The British media
The British media would have you believe that the British public is vehemently against the war. Yet, today in the British parliament, the ?anti-war amendment? was defeated 396 to 217 (including 129 Labor) votes. Why is there such a disconnect between reality and the coverage thereof by the British press? 65% of parliament just voted for the war! I just don?t get it.
Comments
Our democracy, your democracy does not necessarily represent appropriately popular opinion.
I saw some polls recently that British support was growing, and although it wasn't quite as strong as it is in the US, it was quite close. Nothing unites the UK better than the French.
412 ÷ 561 => 73.4% !!!
There can?t be such a discrepancy between the way parliament votes and the sentiment of the people. I just can?t accept this argument. (Even if the democratic system isn?t based on proportional representation). The only other possibility is that the British press is highly biased against the war, as reflected in its coverage. In which case, one has to ask why that is so?
People often rally to support their leaders. MPs rally to support their party or their PM. They do this despite their own ideas.
In a purely statistical environment, those who are neutral or divided on the situation should be split up the middle when voting takes place. In the case of politics, most neutrals will vote in favor of their party or their leader. Most of the public will support their leader. Blair is VERY popular. That doesn't mean the people support the war. That just means they support Blair. [/QUOTE]
Look at the numbers again. Only 129 laborites voted with their leader..
On the second vote probably 5-10 more. Still, most of the votes came from the opposition, and not from Blair?s party.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Look at the numbers again. Only 129 laborites voted with their leader..
On the second vote probably 5-10 more. Still, most of the votes came from the opposition, and not from Blair?s party. [/B]
Mika,
You don't mention where you're from, so I'm going to make an assumption and assume that you are from the mid-west somewhere.
Much of the time, the UK parliament pretty much reflects public opinion here in the UK. That's relatively easy to do when the issues you are talking about are health, education and law/order, but when the issues become more contentious - on topics such as immigration, asylum policy and deploying troops - that consensus begins to break down.
On the subject of the war in Iraq, those opinions are being stretched simply because the British public is deeply cynical about the motives for this action, and does not believe that a unequivocal case has been made for a pre-emptive military action.
An MP's term in office is not defined by law in this country, it is defined by the will of the Prime Minister up to a maximum of five years. The last election was in 2001, so the latest date for the next General Election is May 2006 which is some three years away. However, in that intervening period, an MP's career can be defined by their ability to deliver benefits to their constituency which is a far more direct relationship than exists in the US, simply because of the size of the seats in question - a congressman in California has a constituency of 30 million odd, an MP in the UK has a constituency of no more that 200,000, and more likely 150,000.
Far from making the MP more powerful, this actually plays into the hands of the ruling party who can simply use a carrot-and-stick approach to keeping their own MPs in line.
Curiously, since the precipitous action of our Gallic chums on Monday, public opinion here is becoming more complex: there is still enormous ambivalence to the issue of deploying troops, but - due to nearly 500 years of historical mistrust - there is a recognition that the French position effectively forced the issue: The fact that France holds down nearly US$1 billion worth of trade with Iraq has not helped the case of "Old Europe" and I suspect that the most recent contribution from the Elysee Palace ("We'll come on board if Iraq uses NBC weapons") has simply made people believe that France's position is totally self-motivated.
As a result, some of the British support for "our" troops will come as a result of our mistrust of French foreign policy rather than any enthusiasm for watching Iraq being bombed back into the Stone Age.
Still, if this war has to happen, let's hope it doesn't turn into another Korea or Vietnam.
This was one of the biggest revolts ever in Parlimentary history. Winning the vote was not the issue.
When Robin Cook resigned, his speech got a standing ovation from the other MP's, something that simply doesn't happen.
This was a very big deal and despite Tony Blair being a very popular leader, this may still cost him his job.
The British people, like the people of most other countries apart from the US and Israel, do not want war.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Why is there such a disconnect between reality and the coverage thereof by the British press? 65% of parliament just voted for the war! I just don?t get it.
There isn't a disconnect between reality and the coverage thereof by the British press.
There is a huge disconnect between the will of the country and the voting patterns of British MPS.
Nonetheless, this was not 'one of the biggest parliamentary rebellions.' No, this was THE biggest parliamentary rebellion in British history, despite the fact that the vote was not a 'free vote,' but MPs were instructed how to vote.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The British people, like the people of most other countries apart from the US and Israel, do not want war.
You are largely correct in your observations and it is true that popular support for war is higher in the US and Israel than elsewhere (except perhaps amongst Bin Laden and his friends who likely wanted this war more than Bush and his friends).
But I think the level of US disapproval should not be underestimated. There is actually a very large base of US citizens who oppose the war even though this is rarely reflected in the media (I guess it ought to be noted that the other party who desperately wants war is CNN for whom this war means massive revenues and skyrocketing ratings. They, after all, largely own the rights to the war).
From "Wired", although I do not have a link as I got this via my PDA:
Media Watchdogs Caught Napping
By Leander Kahney
02:00 AM Mar. 17, 2003 PT
In the run up to a conflict in Iraq, foreign news websites are seeing large volumes of traffic from America, as U.S. citizens increasingly seek news coverage about the coming war.
"Given how timid most U.S. news organizations have been in
challenging the White House position on Iraq, I'm not surprised if
Americans are turning to foreign news services for a perspective
on the conflict that goes beyond freedom fries," said Deborah
Branscom, a Newsweek contributing editor, who keeps a weblog
devoted to media issues.
In January, for example, half the visitors to the Guardian Unlimited
news site, an umbrella site for Britain's left-leaning Guardian and
Observer newspapers, were from the Americas.
According to Nielsen/NetRatings, 49 percent of the Guardian's 1.3
million unique visitors (that's the number of different visitors, not
the site's total traffic) in January originated from the Americas.
Likewise, Nielsen said a quarter of the visitors to the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation's website in January were from the
Americas.
"What we're seeing is a lot of searching for news information,
particularly from America," said Richard Goosey, NetRating's international chief of measurement science.
Traffic from the Americas was not the result of an across-the-board increase in news consumption, Goosey said.
While news websites in general saw a 3 percent increase in traffic between December 2002 and January 2003, the Guardian saw a 10 percent increase in visitors, Goosey said. Meanwhile, CNN's website, one of the most popular news sites in the United States, saw a small decline in traffic.
Nonetheless, NetRatings reported that traffic from U.S. Internet users to all news sites was up markedly in February. U.K.-based news sites, including the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC, saw increased traffic from American users that month. So did MSNBC and CNN, two of the most popular U.S. sites.
Jon Dennis, Guardian Unlimited deputy news editor, said U.S. readers are visiting his site for the range of opinions it publishes, and to engage in vigorous debate. Media outlets in the United States, he said, are not presenting the issues critically.
"As a journalist, I find it quite strange that there's not more criticism of the Bush administration in the American media," he said. "It's as though the whole U.S. is in shock (from Sept. 11). It's hard for (the media) to be dispassionate about it. It seems as though they're not thinking as clearly as they should be."
Dennis charged that, unlike much of the American press, the Guardian site presents both pro- and anti-war positions. In addition, the Guardian encourages its readers to debate the issues, through the site's talk boards and interactive features like live interviews with various experts.
The only debate in the U.S. media is on the Web, Dennis said. "Weblogs are doing all the work that the U.S. media did in the past," he said. "That's an interesting development."
In fact, a lot of the Guardian's U.S. traffic is referred by weblogs, especially Matt Drudge's Drudge Report, said Nielsen's Goosey. "The new war in Iraq has made world news sources far more important," said Stephen Gilliard, who posts a lot of foreign news stories to the weblog at NetSlaves. "While not all news sources are reliable, there is such a gap between the way Americans see the world and the way other people do that it is invaluable to use these resources."
There is also a growing tide of criticism of the U.S. media from members of the media, such as veteran CBS broadcaster Dan Rather.
Rather recently complained to the BBC about the media's lack of access to government officials, and the growth of "Milatainment" reality shows on U.S. TV, including ABC's Profiles from the Front Line and VH1's Military Diaries.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "(U.S. TV news) seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media."
That's not to say U.S. news outlets are devoid of criticism for leaders' handling of the conflict in Iraq. Krugman himself is a case in point, having published a column last week with an opening sentence stating that "America's leadership has lost touch with reality."
Barb Palser, online media columnist for the American Journalism Review, believes that many visitors to foreign news sites are finding their way through links from U.S.-based publications. She cites the example of The Spokesman Review, a newspaper in Spokane, Washington, which provides links to outside news services, many of them overseas, as part of its Iraq coverage. Another source that may be pointing U.S. news junkies overseas, Palser said, is Google. A search on Google News for the terms "Iraq" and "war" turned up more than 54,000 links, with articles from Australian, British and Saudi Arabian news outlets topping the list.
Joanna Glasner contributed to this report.
Home
Copyright © 2002 Lycos, Inc.
All rights reserved.
- T.I.
a congressman in California has a constituency of 30 million odd, an MP in the UK has a constituency of no more that 200,000, and more likely 150,000.
It's a minor point but you are mentioning the exception more so than the rule. As you say, a Senator from California has represents 30 million people or so. However that's more the exception than the rule. For the for the vast majority of Congressmen their constituency is fewer than a million. It's 750,000 or so for the House members on mean and thereabouts, fewer than a million say, for almost all of them. Likewise it is in that neighborhood for your Senators from a few places, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Delaware etc. Probably around 85% or so represent a constituency of a million or fewer.
(clicky)
I have serious man-love for Tony Blair, what a rock!
Furthermore, both public and politicians have been impressed by Blair's unwavering dedication to the "rightness" of his cause, and by France's perceived determination to scupper Blair's huge efforts to get a second U.N. resolution. Significantly, 68 percent of the British public in the Telegraph's poll now says President Jacques Chirac was wrong to say France would veto the second U.N. resolution, with only 21 percent saying he was right.
Take that, Frenchie!
I always thought this would be a UN deal, but France's stubborness kicked me in the balls on that one. Ah well, as long as we have the Brits who needs the UN!?
En-ger-land! En-ger-land!
Hell, even the anti-war left in England is smart:
Short's decision to stay in the government may therefore be seen as more of the modern British way of politics than Cook's resignation. For all her public complaints about Blair's Iraq policy being 'reckless' and private vows to leave the Cabinet if Blair went to war without a U.N. resolution, she chose to stay because she thought she could do more good to help rebuild Iraq after the war.
You don't just pout, cry and quit, you stay and fight for what's right, damnit!
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
Mika,
.
.
Far from making the MP more powerful, this actually plays into the hands of the ruling party who can simply use a carrot-and-stick approach to keeping their own MPs in line.
.
.
You're basically making the same argument as tonton. This is a false argument, as the numbers clearly attest. Most of the votes did NOT come from the ruling party, but from the opposition!! What incentive would they, THE OPPOSITION, have voting for Blair?
Originally posted by The Installer
Slightly off-topic but still...
From "Wired", although I do not have a link as I got this via my PDA:
.
.
According to Nielsen/NetRatings, 49 percent of the Guardian's 1.3
million unique visitors (that's the number of different visitors, not
the site's total traffic) in January originated from the Americas.
Likewise, Nielsen said a quarter of the visitors to the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation's website in January were from the
Americas.
.
.
- T.I.
There?s even a simpler explanation to this. It?s called google. A great deal of their primary links concerning the ME are either to the Washington Post, the Guardian, or Albawaba .
Originally posted by Retrograde
You are largely correct in your observations and it is true that popular support for war is higher in the US and Israel than elsewhere (except perhaps amongst Bin Laden and his friends who likely wanted this war more than Bush and his friends).
But I think the level of US disapproval should not be underestimated. There is actually a very large base of US citizens who oppose the war even though this is rarely reflected in the media (I guess it ought to be noted that the other party who desperately wants war is CNN for whom this war means massive revenues and skyrocketing ratings. They, after all, largely own the rights to the war).
Bin Laden, if he?s still alive does NOT want this war. Bin Laden, like Saddam, and many other Arabs have a very low opinion of American resolve. They have Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon to cite as examples. They?ve badly miscalculated here, which won?t be the first time. And if one reads the leftist opinions and opinions such as yours, one can see why they would make such miscalculations, even at the present.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Why is there such a disconnect between reality and the coverage thereof by the British press? 65% of parliament just voted for the war! I just don?t get it.
There isn't. The disconnect is between the parliament and the people, not the news and the people. But you knew that, you're just trolling....
65% voted for it.
52% of the people would vote for it.
Scandal!
Exactly 50 percent of people polled for the Daily Telegraph say they now support military action; hardly a majority, but that bumps to 52 percent who said they would have backed Blair if they had voted in Parliament. A week ago the British public was 65 percent opposed to committing British troops in a war with Iraq without a new U.N. resolution, with only 26 percent in favor.
Kick rocks.
Originally posted by bunge
There isn't. The disconnect is between the parliament and the people, not the news and the people. But you knew that, you're just trolling....
bunge,
I?m a little closer the scene than you are. I?m also a tad more honest than you are. There?s a deliberate campaign of deception in the European media. Most have taken cue from the French, and are trying to appease Arab and Muslim audiences at home and abroad. Their lip service and their action (or inaction) on the Yugoslav conflict is indicative of this. So is their spin on this current conflict. But sophistry can only go so far. Even yours.