Do They Mean Us?

The British press has a good reputation over here. Or rather, had. It's the Guardian that's causing people to think again, unsurprisingly. The estimable Glenn Reynolds, has this comment on InstaPundit.Com: "People are always telling me that the British press recycles all sorts of crap without checking it, but this takes the cake." There's also been a useful investigation by my friend Trevor Butterworth, an Irish grad of TCD (I think), into how the British press breaks stoies which then turn out to be complete codswallop. It's on Salon, unfortunately, which I haven't touched since it went "premium", but if the link turns out to be free, I'll post it here.

Nevertheless, there's still a lot to be said for British journalism. The commentary columns are a lot better, the sports reporting is head and shoulders above the awful American sports journalism, which could never produce a Cardus or Arlott, or even an investigator like Mihir Bose. There's also a sense of humor that's sadly missing from the tedious reportage of American papers. Moreover, although the British press does recycle any old rubbish, at least it doesn't impose a uniformally leftist spin on everything. A colleague met a senior Washington Post correspondent recently, who admitted that, when new data are released, journalists view it as their responsibility to tell their readers what to think about them. There is editorializing in the British news pages, but it's labeled as such (if only by the acknowledged stance of the paper) and it comes from varying standpoints. Overall, I'll take the British press over the American, even if I do have to keep my Rubbish Detector on at all times.