Posted on 05/28/2008 6:32:41 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
British newspaper writing is famously more vigorous and readable than its American equivalent. But this comes at a price: there’s a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn’t true.
When I worked as a leader writer for an American paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT. American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics. If a journalist for a major paper or TV network is found to have run a false story — perhaps because it was “too good to check” — then his or her career is generally over. In Britain, getting caught telling or repeating a lie is much less serious than cheating on expenses. This is especially true in the world of foreign reporting.
Take the broadsheet reporters who claimed there had been a massacre at “Jeningrad” in the West Bank on the dubious word of a single source. Even after all parties to the conflict pointed out that this massacre was a fantasy, the hoodwinked correspondents retained the trust of their editors.
There was the highly regarded foreign correspondent who won a prize for articles which included an interview with a top Taleban official who turned out not to exist at all.
Nevertheless I continued to insist to my American bosses that we should generally trust British papers. Then I came across a story in an English broadsheet announcing that a British Special Boat Service commando was being considered for the Medal of Honor, America’s highest military decoration and the equivalent of the Victoria Cross. After forwarding the piece to my boss, I was assigned to write a leader about this wonderful example of transatlantic appreciation.
The defence correspondent of the British broadsheet in question had given no source for his claim. But less than five minutes research revealed that it was legally impossible for foreigners to be awarded the Medal of Honor. (The SBS commando did exist and had fought with extraordinary bravery.) Nevertheless the broadsheet had reported a mere rumour as fact. Apparently it was one of those stories that are simply “too good to check.”
>> there’s a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn’t true.
And that’s different from an American newspaper exactly how?
Oh, brother. A comedy article, right?
And that’s different from an American newspaper exactly how?there’s a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn’t true.
American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics. If a journalist for a major paper or TV network is found to have run a false story — perhaps because it was “too good to check” — then his or her career is generally over. </sarcasm>
would make sense considering the crap that comes from the BBC.
“When I worked as a leader writer for an American paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT”
Yes, yes, yes, I have been saying this for years! The British Press is wrong more often than it is right. The Telegraph and the Guardian are the absolute worst of a very bad lot. When I read stories in the British Press about things which I had a direct knowledge of, I also found many, many factual errors.
“When I worked as a leader writer for an American paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT”
Yes, yes, yes, I have been saying this for years! The British Press is wrong more often than it is right. The Telegraph and the Guardian are the absolute worst of a very bad lot. When I read stories in the British Press about things which I had a direct knowledge of, I also found many, many factual errors.
Oh, brother. A comedy article, right?American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics.
American journalists do follow a strict code. If an American journalist is caught selling a con, his fellow journalists are all over the case in a heartbeat . . . obfuscating the obvious and assuring that journalists to continue not believing their own lying eyes. Certainly never piling on and pointing out the untrustworthiness of that colleague.
“Kenneth, What’s the Frequency?” ...
Acquisition by Rupert Murdoch has destroyed what used to be the best British newspapers, just as he is doing here in the US.
British libel laws are tougher than US libel laws. Bill Clinton’s autobiography had to excise some of his comments about Ken Starr and possibly other people he slurred as to action and motive.
Socialism’s been doing a good job on the British press since even the days before Murdoch left Australia.
George Orwell wrote about it back in 1947. They had lots of criticism of the US and UK governments but never a bad word for Stalin or the USSR even in the midst of WWII.
Jason Blair syndrome.
Fake but accurate.
SeeBS
The war has become unwinable...
If British “journalists” are looking to American ones as an example of “ethical” then they are in serious trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.