Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in
oups.com:


Nate Perkins wrote:

...

I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that

they

get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?


I think they do get better news than we do.

Having lived in a country where the main source of news was British, I
think you're seriously wrong. If you think Fox and CNN are bad for
slanting the news, you should see what British journalists do. They
don't even maintain the degree of separation between fact and opinion
that you find in American television.

There are also some legal issues that make it anywhere from harder to
flat impossible for the British media to cover some matters. When I was
there there was a big flap about a British defense official misusing
press censorship ("D notices") to protect his family.


More in depth. More
evenhanded. If more American news were like BBC World News I would like
it a lot better.

The BBS World News service is rather an exception to the above.

I think the news in America is really superficial.

Nate, you have _no_ idea. (As Jeremy Irons said in a couple of different
contexts.) There is a reason we call them 'news gerbils.'

--RC