Why we should be grateful we don't have to be subjected to Fox News

There are some things that we in Britain have to be thankful for. We live in an affluent and tolerant society, we can complain jovially to each other about the weather, we can even watch Adrian Chiles and Christine Blakely every evening should we so choose. And we don’t have to be subjected to Fox News (*for those pedants among you I appreciate it is available via a Sky subscription).

Just as the British tabloids are feared and viewed with a certain amount of bewilderment by those across the Atlantic, the same goes the other way for their rolling 24 hours a day TV ‘news’ channels. For this is the station which brings you the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, presenters of hours of hate-filled and biased political commentary brought direct to your living room. Though this blog may have taken issue with much rubbish spouted by the Daily Mail, rest assured this is just an uncomfortable pin-prick in comparison to the full-scale rack of torture that is Fox News.

For those unsure of the type of content broadcast, this is the station that on the day of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration as US President dedicated much of its coverage showing images of the departing George Bush. This is the station whose main star Beck upon presenting Sarah Palin cried on air because he was so moved by her ‘patriotism’. The same station who allowed business anchor Neil Cavuto to insinuate Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden was going to be supporting John Kerry in the 2004 election. The station whose host John Gibson, during the sensitive election of 2000 where serious questions were asked of the ballot counting, said: “Who needs to know that he's [Bush] not a legitimate president?”

And it doesn’t just stop at controversial comments. When a New York Times piece criticised the network in 2008, Fox News staggeringly doctored photos of the journalist in question, Jacques Steinberg, and the editor, portraying them unattractively with yellowed teeth, skewed facial features and darkened eyes. Not only was this petty in the extreme but offensive and morally downright abhorrent.

Just a week ago Hannity was caught out by Jon Stewart’s Daily Show using footage from a completely different protest in order to exaggerate the scale of one of the “tea parties” it had openly backed and encouraged people to attend to demonstrate against the government. Although subtle, one shot of a sunny autumn day then cuts to another which is overcast and the trees are magically green again. Hmmm…

And yet nobody was sacked. Can you imagine what would have happened had a similar tactic been used here? There would have been uproar with the aftermath lasting for weeks. But Hannity merely dedicated a few seconds on his next show, saying Stewart had “got him” and it had just been a “mistake”.

It begs the question why can this be permitted, and why is a comedy programme doing the work of investigative journalists? I would strongly urge anyone unfamiliar with Stewart to watch his show, (aired weeknights at 20.30 on More4). It is satire at its very best and certainly counters any claims that American TV is weak in this regard.

But the issue at large here is one of responsible objective media reporting. Fox News claims to be “fait and balanced” and gets very fidgety when people openly question this. In fairness their news probably isn’t as biased as one may think. But the thing is most of content on the channel is not news per se, it is comment. And it is here where impartiality is left behind at the station and the train has long since disappeared.

Fox News is partisan in its support for the (right-wing) Republicans. Literally overnight its views changed, supporting Bush right to the end and then changing tack to blaming the new administration for all of the country’s ills. Like the Mail in the UK, Fox News plays on people’s fear, with regular updates on the level of security threat. But it is much snider in its reporting and very much more sensational, the result being very manipulative.

In one of the most shocking outbursts I have witnessed on broadcast television, Beck who previously had overtly stated that Obama’s economic policies were “communist”, “socialist” and also “fascist” (contradiction duly noted…), later affirmed Obama was a “racist” and had “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”. Fortunately some sense among the population was seen and advertisers in their dozens refused to be associated with the show. But it’s astounding that this type of comment was allowed to go unquestioned, unpunished.

People are perfectly entitled to their views but only up to a certain point can you air such opinion. This is example was not only defamation but an insult to millions. It is no surprise to learn that the White House has boycotted interviews with the network though Fox has been stinging in its criticism of this, openly declaring a “war”. But the sad fact is Obama will suffer as a consequence due to the power the network holds over so much of the nation.

It all just makes me relieved and so much the more grateful for our neutrality laws when it comes to TV news. Next time you’re sat watching Nick Robinson, maybe you should appreciate it a little bit more.

Why the US healthcare protests are enough to make you despair

Despite all of his detractors and critics, Russell Brand made me laugh recently. Having already upset large swathes of the American public while hosting the MTV VMA Awards the year before by suggesting outgoing President Bush was a “retard cowboy”, he was at it again this time around.

Sticking with his political theme, one of Brand’s skits began by trying to explain the difference between the British and Americans. “Instead of saying truck we say lorry,” he quipped, “Instead of saying elevator we say lift.”

“And instead of letting people die in the street, we have a thing called free healthcare…”

Love him or hate him (I’ll leave the definition of the word “edgy” with you), it was a line that certainly struck a chord and ultimately summed up the current American healthcare bill debate better than any political commentary I’ve yet seen. In fact it was almost heroic.

Just under two weeks ago the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced that President Obama’s proposed healthcare bill had been passed, incredibly narrowly by 220 votes to 215. The Senate will shortly be determining their own version of the bill and should these two agree in principle, both chambers will vote whether or not to accept it. And there will be tens of millions of American citizens who will be desperately hoping that they do.

Obama’s plan, similar to the one Bill and Hilary Clinton tried and failed to implement in the 1990s, would mean that there would be an option for people to sign up for a government–run healthcare plan. At present it is estimated that approximately 47 million – about 1 in 6 - Americans have no health insurance cover, that is to say if they get ill they will not be entitled to be treated.

This is something that is actually quite hard to fathom for most Britons, or indeed Europeans. Perhaps we take for granted the fact that we can go and see our doctor at any time, pay for heavily subsidised drugs and receive free treatment. Even the much maligned waiting lists for operations are as low, about 16 weeks, as they have been for years. The National Health Service is so much a part of our society (it’s also the fourth largest employer is the world after the Chinese army, Wal-Mart and the Indian railways) that the whole nation leapt to its defence when the anti-health bill lobbyists attacked it as one of the “bad examples” of a government-funded system.

It may cost the taxpayer a lot, but to put this into context the USA spends £1.34 trillion on healthcare, about 16% of its GDP and this is nearly double what the average developed country spends.

So upon seeing the massive demonstrations and huge political backlash against the bill it is almost impossible to comprehend how people can object to helping the sick and needy. The basis for the counter-argument is that it will cost too much and prevent the health-insurance market from being ‘free’ and the government are going to completely takeover the healthcare system (as in Europe).

But it’s been the nature of the objections which have been truly scary. It’s true to say that the USA is polarised in its political views and for the most part, though not entirely, on healthcare the nation is split down party lines. For the most part Democrats support it, Republicans are against it.

Those opposed to the Obama administration have begun to mobilise themselves in Fox News supported “tea parties” to rally against their belief that the President is driving the country towards socialism. These have already descended into very bitter attacks, some of which have even likened Obama to Hitler.

It’s enough to make you despair.

The guy hasn’t even spent a year in office yet. He’s the first black President of the USA and some of his first priorities have been to try to potentially save the lives of millions too poor to be able to afford treatment. And these people are comparing him to the man who was responsible for the cold-blooded and clinical extermination of millions of innocent people from minority groups.

Sometimes it’s extremely difficult to see the good in the world.

But to use the words of the 44^th President, we’ve still got hope.

Why there is nothing worse than seeing the British public getting all high and mighty

And so the MPs expenses “scandal” had reared its ugly head yet again. And this time in the same week that we learnt that the bankers are paying themselves billions of pounds worth of bonuses again. Great.

At least this time though we’re finally seeing some sense in the form of the proposed reforms. As headline grabbing as the duck-houses and moat-cleaning escapades were they only scratched the surface and hardly told the whole story.

According to BBC News, 415 of the current 646 MPs (about two-thirds) claim a mortgage allowance of up to £24,000 per year. If they all claimed that full amount, it works out at about £10 million per year (or 6,049 duck-houses, if that’s your currency).

I don’t have a problem if the taxpayer is contributing towards the 5-year rent (a maximum Parliamentary term) of a London property. But paying for an (often already very wealthy) MPs mortgage of their private property from which they will personally financially benefit from in the long term seems a step too far. It’s the small items that look ridiculous and great for the papers, but it’s the seemingly mundane accumulation of mortgage payments which are far worse.

To be honest though, I was never overly bothered by the “scandal” in the first place. There are many civil servants who have a higher wage than the MPs. Yes it’s impossible to deny many of the MPs have been proven to be morally bankrupt in the way they’ve swindled the system. Tony McNulty is a case in point – claiming for a house his parents lived in 8 miles from his own home.

But it was a bloody stupid system. And can they really justify demanding money back again? Talk about changing the goalposts. It’d be like your boss telling you: “You know that week of holiday you had? Well it turns out we need it back – so to make up for it you’ve got to come back into the office and work overtime. On Christmas Day.”

In my opinion they should just have been given a higher wages and taken away all expenses completely. They had the chance to do this in the 1980s, but bungled the decision and chose not to. In all of this people seem to forget that the reason MPs are paid is to prevent only the very wealthy from becoming MPs in the first place. Otherwise all of our politicians would still be called Rupert Urquhart-Smythe or Tarquin Fillongley-Rogers.

The thing that outraged me the most was the apparent outrage of the population. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, than seeing the British public getting all high and mighty. If, as in the case of many of the MPs, they had received phone calls from the expenses office asking “why don’t you claim this on expenses?” then it’s certain that 95% of people would have done exactly that. Their “holier than thou” attitude makes you want to sob into your pillow.

At least they’re doing something worthwhile like running the country. But compare this to the city bankers who seem to have got off scot free. Now that the markets are picking up again they’ve decided to compensate themselves for all that stress with massive bonuses again. No-one’s seemed to clock that this might have had something to do with the monumental global-recession in the first place. At least Sarkozy and Obama are trying to stop them doing it in their respective countries.

What makes me laugh (in a sadistic kind of way) is that they seem to justify it by saying “well we all work 80 hour weeks”. So? Why do long hours in our society mean you are more ‘worthy’ of obscene amounts of money? I’m pretty sure nurses work incredibly long shifts. Making rich people richer for a living hardly seems to warrant a vast pay cheque.

What these people seem incapable to recognise is that when they screwed up it had catastrophic consequences for people all over the world. As usual it’s those at the bottom of the ladder that end up worse than anyone. And the only reason the banks are doing well again is because they’re just plugging the gaps in the market caused by the failures of some of their rivals.

Still things could be worse.

Since day one of the expense-gate I’ve said all along that people from outside Britain looking in are going to find our “scandal” hilarious. I mean come on guys, this isn’t a real scandal – we should be embarrassed. It doesn’t even compare to Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Or we might have this guy in charge.

Image this conversation:

Brit: “The corruption of politicians these days is just appalling – it’s the same for you Italians isn’t it?”

Italian: “Yes well, I mean given that our President is the self-proclaimed ‘most prosecuted man’ in our history after being involved in that case where he allegedly paid off a lawyer to lie in court, the recorded tapes of him and that prostitute, calling the first black American President ‘well tanned’ on a number of occasions, being allegedly linked to the Mafia, monopolising the media, supposedly dodging tax fraud and being accused of having sex with an 18 year old actress – things could be better. Is it the same for you in the UK?”

Brit: “Yeah well there was this one guy, right, and he bought this house for his ducks…”