On balance
The points people make about the Ö÷²¥´óÐã are interesting and I take note of them. To my mind, the Democrats have been the bigger story up to now and I think we are right to do more about them; though that balance might well be about to change.
An imbalance in the minutes devoted to each side does not denote bias. What I watch for is a contemptuous attitude towards a party's values - or one that suggests that they are self-evident truths! Having said that, the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is a British news organisation and part of our appeal (I hope) is that we offer a foreign perspective. Un-American is okay, it seems to me - but not anti-American.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
sounds perfectly reasonable to this American!
Last weekend the biggest story was John McCain winning in a Southern state. This proves he has overcome his previous Achilles heal & makes him much more likely to be the Republican candidate. However this was covered very lightly compared to Obama & Clintons indicisive spats to date. The fact is that the Democrats are much better tabloid fodder & Ö÷²¥´óÐã News in the UK is just another tabloid outlet these days.
Justin,
I find many of your reports from the USA very insightful, however, I have to agree that you do allow a Democrat bias to pollute your posts.
In fact I sometimes find myself wondering if you actually hate our American friends, no doubt I am being paronoid, yet the feeling does persist.
Of course the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is a left of centre media organisation, I believe that Andrew Marr admitted to this charge, but compared to the other news outlets you still stand head and shoulders above them.
My apologies Mr. Webb.
I have to confess that I was becoming concerned that your blog was focusing too much on the Republican side. I also made some comments on this blog stating just that. And a few weeks ago, this did indeed appear to be the case.
However, I now realise that the balance has shifted to focus more on the Democrats.
I appreciate that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã has the opportunity to achieve balance over a period of time and I also now accept that you have achieved just that.
I would never suggest (as Bill O'Reilly routinely does) that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is "anti-American", however. That accusation is absurd. I think this comes from people who confuse scrutiny with anti-Americanism.
People see the bias they want to see. It seem to me that Mr. Webb's reporting so far this campaign has been nothing short of spot on, but maybe that's what I want to see...
I think this is absolutely fair, and I would also defend the Ö÷²¥´óÐã. Having followed events closely in America for the last few weeks, I see alarming vitriol on the US networks, and on high profile blog sites such as Newsvine. In general the Ö÷²¥´óÐã coverage has been excellent.
I found in the year I spent as an Englishman in New York (well, DC actually but permission to use poetic licence please?), that it could be difficult to criticise an element of American culture without being deemed to be attacking the country and its people as a whole.
I was, as Justin I imagine, there because in general I am dearly fond of America. But that didn't and doesn't make me blind to its faults justas I am not to those of ol' Blighty. Don't immediately leap to the defensive when a critical point is made and don't dismiss it simply because it is not made by an American.
I'm asking for trouble here aren't I?
As a european completely bemused by events in this election process, can someone please reassure me that there is NO member of the BUSH family, howver extended, who is qualified to stand in this election?
It just occurred to me that with all the different choices available to the parties there might just be another BUSH waiting in the wings to get chosen by default.
Don't worry Phil, it's too late at this point for another Republican candidate to jump into the race. In 2004 there was speculation that Jeb Bush would run in 2008, but W is so disliked at this point that it could never happen. Just look at how all of the Republican candidates contort themselves trying to distance themselves from Bush, never mentioning his name in debates and apparently begging him not to endorse them...
Phil: No, no one new can enter the race now; they have to declare by a certain deadline which is long past. From now on they can only drop out, not join in.
Phil can be reassured - the expectation that Jeb Bush would stand and henceforth ban elections was overstated from the first.
The Ö÷²¥´óÐã coverage is clear and focuses on the same people the American press focuses on. It is a reliable indicator of whom the press assume to have won and whose is the most important result, for example after the equivocal Nevada result both the Ö÷²¥´óÐã and the American media focussed on Hillary taking the popular vote and thereby stoked her campaign whereas Barack Obama won more delegates but a dismal share of the vote. This does fill me with confidence that the correct assumptions can be made from reading the Ö÷²¥´óÐã as well as the NYT and Washington Post.
Keep it up Justin. Perhaps you could teach the British politics department some lessons in fair reporting as the standard has been slipping in recent years.
I've been following the American election through the British and American media and have come to find that CNN's coverage is more insighful and unbiased than any other and that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã does have an iritating democrat bias. But this blog is usually very good, and more impartial than the rest of the BCC site.
The problem of democrat bias is not confined to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã though, its endemic in the entire British media, even the right wing Times concentrates more on the democrats. This is because of the the simple fact that the story of either the first black or first woman president sells more newspapers and attracts more veiwers than the possibility of the 44th white male president.
Although it's frustrating for those in Britain who really want good unbiased coverage of the race that the British media concentrates on the democrats, it is understandable, and people who really want the indepth coverage can use the American media online anyway.
What about Ron Paul comming second in Nevada?
or do you only report on AIPAC owned candidates?
Thanks for attempting fair coverage. Might I suggest covering Edwards, too? I think he's got a shot in the Democratic race if he does well in SC and/or feb. 5th states. I think he's not getting fair coverage just because he's not a novelty/celebrity candidate. People want to see a woman or African-American in office (and so do I when the right person is running) but voters are so caught up in the hype that they aren't looking into the candidates' issues. In general, the media isn't helping. I hope the bbc, as an outside source, will be the exception. Thanks.
Comment number 4 is right, O'Reilly seems to think that anyone who critises the Bush administration is anti-American. Were that actually true then 70% of Americans would be anti-American! Whatever the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's biases they are much more objective than Fox news and much more in tune with mainstream America.
In the very early weeks of this campaign, I sent an email to you, asking that you please continue the great coverage you gave of our elections. I also asked if you could actually monitor the USA media coverage to see if my anger with them was warranted. I think if you did that, you would be doing the American public a great favor. How can we get media coverage for our anger with our media.?.they aren't going to air it obviously..so, as a very angry viewer of US press, I felt helpless to do find a way to express my opinions. I have read many blogs expressing the same feelings, but those don't reach the powers that be. My honest reaction is that the media are trying to force Obama on us. I had to come to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã website to hear Hillary's victory speeches..When she won they didn't congratulate her, they questioned why he didn't win.! Doesn't that imply that they were pretty sure he had it wrapped up. One of our anchormen, was actually speechless. I check several tv stations and their websites and all most all of them posted Obama's picture on the night that Hillary won..and that's not mentioning the trumendous damage I believe they have done to John Edwards' campaign. I am behind you 100% and what people seem to forget, is that this isn't a campaign where you can cover Rep's as much as you do the Dem's because the Dem's are in a huge history making campaign. I see equal coverage of all the Republican candidates, which is totally fair, and I have yet to hear one of them accuse any media for lack of coverage..they seem to understand, respect and enjoy witnessing history being writen. I would have loved to observe Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King in their fight for our rights. God Bless American and you and your great Nation. Thank you for being my way of looking from the outside in.
To #8 Phil:
THERE ARE NO BUSHies WAITING IN THE WINGS. I am an American and I reciprocate you fear of a Bushie waiting to jump in.
In relation to the Article:
I really don't see how reporting here, meaning yours or Ö÷²¥´óÐã reporting in general, as being biased in any way.
I watch Bill O'Reilly and I too have never understand his view as the Ö÷²¥´óÐã being anti-american.
I think the previous prevalence that republican focused stories have had was due to the simple fact that there were more stories to be found there.
Now the Democrats are more interesting so they have a greater prevalence among the articles.
Two weeks from now it'll probably be back at Republicans.
I just think some American readers are just getting a bit precious about all this - they're not compelled to read what you have to say, so carry on, Justin.
Is this the same Justin Webb who said:
"America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based on knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one"?
It's not the criticism of the US that is the problem. It's the constant Bush-bashing and America-as-imperialist-destroyer-of-the-planet accusations that get so tiresome.
Honestly, we've been blamed for just about everything (and done it all for oil, it seems).
Now, it seems our star is fading, our economy is about to implode, and we're washed up as a world leader.
Have I forgotten anything?
It's a wonder we've survived this long...
Hey Phil,
Don't rule out Jeb Bush? You may see a third Bush just yet!!! A Romney/Bush ticket, perhaps??
My issue with Ö÷²¥´óÐã's coverage is similar to my reaction to the US media's coverage. It's very pro-Clinton. The motivation for it is very different though. The EU is longing to work with an intelligent U.S. President. And let's face it, the Bill Clinton years were much more amicable and peaceful. Conversely, the right-wing US media knows McCain can be Clinton, so they are pushing for her.
Don't worry, Phil, we Americans would never elect another Bush. ;)
I've been paying attention to Ö÷²¥´óÐã News since 2000 and I've always recognized a left-of-center, liberal, european viewpoint. However, most of the American media has a liberal bias also and favors the Democrats, so the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not unique in that way. I will say though that although I don't know exactly where you stand politically Justin I have found your blog refreshing in that it does seem that you are trying to understand both Democrats and Republicans. I occasionally read analysis from a Ö÷²¥´óÐã reporter that hacks me but I've enjoyed your blog so far and always look it up when logging on to Ö÷²¥´óÐã News.
Phil,
I believe that the only member of the Bush family who is precluded from standing in the election ould be G. W. Bush, who has served two terms, and is therefore term limited.
G. H. Bush can stand again, as can his other son Jebb Bush, his wife or any other member of the Bush family not limited by age or country of birth.
Surely one point about potential bias when covering the US elections is simply this: the centre ground in America is further to the right than in the UK. So even the Democrats (at least the mainstream ones) are centre or maybe even centre-right by British standards. Even soft Republicans would be pretty much unelectable in the UK; the more conservative end of the party looks dangerously extremist by British standards.
So if the Ö÷²¥´óÐã appears to be instinctually more sympathetic to the Democrats that's probably a fair reflection of a British perspective on American politics.
I think what some American readers don't understand is that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is regarded as almost completely unbiased in the UK (although this can occasionally make it a bit bland) while this will probably look like 'liberal bias' in the US. The UK and US have quite different values and I think Britain's centre is very much America's left!
Given some of the often negative views in the US for other countries and cultures, the "anti-American" concept is risible.
And it is true the Democrats are a bigger story. Here the front runners come from two constituencies which have never held such offices in the US. That alone is important.
Although it is noticeable that Justin never seems to ask why, in a democracy, just why it has taken so long.
The Ö÷²¥´óÐãs coverage has been pretty good as far as I can tell, if a little Democrat focused. It's all very interesting, but a little confusing to a poor Brit used to our relatively simple political system!
The only way i can understand it all is to look at straight-talking blogs like which are explaining it all from the ground up! phew.
I must say, I do largely love the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's coverage on issues; I think they have (on the hole) a very fair and noledgable staff of reporters, who seem to really care about what they've been asigned to. However I must say that your blog in particular does at some points, contain a bit of rudeness in my opinion. For example in your entry on your Christmas White House visit, you seemed to take Bush's comments very personally, when I'm sure they weren't ment that way; I'm sure he was just joking-although he isn't the most street-smart person in the world, and I can understand how that might be hard to decerne. Also, your comment on our journalists somehow perhaps being less honest than those in the UK because we (may) be payd more, I think is rediculous. This isn't to say that money doesn't influence people in a negative fashion-it most certainly does! But to say that (all) American journalists are dishonest in their reporting because they may be payd more is just a bit of a stretch and rude. You don't know for sure that they do get payd more, and I doubt very much that they in fact do. I also doubt that if journalists in the UK were offered more money for their jobs, that many would turn it down.
But on the whole, love the reporting-keep it up!!!
"An imbalance in the minutes devoted to each side does not denote bias"..? There's a very explicit bias right there. "Each side" favors the two party rigged system. Like all mainstream media, there is a virtual news blackout on third party candidacies. A kind of censorship of omission reinforces this notion implicitly. A "party's values"..? Just what "values" do either wing of the Republi-crat duopoly represent pray tell, other than their own self-interest? When someone like Ralph Nader comes along, who really does have values, he is pilloried in the press for "crashing the party". We could do with a much more critical press, both foreign and domestic. We've been guilty of just about every kind of crime in foreign affairs for which there has been bipartisan support. And it's about time we were held to account for it. If that's 'anti-Americanism', then "bring it on". It's a wonder that the rest of the world has survived American imperialism this long...
Call me a critic but even as a avid lover of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã I was shocked when there never seemed to be no mention of Ron Paul anywhere, or the fact you didn't even seem to report about Fox News banning him from a debate, even through the polling qualified him for it.
Yes the bigger candidates will get more airtime and news that is a fact, but seeing finally a profile on Ron Paul has made me smile, even if he never wins there should be a chance for candidates to have their say people can at least be aware of what they stand for.
I don't see the Ö÷²¥´óÐã as biased towards one of the two parties. But people in the US do have to realise that what they call are left-wing/liberal politicians (like the democrats) are considered in most of Europe as very conservative politicians on the right.
Although I am not English and can't really compare, I do think the Democrats have more in common with the Conservative Party than they have with Labour.
Absolutely agree with Richard that the US & UK political spectrums are don't begin and end in the same places.
Reporting has to be impartial but it cannot be completely neutral, or value-free, as it has to accord with some of the most basic assumptions of the audience. A piece that scrupulously went to great lengths to be impartial about Nazism ('was it a good thing or a bad thing?') would seem bizarre and alien: we are a liberal democracy, and we expect our news reporters to work within the same 'big' assumptions that come with that.
It is the 'little' ideas under debate (Labour vs Tories, Dems vs. GOP e.g.) that require absolute impartiality.
The US & UK differ in their ideas of what are the nuts & bolts and what are the trimmings on top, and misunderstandings can arise.
At some point, however, journalists do have to call a spade a spade: outright criticism can violate impartiality, but refusal to criticise can makes one an apologist, and that equally violates impartiality.
A war of aggression waged for profit, for instance, is inexcusable, utterly and without exception, in all civil societies.
I am sometimes made uncomfortable by right-wing American accusations of 'liberal bias'. I can't help but think that what some of them mean is 'not pro-US enough for my liking'. If reporting throughout the Bush years, especially on foreign policy, has not always made this administration look great, the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not necessarily to blame. Trying to claim that it is seems to me dishonest.
To adapt Oscar Wilde: 'the Republican's dislike of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.'
Did any one do a fact check on the % for Obama and Hillary?
If you added up the votes, about 530,000 were cast, of which 14,200 or so went to Hillary. 29,600 or so were cast for Obama. When I had the excat figures on CNN screen, the actual % were:
55.67% Obama (round up to 56%) as opposed to the reported 55%
26.1% for Hillary (round down to 26%) as opposed to teh reported 27%.
Why this discrepancy? What happens when the votes are closer? How will they report?
After all, accounting in election should be fair and correct?
U.S.A
I am interested in how the author claims on 1/21 he wishes to bring a foreign perspective to the press coverage of the race. That's sorely needed. (That's one of the reasons foreign authors write such great American history; take Hugh Brogan for example.) I don't read much different on this blog from the cable news shows and their received wisdom. Lots of talk about President Clinton, but few actual quotations in context.
In November, I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. On February 5, 2008, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton. Both represent change from the status quo -- George W. Bush! But I do not expect Republicans to change and I suspect Hillary will be a better fighter in office than Senator Obama.