Hello to you all.
I'm french et very concerned by the 2004 us presidential for obvious reasons you'll guess.
A lot of foreigns people in france and around the world are very concerned too.But there is still a big question in the air..
Like me , they don' t fully understand what's happening with this "Bush mistery "....
Let's be clear, i've been keeping an eye on W Bush administration since 2000.
I remember this little Mr bush just after his election in 2000, so ridiculous and inconsistant that even the rebuplicans were ashamed of their president...Then I saw the 11/09 on TV.I saw how bush administration machine began to run and took this event as a good reason to make a huge business/war in Irak (Halliburton, lookeed, oil, personal interests,etc...).I saw Bush lied and still lies today to american people when explaining this War...
Today I don't understand. I can hardly imagine that bush and kerry are 50/50.
Is 50% of the USA really misinformeds about who Bush and friends really are ... ?

I tought that the best way to have an answer would to post in an american forum...
Thanks

LOL, in the US they feel the French with their government sponsored news is ill informed. So I suppose many nations feel those in other nations are misinformed. US citizens do not share your perceptions.

Very wrong...
There is great unbiased French news coverage going on now about the U.S. election. There are great discussions and debates with reps and dems living abroad.


BTW, the Americans living abroad in Europe are favoring Kerry.

hey how bout you stop supporting terrorists and start getting facts straight oh yea and especially get your facts straight about 11/09 you dumbass lol. Republicans being embarrased about bush? Are you talkin about the one guy who threw an egg at his limo? Hey about that thing that happened in November of 2009, lol, where the where was a hole in the pentagon and two towers went down, that actually happened in 2001. And the war in Iraq was in 2003. Please stop watching farenheit, that movie is made by satan himself, michael moore. Bush did not go to war with Iraq for freaking money. If he did, then why are we "having the biggest deficit in history?" I thought getting more money would=better economy duhh errr. What got you to think that? well anyways that proves how gullible you (and unfortunately half america) are. Hey, if your country is going to supply weapons to this country, please learn to spell it right. IRAQ. Personal interests? Like dying? boy, michael moores got you tied around his little finger. Yes, I too am baffled at why the election is 50/50. Its because 50% of the world can not see whats going on behind the scenes. Now I admit that Bush sucks when it comes to economic growth, but at least we aren't blown up everyday like the people in Israel. NINE eleven was a wake up call, a call that told us to hunt down and bring justice to terrorists worldwide, not just Al Quada. Did the boycott of France (remember us pouring ur wine down the street?) not give you a clue? We don't like France because they fail to support us when we need them most. No president can do anything about that. What are we supposed to do, bribe you? We're already contributing practically all the money to the UN, and now you fail to support us. The whole world knew there was WMDs in Iraq, except Saddam. Also they were harboring terrorists, which is a big no no. Killing innocent civilians was the cherry on the cake. Those are the reasons we are at war. Not oil. If we are at war for oil, how come its 2.50 a gallon? Sorry, but if any of you think Bush lied about WMDs, take a look at the alternative. Stem cell research=fixing paralyzed people from waste down(giving people fake hope is just cruel) Bringing back the draft (no, no, no, no! They're just isn't going to be a draft! STFU about it democrats!) Suppressing the black vote (just a coverup while they take over all of the media! Thats not a conspiracy, its facts! Show me one fair and balanced newspaper or program thats NOT for kerry besides fox news!) You frenchies don't exactly understand our problems and neither does 50% of america. The Patriot Act. America knows nothing about it except what they hear from Michael Moore. Everyone thinks its something that lets police do whatever they want when they want. Welllll, how bout this? Before the Patriot Act was passed, a random TERRORIST could march right up to the presidents desk and say "Mr. President, I will attack your country and make your streets flow with blood. I will make 911 look like a bank robber!" And there wouldn't be a thing they could do to him, not even search him. Instead they would have to take him to court and answer questions like why, when, where is this attack. NOT GOOD PEOPLE. Of course our orange friend Mr. Kerry is against this power. And his slogan is a safer stronger america yeah right its a lie people, its just a ######ing lie. I mean Kerry and his asses I mean friends voted to give authority to go to war and later voted against giving them body armor. Now you probably dont care if us americans are getting shot, but WE should!

Tony Clifton:

Can you provide a link?

I assume you are counting the military that live abroad that overwhelmingly favor Bush? Or don't they count?

Is living abroad somehow a cachet of intellectual superiority or simply a circumstance in life. Its good to travel, but when Frenchmen tell me they can't understand the US point of view, I wonder at the diversity of their news sources. I can understand the French standpoint even though I disagree with it. What exactly is happening that prevents them from reading of what is going on in our free society? Is there an assumed defect in the American psyche? Is the US, with its consitutional freedom of the press somehow less free than France with its restrictions on what can and cannot be printed?


In the US there are many different points of view expressed in the news, yet the European press seems almost monolithic. Is that a sign of an unstructured information system or one that seems less than open? Diversity in and of itself is not concrete sign, however it is indicative of different inputs and different perspectives. Just as I worry about an all white school having only one point of view, so too should we consider monolithic or singlularly determined press coverage to be questionable.

Who watches the watchers when they don't watch each other?

I cant provide a link, but I'll tell ya what they said on Belgian TV today :
About 33000 US citizens live in Belgium, about 20000 for US companies, about 10000 in the US forces, about 2000 independent ( teachers, self-employed, business men, etc) and about 1000 married locally.

About 82 % have voted, about 70 % have voted for Kerry.

Unlike the US, where all newsstations are privately owned, TV stations here in Europe are mostly state-owned, hence an ideal place where independent journalists can work and were balanced debates do happen.

Mike

Mike:

Weren't all the news organizations in the Soviet Union also state owned? Would you say that those areas were an ideal place where independent journalists can work and where balanced debates happen.

Do you believe that balanced debates are impossible in the US where there is no government control?

Well written for a blind man , you left out paragraphs though...

This anger towards France is sooo childish.
Anti-French sentiment in the United States or Francophobia is characterized by disapproval of many or all things French. It often takes the form of moral censure ("treacherous" or "cowardly") corresponding with tensions in Franco-U.S. relations. In its extreme form it is characterized by undertones of chauvinism, nationalism, and jingoism.

Why do you leave out Russia, China, Canada and all the other countries who refused to be part of your "great coalition" ?


Why dont you extend your stupidity and:

Ask Bobby, Terry and all the LaBonte family to change their last names.

Return the statue of liberty to France,

Rename the cities of, Butte , Saint-Louis , Detroit , Bayonne NJ, Baton Rouge, Bellemont, Boise, Bellevue, Calais, Coeur d'Alene,Dauphin Island, De Pere, Des Moines, Detroit, Florissant, Fond du Lac, Frenchville, Gros Ventre River, Grand Teton National Park, Ile Island La Crosse, Lac Lake,Lake L'Homme Dieu,
Laramie, Louisiana Moline, Montpelier, Prairie du Chien, Racine, Sault Sainte Marie, The Dalles,Terre Haute and on and on.

Forbid the consumption of french bread as well and publicly cut off the right hand of offenders in front of the bakery where the bread was purchased while being watched by a team of undercover agents secretly monitoring each loaf which was planted with a tracking device.


This Francophobia is further explained here.

Attacking other members is a violation of the board rules.

Consider yourself warned.

mandl

Mike:

Forgive me if I question the Belgian journalists findings. It goes against the norm in which the military overwhelmingly supported Bush in polls.



From Annenburg poll dated October 18

Tony Clifton:



I agree it often is more a reflection of some jingoistic attitude and has no place in a civilized society. But then haven't the French compared Bush to Hitler, havent Europeans called US citizens idiots? Or is this all false press created by the BBC? Haven't Americans been called child killers by Europeans?

The tensions between France and the US are to be expected given France's opposition and full inclusion into the oil for food scandal in the UN. It is part of the world politik.

I think there is plenty of jingoistic consdemnation to go around.

Blather, the best proof that foregners like frenchs are not so misinformed than you think is that i'm searching answers directly with american people , here and now....

WhythelongfaceKerry, your post gave me a piece of an answer.Do you think we discovered bush with michael Moore..? Are you serious ..? Most of us can tell you stories about Double U , George and ...Prescott Bush!!
WDM in iraq (sorry we spell it Irak in french)...? Wich ones..? Where..? If they exists, i must admit than frenchs medias lied to me.
I never said that the benefits of this economical ( and may be ideological) war would go directly to the US citizens but for Bush and friends, of course.(Did you noticed the halliburton increase of benefits since the war in iraq..?).
Frenchs failed to support USA, you're right..! Would you follow your brother if he ask you to kill someone, i don't...
Let's be serious, both of USA and france had interest in Iraq.Hussein was not the the problem...He was a dictator like many still in the world .Some of them put in charge by USA, some others by France..Let's be honest ...We did not support this war because it's a too high-cost business..( 100 000 IraQ Civilans killed since the start of this war = 33 X world trade tours)...

That is where you are misinformed I think.

Can you perhaps tell me how specifically Bush will benefit personally on the war in Iraq. As an American citizen and I believe someone who is well informed I would be interested in your supposition.

Also I believe that focusing in on "WhythelongfaceKerry" and not on me is somewhat disengenuous since I tend to support Bush in this election (though I question the implementation questions). I find his policies, in my view, to be sound. Nor do I question or cast aspersions upon him or John Kerry. I think John Kerry's policies are less sound, though in the end I believe he difference from Bush on foriegn policy is more perception than reality.

As I have stated, in the US we have a diversity of opinions, a diversity of news sources and a very open contitutional freedom of the press that allows for much information gathering from various sources. The government rarely has power to react, if it can at all (it may not arrest the journalist but will investigate to find the leak within the organization versus arresting the journalist).

So you are asking.

As to Bush's competence I feel that you are carrying out hyperbole. Bush, even with a divided congress, prior to 9-11 was able to engender bipartisan support for legislation that he helped pass. This indicates that he is able to deal with both parties. Once the election year politics ends, if Bush wins, you will find more such cooperation. In regard to Kyoto, Clinton never supported it, neither did Gore really since neither attempted to pass it through the senate. Bush did pass it through the senate where it soundly defeated (Kerry voted against it).

It is not Bush who is ignorant, but perhaps other people who are ignorant of the US.

As to supporting the war, there are various reasons, the exchange of lives not being one since it was the Taliban in Afghanistan and not the Iraqi's who protected Usama bin Ladin. So I fail to see your point there. There are many other issues support the Iraqi war, including, but not limited to, the presumed chemical and biological weapons.

Blather,
No needs for Bush to censure medias.French medias focused few days ago on the way that the americans médias autocensured themselves on the bush administration question, since 9/11.Fair and balance?Patriotism could be stronger than objectivity...

I'm not sure that goods reasons exists today for supporting wars in the world.If they exists, iraq is not part of them.

Today the wonderful INTELLIGENT people have rejected the FASCIST leader george w. bush.

France, please forgive our previous mistakes, we are COMING BACK TO THE CIVILIZED WORLD.

Self censure is a bit of a myth in the US.

Dan Rathers mistake regarding documentation is fairly good proof of that.

I believe there are valid reasons for war. And there were valid reasons for the war with Iraq. To completely dismiss this is to be blind to France's own proclivity to use arms in its own best interest. I do not think you condemned France for its incursions into Cote d'Ivorie? Even though such action is an act of war in itself.

I would say that countries, whose paymasters are the government have a greater reason for auto censorship than independent news media have.

The opposite is in fact true.
Media which are wholly dependant on the whim of advertisors are rarely critical in a way that could risk jeopardising their relationship.
And in the USA it is big business that is backing Bush.

State run media however is in most democratic countries not under government control although it may be run by a political apointee.
They do not risk their funding or their job if they are critical of the regime in power , that only happens in the developing democracies or dictatorships.

It's 00H30 AM in france.First results says that kerry goes for winning...
American people have raised...This is the way that we loves you..

Oui Oui, Monsieur Coco, merci.

President Kerry will soon be visiting your people in France and he will speak to you in perfect, fluent French, and try to begin to repair the damage that bush did to Franco-American relations.

We may also make up with the Germans, but the Germans are not nearly as important as the French, n'est-ce pas?

And please start sending us your good wine again and try to only spit on the obvious bush loyalists you may see in France. You have my permission to be extra rude to that lot.

quran:

Are you saying the press was freer in the Soviet Union where the press was paid for by government than in a country like the US where the press is independent of government?

Clearchannel anyone ?

Oups...It's 8-00 Am and it seems i spoke too fast.Bad wake up...Bush win..?

It is looking bad.
I guess you guys will have to spit on all Americans now.
We have descended into fascism and the American people voted for it.
It isn't pretty.

The only hope now to save America from fascism is our wonderful team of democratic party lawyers. There are thousands of them now massing in Ohio. Bring it on!!!!

Still counting

It's a close one

Thaiquila seems to indicate that democracy must be subverted for its own good. I find that ironic to say the least. For many years democrats have stood upon the position that the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush (which is true), now that the majority will is known, the shoe being on the other foot, tends to feel less comfortable.

Given there were no real fraud issues, that provisional ballots cannot overcome such a large majority, and that the popular vote also seems to reflect the electorial vote, it would seem that this election ends with a Bush win that reflects both the popular and electoral vote.

I'm not sure that we can still speak of democracy in USA. Demagogy sounds better...And in this way Bush was the best...Bush administration created fear in american people minds and then presented himself as a solution for fighting this same fear... This was a good job, but not democracy...
The bush and kerry TV spots hammered lasts weeks shows obviously that USA is no longer a democracy...

The 10000 military in Belgium are mostly guys (and gals) working for NATO and SHAPE and used to a cozy life here.
Unlike the cannon fodder in Iraq who probably voted for bush then.

All figures come from the US embassy here.

Mike

PS : comparing the old USSR newspapers to the democratic west was a bit childish IMO

Mike

Coconut, wake up and smell the Democracy, United States style. We here do not rely on proven biased reporting to determine our attitudes. OK, some do (the Micheal Moore fan club'ers), but obviously most of us still aren't the sheep the EU would want us to be. Sorry if you want to continue to live in a horror movie aimed at taking down our great Democracy!

May I suggest a good book or two from a side opposing the views you've been dealt? Start with "Hating America: The New World Sport" by John Gibson. Check his facts and then stop your unfounded hatred for the US.

It illustrates an important point. It is not the comparison of political philosophies (extreme socialism with the press financially controlled and light socialism with the press financially controlled), it is a reflection of how the structure is similar and there is nothing to prevent the assumed benign French system from changing to the less benign Soviet system.

The US almost catagorically rejects such a plantation system. If the news is important and if people wish to read the news, then allow the individuals to do so without the fear of government control or the potential of government interference, or in the very least limiting such influence. Benjamin Franklin held the same position and I agree with him.

Let us say that government is allowed to have a company that sells the news, subsidized by the taxes. How difficult it would be for a private company to compete successfully in pay and/or in circulation. In effect, free speech is limited because of a defacto monopoly created by a single large source news for the people. Never a good proposition.

In short, it is not the actions of the French government, but the structure itself that leads or has a proclivity to abuse.

Jaybee, do you really think than people like me hates USA..?
Sorry but your point of view seems to be a bit simple.
What about my presence here..?!
I just don't understand people like you...
You speak of democracy but 100 000 Iraqis CIVILIANS were killed since the begining of this war...Are you serious...?
The war is good for you because far away from USA.You really don't know what is war, what is suffering daily of this butchery that bush try to show you as a video game.You really don't know...
Just think about the sons, nephews and brothers of thoses killed people, and imagine the way they will take to revenge themselves...Good Luck...Because Bush methods will tommorow bring war at YOUR footstep in USA....The worst in this story will be that at this particular moment USA will be ALONE!

Are you?

What of the 110,000 children that died during the embargo?

What of the 500,000 found in mass graves?

The attempted genocide of Marsh Arabs one of the oldest cultures in the world.



It seems to me, based on your calculations, you would ask what Europe was waiting for?



And I am sure France is in the thick of it? The Kurds are happy we are there, the Shia would like us to eventually leave but are glad we came. Perhaps you are referring tot he suffering and butchery under Saddam who was supported by the French so assiduously? Chirac quarranteed that no vote for incursion would ever happen. It seems to me that either you news is too singular too one sided that you do not know these things, or that you choose to ignore them because you do not like the US. Is it ignorance then? Or is it anger towards the US?



This is interesting. Perhaps you can explain the French alternative and how it would have stopped the mass graves of Saddam Hussein, how it would have relieved the suffering of two thirds of the population under Saddam Hussein. What was the French solution for such relief?

Have you lost your memory blather...?
Reagan administration supported saddam during his war against iran in the eighties.
Reagan administration provided sattelites pictures and others classified informations to help saddam in this way.Reagan administration closed their eyes on the use of chimicals weapon during this war.Do you remember who worked under this administration..? Donald Rumsfeld , Collin powell, father Bush....
Do you remember who was the biggest resseler (with russia and france) of weapons during this eight years long war..? I prefer let you gess...
Yes in france we know what war is.. May be not me directly...But the image of the two last world wars is still in our minds like 9/11 in yours...
We have today enough experience to know that others ways exists to resolve this kind of conflicts than war...It just depends on what you really want to do...
Diplomacy is a good way : the power of USA , Russia and Europe gathered would have been enough to make saddam obey.But war in this case , was just a pursuit of particulars interests desguised itself under the political correct clothes of terrorism and democracy...Anyone informed enough can see that.
In the other hand i must confess than france had particulars interest not to do this war.It's right. But it' s obviously not enough to discredit french experience about war and ways to avoid it...It s not enough to treat us as cowards and traitors and make us blindness jumped into a war.
I think that behind this simplistic description of France attitude by Mr bush and friends, there is an attempt to block constitution of unified europe that getting biger and more powerful every day.
Every financial analyst knows that USA need a strong Europe.Bush don't.
He only wants from us to do the washing up.He's wrong.
Our "euro" is now recognized around the world and arabics began to speak of selling oil in euro.( that is less fluctuating than actual dollar).
Dollar is depreciating every day . The USA deficit is huge..! USA is involved in debt with all asia and you can thanks china and japan for limiting depreciation of dollar by buying treasury bills...You NEED to cooperate but the bush reelection show that you dont want to...
What a pity

That is the danger of not explaining yourself fully.

I did say that the US did support Saddam Hussein originally in the context of the Iranian domination of the Persian gulf. And the US did overlook the brutal and terrible dictatorship that was implemented by Iraq. I make no excuses for it.

However I also know that France was Saddam Husseins greatest western ally in the past decade. This is something everyday Frenchmen are loathe to admit to. That France has a long history of such support from the nuclear power plant they built in Iraq (destroyed by Israel) to the materials (not WMD itself) for WMD sold to Iraq more recently. This included Frances recalcitrance to vote for Iraqi incursion and the strong complicity of France in the Oil for Food Scandal. This is not to say that France bears singular responsibility for the deaths in Iraq, but it does reflect a certain French blindness to their country's complicity while they condemn the US. I do not know if this is because French news sources tend to be less diverse (ie government paid) or that French culture has not examined itself the way US culture has in recent years (hence our strong devision in regard to Iraq).

Coconutyoyo states that there are other ways than war to resolve conflict. It is true there are, and I believe for ten years the US attempted just that through the UN. However diplomacy is not the final solution. I would think that after the 1930's we would learn that sometimes diplomacy does not work. The oil for food scandal was undermining the embargo, the embargo itself was killing 10,000 children a month (per the UN) and countries were on the verge of abandoning it. Would diplomacy have worked here? Given that Saddam Hussein continued to build palaces while his people starved or died, given that some countries were actively undermining the embargo itself. It is doubtful that the diplomacy would have worked since there were so many divisions in the UN.



This I found most intriguing. The US has made no attempt to block a consitution of a unified Europe, yet this is thrown into the mix. Why? A diversion perhaps. Certainly anger. But what prompts this belief? Is it the French press? Here in the US we are aware of the efforts in Europe to create a constitution, you have my sympathy in the attempt. But I know of no US action that exists to counter such a thing. It is reflective of French defensiveness in my view.



In a speech made in Japan.



from NATO America's most important relationship

Bush had no "need" to say these things in Asia. So we can see that your opinion (is it the French Press again that does not check the facts) is incorrect.

Bush by the way feels he has been abandoned by some European nations but has also united with others. And Bush has never used a threat upon European nations the way France has.



From Slate magazine

It seems France has its own imperial stance.



The dollar surged on news that Bush was elected. You may not enjoy Bush as president, but the European businesses that employ you do. Interesting no?




I believe we have discussed deficits elsewhere. The need for cooperation is mutual, and I believe going to the UN for ten years has been cooperative. How has France cooperated with its declaration that it will never ever vote for an incursion in Iraq under any circumstances.

I would like to point out a spurious series of accusations without speaking to the points raised. In other words it seems to be a magicians trick, a diversion of attneiton of you will, rather than discussing the points. But I appreciate the questions. I hope I have answered them fully.

Misinformation is the case for all ordinary citizens of all countries. That is valid for the Americans, for the French, for the Arabs, for my own nationalities, the Turks... Dominant classes and groups make the society internalize and reproduct the values and norms from which they benefit.

i can't see any real difference between Bush and Kerry. They carry out the policies which are determined mainly by petroleum companies, gun traders, multi-national corparations etc. And the rest of the whole society think they decide their lives because they elect those who govern them. Bullshit! A struggle for real, local, direct democracy which also includes some kind of economic democracy is a necessity for the sake of humanity.

I hold democracy to a higher level of respect, perhaps because the US republic does work and work well, as do the republics in Europe. For all my disagreement with their policy I would not call them undemocratic.

Weapons sales make up a very small part of the US economy. And it shrank even further at the end of the Cold War. We would have done better to invade Taiwan if economic considerations regarding US well being were involved. While oil is a strategic issue, it is not a key one for the US which garners most of its oil from the western hemisphere (US, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela) and a much smaller portion from the Middle East. This does not deny the strategic importance in the area, only that oils immediate importance is not reflected towards the US there.

I would have to say that your gun traders and petrol positions are misinformed.

Sure, we can discuss for hours about the significance of gun trading or oil sectors or the multi-national companies but what i have to emphasize is not this. i am trying to tell that the elections is not the main factor that shapes the course of events. You vote for some people to govern you. You assume that they have to behave for the sake of yourselves since otherwise they can be eliminated in the next elections. But in practise this system is quite open to manipulation. Governments respond to some other actors rather than the people but at the same time they manage to make people believe that their well-being is followed.

So what i mean is parliamentary democracy itself is not enough. And if we are talking about a country which is the sole super power in the world (power brings corruption) and which has a quite majoritarian system then it is much more unsatisfactory.

500 votes the other way in a 10 million population state would have had Al Gore as president. Real life begs me to disagree.

There are many levels of influence to consider, and I agree that sometimes the voices aren't heard, but more often than not, they are.

People are on the stage only at the time of elections. Then others begin to talk.
That is what i say. Sure Gore and Bush were not identical. Neither Bush and Kerry were. And no doubt democrats and republicans have many differentiating positions. But at the last analysis, they all respond to many power centers whether economical,political, social or ideological rather than the people voted for them.

To come to your example, that 500 votes may have decided whom to govern but this itself not provide the responsiveness of the government to them. People by voting only choose the elites to govern in a way which the latter benefits. As it is called this is democratic elitism and you can't be proud of having such a system. This is something when compared to tyrannies or absolute monarchies etc but it is still unsatisfactory. And i insist that the case in majoritarian systems like the one in the USA, is much worse... And the great power the USA has makes things worse and worse for a real democracy...

That is all!

Then you do not understand US democracy. The hardest elections are the first ones where you drive for the local leadership. Congressmen often sweat the details in their districts, senators less so, but all can be brought down. Daschle was the undisputed leader of his party in the Senate. Yet his state is not a powerhouse like California. In fact California was more of an ATM machine this year than a key electorate state. Daschle is unemployed now, he cared too much for Washington and forgot his roots. In a tight race at home that matters.

Had Gore remained in touch with his home state of Tenessee, he would have won the election in 2000. Bush senior (41) lost after only one term. US democracy has a tendency to cut off the elite at the knees. It works and people have a voice and even the greatest leaders are humbled and silenced by that voice.

Come on, i don't deny that you are able to change the people who govern you. i say that you are not able to change the way, the structere that the policies are conducted through.

Do you mean changing things like the civil rights laws?

Or do you mean the movement from classical capitalism to Keynsian economics to Monetarism?

Or do you mean from conservative to activist to conservative courts again?

Or are you talking about the changes in US political structure that did the following:

Increased the rights of minority voting.
Gave women the right to vote.
Changed the structure to direct elections of senators.

The US constitution is repleat with administration changes as well as basic law changes. A two third vote by the states will change any administrative law, structural law, however you want to name it.

Its part of the genius of the constitution. It does change when enough want a new basic law defined.

I have the same desire, the internet is a wonderful thing.

So far, many of the American posters have proved my prejudices to be right, at the surface of things. On the other hand, presumptions and stereotypes on my side have also been pointed out.
I come to realise just how different European and American education and culture are, 'they' are being fed different values, believes and media coverage than 'us'.
Gradually I come to look closer at the underlying issues which cause so much, at times vehement disagreement and namecalling. Or maybe it is just a result of being on different ends of the political spectrum? The few left-leaning Americans I find easier to understand and agree with, except Thaiquila, who I find difficult to take serious at all, sorry Thaiquila.

The disagreement on media censorship is a good example:

State funded media are open to abuse by the state, or political parties.
Privately owned media are prone to the influence of politically motivated economic pressure.

I'd say both are valid arguments, which could be discussed in more detail, and how each version of media in practise (US versus Europe) flavors the underlying assumptions of the populace even before debate on any subject begins.

Incidentally, the control of the media has been a major focus of political parties to concentrate much of their efforts.

As you have explained media control is how I see the differences. I spoke with a political science professor who specialized in free speech issues and asked him which was best.

His reply was measured.

In a perfect world there are infinite funds that allow for all who wish to publish the opportunity. However that does not exist. Limited resources created the problem and the two present solutions being used are government funding and funding by the people through consumer action.

People who do not like a newspaper may cancel the subscription and then the newspapers voice is no longer heard. Does that define censorship or choice?

When a paper prints false allegations but faces no consequences due to government control and funding (and those allegations are favorable to one particular political party) is it free speech or propaganda.

The only option is to avoid looking at content and look at the underlying structure. Is that structure open to more, or is it open to less government control?

Eventually government always makes it benefice known regardless of the original intentions.

I think Stroll, that some of the derisive comments are a defensive reaction from conservatives that have been beat up a bit by the more liberal US media, just as Americans can be a somewhat defensive when confronted with a hostile European press.

On the other hand, privately owned media groups (often affiliated to a party) can and do squeeze smaller, independent publications out of the market on strategic, economic grounds, i.e. the one with the money (who often also happens to be buddies with influential politicians) can control what is being said and heard. So the question is not one of direct government or party control, but the vulnerability to control by groups of interest. The absence of quality commentary and political contend is to be considered as well.

An example for both arguments is TV in the UK, on one hand you have the private broadcastings which show little else but recycled movies and low production cost 'reality TV', on the other a deteriorating BBC, which allegedly shows political bias and distorted representation of events without immediate consequences.


I appreciate your point about the conservative posters, and hope the benefit of the doubt is extended to others and myself as well, one's comments do tend to switch into 'hyperbole' when under stress.

I assumed as much for both conservatives and liberals.