Jump to content
Complete France Forum

BBC & the US Election

Gardian

By Gardian
in Other Topics

Recommended Posts

Gardian Community Regular

Gardian

Posted
Posted

This isn't particularly new: it happens regularly at any worldwide event.

Is it me though, or isn't there a bit of reporter overkill going on? In addition to the east coast based BBC staff (Mark Mardell, Johnny Diamond, Laura Trevelyan, and James something), I've so far counted at least two more in the shape of John Sopel and Clive Myrie, with the addition of James Naughtie (in his case radio only I suppose). I've probably missed one or two.

Mrs G just told me that Huw Edwards has just popped up - how long before Sophie, George and few others show their faces?

Don't get me wrong, the US Election is important (and I hope that Obama gets re-elected), but at a time when the Beeb is subject to severe budgetary constraints, aren't they overdoing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clair Newbie

Clair

Posted
Posted
Several of them are already based in the US. Mark Mardell is the North-US Editor and Jonny Dymond is the Washington correspondent.

It's a big place to cover and they have people in the main areas of contention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20103937

To be honest, I hardly ever watch international news on French TV because they only report from the studio and don't have many correspondents abroad.

(That and the fact that when they do find someone to interview, they speak over whoever, rather than use subtitles.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickP Community Regular

NickP

Posted
Posted

[quote user="NormanH"]I watch Al Jezeera (seriously)
It was excellent last time.
I believe that since it has been bought by someone else and may be less good this time.
[/quote]

 

I watch Al Jeezera Norman and I think it is excellent, also I don't feel that it's biased in any way but does give a slightly different slant on the news. I understand that a lot of the Al Jeezera English language news is broadcast from the UK, and I believe it's upset Mr Murdock by winning the rights to show some of the English Premier league football, so to upset Murdock must be a plus point, . As for the BBC the coverage for me is a little heavy, but we have to realise that they are in competition with lots of other news channels, and as a UK licence fee payer I really can't object or maybe it would become studio bound as Clair said about the French news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gardian Community Regular

Gardian

Posted
  • Author
Posted

[quote user="Clair"]Several of them are already based in the US. Mark Mardell is the North-US Editor and Jonny Dymond is the Washington correspondent.


[/quote]

Yes .................   I knew that, in fact I said it.

Oh and my my question wasn't "Who offers the best coverage?"  Forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickP Community Regular

NickP

Posted
Posted

[quote user="Cendrillon"]and the winner is................................... OBAMA ![:)]

I heard it on the radio [;-)]
[/quote]

Tut tut, you'll upset Guardian he didn't ask that, although I am led to believe the Twitter coverage was pretty good. [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quillan Newbie

Quillan

Posted
Posted

One thing good that comes out of this is that when you look at the American political system and compare it to the UK the UK model of Queen and a non elected second house looks much better than having a President from one party who has control over one house and not the other and it's the other that blocks his every move.

Gone Fishing [6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulT Newbie

PaulT

Posted
Posted

As this is basically over I will take this in a different direction [:D]

When we lived in Surrey, 1 mile from the West Sussex border, we got BBC London as a region. On the news it was all about London and nothing about Surrey.

Paul

PS agree with Clair that the US is a very large place and States have a very large control. So there is a great deal to cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quillan Newbie

Quillan

Posted
Posted

[quote user="Pommier"]Did Romney appeal more to intelligent voters? (or not!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U&feature=share

[/quote]

Can you put a warning up when you post these links, I have a dodgy heart you know and I didn't stop laughing all the way through. Mind you in fairness you could do the same sort of interview in the UK after an election but then I don't think we make ourselves out to be so self righteous as the Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frederick Newbie

Frederick

Posted
Posted
As Obama has said he  has learned a lot from the election and wants to work with Mitt Romney . I think he is playing a good hand . If he gets Romney to work with him on putting together matters that end up on the floor of the house . Are the Republicans going to continue playing  the blocking games you mention if the guy they chose to stand for President has his name on them ?  Interesting times ahead .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quillan Newbie

Quillan

Posted
Posted
I remember somebody, an American probably, saying that the maximum terms for a US President is two terms or a maximum of 10 years depending on what they are involved in, like a world war. In fact Roosevelt is the only one to have done ten years. So basically the first term they are a bit careful in what they do (so as to get re-elected for a second) but in the second term  they really get to grips with what they want to do because at the end that's it, finished, no more Mr President. So it will be interesting to see what Obama does, or succeeds in doing, during his second term. He may surprise the world yet, I hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarkkent Newbie

Clarkkent

Posted
Posted

[quote user="Quillan"] ... So basically the first term they are a bit careful in what they do (so as to get re-elected for a second) but in the second term  they really get to grips with what they want to do because at the end that's it, finished, no more Mr President. ....[/quote]

Indeed. In the second term they are free from the need for electioneering. I think the state of permanent electioneering which characterises the American political system totally distorts the public perception of political reality. In order to be elected, politicians pander to the manageable prejudices of the electorate.

The You Tube clip clearly shows the kind of prejudices and misconceptions possessed by the white, working class, right wing Republican constituency that the Romney campaign targeted. As a number of psephologists are pointing out, this constituency is gradually becoming a minority. Obama (it seems) attracted the votes of 75% of the Latino electorate. This electorate is growing at the rate of 500,000 voters a year.

Freed from the need to attract support, Obama can now concentrate on proposing policies which will address the problems that the American economy faces. Unfortunately, due to the Seperation of Powers built into the antique Constitution, he will be battling a Legislature whose members will be more interested in securing a further term for themselves rather than being concerned with the long-term needs of the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Ceour de Lion II Newbie

Mr Ceour de Lion II

Posted
Posted
The whole point in the two terms is that it makes it impossible to end up with a situation whereby anyone is ruling for a long time unchallenged, ie to prevent a monarchy happening.

I really hope Obama does succeed, and it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months as this fiscal cliff which has appeared out of nowhere looms. Will he borrow yet again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...