data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b34f9/b34f92f3b587fa87ed1a9665cfab3d94de5cbef8" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/baf53/baf53ccf6011a21e9daa6182bb88b80e37c5ceab" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/301b9/301b9a70e52414c6bcf5e70ce0f8005058373bd3" alt=""
Check these screegrabs. PrObama or what? Now I can understand The Times and The Guardian plugging Obama (main readership in England - English people can't vote in the US elections), but the Beeb have a world renown reputation for truth and fairness (although not of late) and I presume has a much larger American readership than the two newspapers, so shouldn't they be more equal? It would be nice to see anyway.
But I think the content of the coverage has been good on the whole, mostly taking the perspective of the American people rather than what Obama/Hillary/McCain will mean for UK politics. Having said that, there is a video on The Times' pages showing a little vox-pop of people around The Times HQ and how much they are "into" the elections. Not sure why. I'm sure nearer the time we'll see a much more "yes, but what does this mean for us" type agenda, but for the moment, its decent coverage, however biased it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment