I trust you already read Scott Burgess. Although rather right-wing, he’s witty and often good at exposing newspaper idiocy [*].
Like Mr Burgess, The American Expat is a right-wing, middle-aged disgruntled American living in the UK who believes himself to be exposing newspaper idiocy. Sadly, his exposés are rather less than convincing, his Powerline-esque rants are merely tragic, and his wit doesn’t appear to exist (although he is far more readable and less insane than USS Neverdock, written by, erm, a middle-aged, right-wing, etc…) And the Adam Smith Institute have confirmed my existing beliefs about their lack of taste and judgement by labelling the Expat their Blog Of The Week.
It’s a bit odd though. Pretty much all the Americans I’ve met in the UK have been left-wing anti-Bush-ites, which makes sense: given that the majority of Brits loathe and despise the chimp-creature, you’d need to be a trifle masochistic to come over here as an admirer of his horrible schemes… And yet I’m barely aware of a sensible-left (or frothing loony-left, come to that) blog kept by an American expat over here.
Anyone who (knows of/keeps) one that isn’t rubbish, drop me a line and I’ll plug it.
Indeed. I didn’t even know right-wing, UK-based Americans existed until I started reading blogs. I did know one in my first year at University, but she was only here for nine months.
<I>"Although rather right-wing, he’s witty…"</I>
Imagine that! {grin}
I’m certainly not "embittered," and I’m usually a rather gruntled, good-humoured person.
Just for the record, I also like it here a lot (despite not being masochistic) and we’ve absolutely no plans to move back, ever. I hold permanent residency, and I may even apply for citizenship one day. Some of my American friends see me as something of a traitor as a result.
Thanks for the kind words, though – however grudgingly delivered, they’re still appreciated.
Glad to hear you’re both gruntled and disembittered, and that you like it here…
This one is quite good. Except for the food…
http://whatdoiknow.typepad.com/what_do_i_know/
Oh god. He doesn’t strike me as being particularly right wing at all. In fact, he does a far better job of reporting events in the US than the Guardian (which I see you’ve linked) does.
It’s about damn time someone reporting on current events actually pointed out the extraordinary bias of the lefty media here.
Hell, I’m a lefty anti-Bushite and even I can’t stand the sanctimonious psuedo socialist tripe the Guardian vomits.
Sounds like you’re a possible candidate – good work.
Although then again, someone who both claims to be a "lefty anti-Bushite" but believes the British media is extraordinarily lefty-biased might be percieved as having a little bit of an Oliver Kamm-ish "I’m still on the left, despite agreeing with right-wingers on every issue" identity crisis…
Prepare for the "It’s not me who has left the Left, but it’s the Left that has left me" more sorrow-than-anger speech.
"Prepare for the "It’s not me who has left the Left, but it’s the Left that has left me" more sorrow-than-anger speech."
You seem to be implying that this happens often. Why do you suppose that such a "conversion" is so frequent? How often do you see the opposite Damascene transformation? Why does the former predominate over the latter?
"… the British media is extraordinarily lefty-biased might be percieved [sic] …"
Nice attempt at spin. But Tiff wasn’t talking about the British media in their entirety, Tiff was talking specifically about the lefty media – as any careful reading would have noted ("the extraordinary bias of the lefty media here").
Surely you recognise that there are non-lefty media in Britain? But Tiff isn’t talking about those sources, despite having an admitted anti-Bush propensity. And, although Tiff has that proclivity, Tiff still takes issue with the excesses of the Grauniad.
Makes you think, dunnit?
It’s nonsense Scott to believe the British left-wing media is any less biased than the right-wing media, and you know it. You prefer to focus on the errors in the Independent and Guardian, but the Times and the Telegraph are at least as bad. Worse perhaps, as they rarely, if ever, admit to any mistakes. For example, in April alone Boris Johnson in the Telegraph, and Patience Wheatcroft in the Times made comments about tax and the economy that they must have known were untrue (as any reasonably aware person would have known they were untrue); and it doesn’t take a genius to work out why they did it.
On the ‘sorrow than anger’ thing if you’re implying that it’s because the left is constantly moving leftwards then that’s clearly not the case. I suspect its got something to do with a) people getting generally more conservative and, for want of a better word, selfish, as they get older and b) the much greater coverage available to left to right converters in the media due to its inate right-wing bias.
Why does the former predominate over the latter?
More money in it.
Yes, that’s probably it.
Now Jarndyce…you know you should eat your veggies.
I’ve been wondering why the Brit blogs (nevermind expat blogs) aren’t as humongo popular as American blogs. I think it’s nice though, smaller and more intimate. Sort of like American blogs before the election, back when I didn’t read them either.
Accusing someone with the words "his wit doesn’t appear to exist" and following that up in the next paragraph with the witty "given that the majority of Brits loathe and despise the chimp-creature". That showed him.
Thanks Scott. :D
That was pretty much the point of the post. I’m from that strange, strange school of people who likes to pick up a newspaper, see things like (OMG) sources and (OMG) balanced reporting.
I don’t particularly need to be spoonfed ideas from the Groanian to shape my political or social beliefs. In fact, I came to them from my own reasoning. Shocking concept, I know.
Tiff – fair play; I guess that’s probably a US/UK cultural divide. Dumb Brits read the paper that fits their prejudices; smart Brits read the Guardian and the Telegraph and try and work out some middle ground between their distortions. It’s more fun – kind of like the way we enjoy cryptic crosswords…
RJ – no, that wasn’t wit, that was merely loathing (equally, I was praising Scott Ablution’s wit relative to Expat’s wit; my own wit or otherwise hardly comes into the equation).
Surely you mean you read the Daily Mail and then the Socialist Worker to come to a balanced view ;-)
Personally I find Dilbert more newsworthy and accurate than most newspapers…….
Thanks for the plug!
Your readers might be interested in my Case against the BBC which has links that prove the BBC’s anti-American agenda.
As for right wing news organizations being as biased as the left – how many of them are there compared to the lying liberal left press?
Once again, thanks for the plug!
"I don’t particularly need to be spoonfed ideas from the Groanian to shape my political or social beliefs. In fact, I came to them from my own reasoning. Shocking concept, I know."
It is a shocking concept. If you have managed to shape your beliefs and arguments through your reasoning alone then you exist outside our causal universe. In this universe that the rest of us live in we apply our reason (itself formed by ‘objects’ outside our reason) to events, experiences, stories we are told, arguments we have heard. In doing this, reading things like newspapers can be useful.
Dumb Brits read the paper that fits their prejudices.
Nah. I read a paper I can hold onto while standing up on the tube. Not sure if that makes me dumb, smart, or uncoordinated.
"Tiff – fair play; I guess that’s probably a US/UK cultural divide. Dumb Brits read the paper that fits their prejudices; smart Brits read the Guardian and the Telegraph and try and work out some middle ground between their distortions. It’s more fun – kind of like the way we enjoy cryptic crosswords…
"
What, so the Guardian doesn’t fit in with prejudices? Just because it’s more socially correct doesn’t make it any better than reading the Mail or the mini-Mail (Metro.) I’ve found the Guardian doesn’t really allow for much sort of reason space. It’s very much a ‘with us or not’ sort of mentality. And a lot of their omissions are pretty glaring.
I’ll give you two very heated examples: Kyoto and African Aid. Not once have I seen mention during the Kyoto discussions that it’s the decision of US elected representatives for Kyoto. Or that some states are with it. Oregon (my liberal hippy home) has been for it, for the most part. Not surprisingly, Michigan (where Detroit, Motor City is) hasn’t. You don’t see those kinds of nuances in the Guardian or the Independent. The only thing they say is ‘Blah, blah, not surprisingly a Republican president is leading the US away.’ But it’s not necessarily him and no amount of his pestering is going to convince certain representatives any differently than what they already have said.
With the big bad plan of selling off IMF gold reserves, not once was Gordon Brown criticized for creating a plan that wouldn’t work. I mean, to anyone who’s seen the way a Republican House/Senate has dealt with the IMF in the past would be able to tell that they would be whole heartedly against selling off gold reserves. All you got from the Groanian and the Independent was ‘US IS FULL OF BAD PEOPLE.’ Nothing about Brown’s short sightedness, lack of historical awareness or creating of what appears to be just a token plan.
Those two main points strike me as being very, very irresponsible. By keeping the nuts and bolts of our political system shielded, they’re taking the opportunity from the people who really care about things like Kyoto to make a change away from them.
‘t is a shocking concept. If you have managed to shape your beliefs and arguments through your reasoning alone then you exist outside our causal universe. In this universe that the rest of us live in we apply our reason (itself formed by ‘objects’ outside our reason) to events, experiences, stories we are told, arguments we have heard. In doing this, reading things like newspapers can be useful.’
Oh, I live in a causal universe as well. But see above for my big irresponsible omissions rant. I’d rather have something that leaned towards the left instead of dancing around on the far with pictures of Marx.
"What, so the Guardian doesn’t fit in with prejudices?"
Can you actually read? That is not the meaning of what he wrote. In fact his words implied that ‘dumb brits’ whose prejudices fit the editorial position of the Guardian read the Guardian. He was suggesting that ‘smart brits’ read a variety of sources, reduced in his comments to the Guardian and the Telegraph.
So, can I just check that I am understanding you correctly? Is your opinion that, the Guardian ‘dances around with pictures of Marx?’
You might have problems with the editorial position of the Guardian. The suggest that it is far left is, however, beyond reason.
I would like to see some evidence for this assertion that the Guardian’s staff are co-ordinated enough to dance. If someone could turn this pictures-of-Marx dance into a big production number, I’d pay good money to see it.
Andrew is correct in his interpretation of what I said above: the Guardian and the Telegraph are the UK’s two least awful mainstream newspapers, but both spin like buggery and neither can be trusted on its own.
I’d be similarly delighted to see Guardian staff dancing around with pictures of Marx. Especially if the same perfomance featured Mail staffers dancing around with pictures of Hitler, and Sun staffers dancing around with pictures of the devil.
"Sun staffers dancing around with pictures of the devil."
Mirrors?
But what should the soundtrack be? ‘In the Hall of the Mountain King’? ‘A Night on Bare Mountain’? ‘Bootilicious’?
Oo! Oo! I know: ‘Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious’. It’d be perfect.
You might have problems with the editorial position of the Guardian. The suggest that it is far left is, however, beyond reason.
LOL
ROFL
Obviously some definition of "reason" I wasn’t aware of before.
What, you seriously believe that the Guardian is FAR left? I’d concede that it is leftwing. I concede that it is very liberal. But if the Guardian is FAR left then FAR left is identical to ‘left’.
Unless you are from the Oliver Kamm school of labeling political positions, in which The Times an Telegraph are left-wing.
Look, The Telegraph is right-wing. That much is beyond doubt. But even I, way over on the other end of the spectrum, would not describe it as a FAR right paper. To do so would suggest that I had either abandoned reason or hadn’t a clue what I was talking about.
I think, really, the problem isn’t that I have a different definition of ‘reason’, but rather that there are a handful of people whose definition of FAR left is completely different from that in general usage.
From where I sit, the Guardian looks centrist at best, and I’m "old" Labour so the far left is still far to my left.