lines as a sidebars if you want to know more). For issues like Enron, there was brief overview in layman’s terms to provide a context. Having even the most basic background info makes a huge, huge difference!
I find it frustrating to no end when “hype” surpercedes “information” and North American media outlets start leaning too much towards “infotainment.”
Back when I was more of an Internet newbie, the “Whitewater Scandal” was going on. I missed the earliest news reporting on the issue – the media were full of “scandal, scandal, scandal!” But I still had no idea what it was about. Surely someone would have a basic breakdown… I scoured the newspapers for a synopsis of who-did-what but came up empty.
Still, everyday it was “Whitewater! Scandal, scandal, scandal! Whitewater!” like a celebrity gossip column and no explanation to tell me what it was!
Where did I finally get a breakdown of the Whitewater scenario? A “Saturday Night Live” musical skit! How pathetic! Adam Sandler as Axl Rose providing a quick, factual overview of Whitewater in song.
Now I read news online from international sources, because even they have better coverage of American news (since they have to explain the basic to their readership and provide a context for the American news too.) Unfortunately, Canada rarely pops up in international coverage so I still need to get national news from national sources.
(Someone already said something along these lines, but…) A lot of it has to do with the fact that the US is so much larger than most European countries. Regional news for an American covers a couple of states, while regional news for Europeans covers a couple of countries. An awful lot of Europeans like to make a big deal about ‘international knowledge’, but the knowledge they’re talking about is just of regional interest and happens to cover several countries. Sure, Americans can’t list off every European country and its capital, but how many Europeans can list off every American state and its capital, or every southeast Asian country and capital?
Big in land area, yes, but not necessarily big in population. I don’t think you can or should compare states to sovereign nations. Furthermore, for example, the UK, while only the size of Texas, has a population just over 1/4 that of the entire US.
The OP says that many people lack the background to follow international news stories-- and I can believe it.
If you rely on TV to get your news, you’re not likely to get that background information. TV is very good on providing daily updates of the latest mayhem overseas-- because that’s cheap. Finding someone who can actually explain what went on, well, that’s a little more expensive. And it’s going to take more on-air time than the 2 minutes a local 6 o’clock broadcast is willing t devote to international news.
Pop quiz: Why are Jews and Palestinians fighting in the Middle East? I can tell you, but it’s gonna take a long, long time.