To think our general election wont get as much coverage in America as we had to put up with from theirs?

[AgentZigzag]

Our news coverage of the American presidential election went on and on and on, and on and on and on, and then on a bit more...

I remember when it was still six months away being surprised at how much UK news time was taken up by the frenzy of fawning.

I'm sure I was about as interested in their election as the Americans are in ours, (ie a little bit) but I somehow can't see their news channels having it as headline news almost every day (altough I'd be happy to be corrected if this isn't the case).

Does this show that the relationship between the two countries is a tad one sided?

Or was it because the presidential election was seen as a landmark and therefore worthy of the coverage? I can't remember how much coverage Bush got when he was elected.

Or was it just a convenient 'filler' for our news outlets?

I can promise you it won't get the same amount of coverage. I was still in America in 2005 and didn't realise that there was an election going on in the UK, until my (now) husband told me that he'd voted that morning.

...or is it because the US is one of the world's two super-powers and the UK isn't? It's just a reflection of reality.

Your post makes it sound a bit like you're annoyed at the Americans for foisting all this news coverage onto us. They didn't. The British news outlets decided to cover it, presumably because they assumed a lot of people in Britain wanted to see it. [I know I was very interested in it.]

Bush's first term if I remember didn't get that much coverage until the results were all being counted and there were accusations of cheating. His second one was a lot more covered because of that, and although I think it was less than Obama's pre-election coverage, it was still pretty damn covered. Also it was because of what Bush had done already which had impacted on our own country, and I (as well as a lot of other people) couldn't quite believe that enough people could be quite so stupid as to give him a second term in office. Apparently enough people were.

The reason American elections are more covered over here than vice versa though is because America is still the only thing resembling a superpower, and their actions do have consequences for us (less so now the 'special relationship' has weakened, but still a lot in terms of being part of the world stage). Americans are just genuinely less affected by who we have as prime minister, especially given that the prime minister has less power to shove things through (i.e. needs the backing of parliament, whereas their president can just ignore Congress sometimes and say to hell with it).

what policywonk said

and for the record, I might add that the Swedish elections don't get as much cover in America as the American ones do in Sweden

nor the Luxemburg ones as much as....well, you get the general idea

lol american news tends not cover much beyond their borders unless it has a direct consequence to them.
I tell myself its cos its a continent sized country so they have plenty of news of their own but there are a wide range of cultural and practical reasons as to why it is that way.

Glitter, not annoyed at Americans at all as they don't have anything to do with our news agenda, I'm sure they're all very nice

Like you say, it's our news outlets assumption that the majority of us in the UK would give a flying fuck two hoots about their election. Most people I know had a passing interest in it, but not to the extent of extreme reporting that went on. It was as if it was the be all and end all of our society, and nothing that was happening here could possibly have been as interesting or important.

It makes me smile to imagine them portraying Brown and Cameron in the same sycophantic way our news talked about their politicians.

Personally, I lapped up all the US election stuff, and stayed up late to watch the results live.

I thought it was all fascinating.

The news outlets presumably know how much interest there is here in US politics and provide coverage accordingly.

Because what happens in America will directly affect this country and the world. The reverse is definitely not true. Sorry OP but you sound abit naieve (sp?)

Americans aren't big on foreign news in general, unless it directly impacts them. Their news coverage is very parochial. Local news at 6pm tends to get higher viewing figures than national news at 6.30pm.

However, there are better channels than others, so if you want foreign news, you can put in an effort to find it. For us, we appreciate foreign news, so we get it in mainstream media.

We get a lot of their election coverage because the president of the USA is of global importance. Their election process is also a long drawn out one, with the primaries to select the candidates and then the actual election. This process can last two years, rather than 3 or 4 weeks for us.

There is always the switch-off button if you aren't happy.

Another one here saying, "what policywonk said".

When the US has a change of administration - particularly one as historic as the last, the impact on the rest of the world is somewhat greater than when we have a new PM over here.

You're so right... when I lived in Pennsylvania, I was a bit gobsmacked to see the newspaper proudly advertised with the words 'We put West Chester ahead of the world'.

Otter,ITA, in fact the change of US administration probably will have more effect on the UK than the result of our own election.

"The reason American elections are more covered over here than vice versa though is because America is still the only thing resembling a superpower"

... and a fun place to go, especially if someone else (BBC) is picking up the tab for hotels, transport, and meals.

Like AZ, I was pretty peeved. It happens every 4 years, with a bunch of radio people flitting off to the States (esp on BBC Five Live). Bet they find time for sightseeing and shopping, and their flights are paid by the BBC.

Simon Mayo was in 5 States in 5 days (not so much fun), while someone from "Up All Night" spent weeks in Boston (for no apparent reason) - yet he talks to people in USA, Canada, NZ, etc, other months, in every show, so it looks like a "jolly" to me.

It starts around 13-15 months before they vote, when there isn't even a firm candidate, so they followed both Democrats and both Republicans well before there was voting in the different states to get down to one candidate each.

If the coverage is cut by the BBC, all the better, I say.

I do see the eventual choice as important, but not 10 of the 12+ months in the "run up" - for pity's sake, we cannot vote in their elections, and we're not massively affected by the nitty gritty of many of the "issues" debated in the "run up" either!

TBF, webdude, Rhod Sharpe, of Up all Night, is a resident of Massachussets.

"There is always the switch-off button if you aren't happy."

True, but doesn't stop the BBC spending the money, does it. I'd prefer they put it into comedy, drama, and so on, whether on TV or radio, or even ... more about the elections in countries other than the USA... for greater 'balance' (and to an extent, to know more about what "makes them tick" or why some might be drifting towards civil war, etc).

For example, how much do people know about the possible ramifications in Egypt of someone (a relative) standing against the current leader?

It's hardly mentioned, and neither is the general policy there of no mention of the army (journalists can disappear if they get nosy) etc. Some of what goes on elsewhere might surprise people if it got more 'visibility'.

I wasn't saying the American election wasn't important, I agree, they are a very powerful and influential country. It was the importance placed on the election to the detriment of everything else that I was surprised at, and perhaps a little embarrassed that at how it underlined the puppy dog following his master image.

If it doesn't happen in America or directly affect the Americans then it will get no news coverahe in USA .

Probably most Americans think that only their troops are out in the Middles East at moment !

WebDude, your cynicism did make me smile, I have to admit!

Thing is AZ, I can just as easily say that I know loads of people who were really interested in all the election stuff, read the web sites, checked the 'interactive maps', all that nonsense, but it's all personal experience, isn't it? I think unless we had viewing figures etc for all this stuff we can't really get a decent idea of how many people, across the country, actually gave a toss.

My guess would be that since they did so much coverage (more so than Bush's second term election) they knew people would be paying attention to it. But then of course WebDude may be right and actually it's all about sending people off on free holidays.

Suppose the only way you can really hope to change it if it annoys you is to send a message to the BBC/other outlets and point out that actually you found it all a bit boring. I imagine if lots of people did that they might change their tune a bit for the next one - but that depends on lots of people not also saying, "Actually this was great, give me more!"

Part of the lack of coverage in the US is possiblt down to a lack of understanding how the Parliamentary system works.

I was in Kentucky on a business trip when the 2005 election was called and you wouldn't believe the number of people who kept asking me "How does that work? How can they call an election when the other side doesn't have a leader picked out?" They didn't understand that our parties have permanent leaders that form the opposition at all times.

Or perhaps it was just the people of the Commonwelth of Kentucky that can't understand the system

apparently this debate is goingto be on cspan.

While I'm sure they all feel they've been working, GlitterandGlue, the point is there are a bunch of BBC journalists over there semi-permanently who have already made the contacts, know the policies, problems, and possibly get more of the gossip from other US journalists than someone flown in would manage to get during a brief stay.

Same thing happens for various R4 news shows, whether Today, World at One, or World Tonight - there's some 'event' and next thing you know, one of the London team is off for a few days in Gaza, or Istanbul, or wherever, depending on the "local reporter" who has built up intelligence over many months. Sure, those trips are less fun, and I would not wish to go off somewhere hot and dusty, with a chance of kidnap (as a journalist) or worse, but the point is there seem {to me} to be lots of un-needed trips at BBC expense.

I imagine I'd feel more than a little "miffed" if Humphries flew in for a couple of hours on air, having collected sound bites from 20 people I'd spent weeks getting to know, along with their views on the local issues. He (Humphries) goes on air as if he's worked miracles to get some tasty vox pops yet I bet he knew as much as his London team did the previous week, ie 10% of what he has learned in the last 24 hours from my contacts.

I'm not against there being reports from abroad, but there are some trips that appear to be 'for the sake of it' like music awards, film awards, and how much time does the guy from Front Row spend in New York to meet actors and watch Broadway productions?

Radio 1 goes off to Ibiza, and so on, probably with 5 hangers-on when you have some person like Moyles and his "posse" (sorry, out of touch, don't listen, but bet he has a bunch of 'yes' people to bounce 'jokes' off, not like the days when the DJs needed no back-slapping sycophants).

If you have ever listened to Feedback on R4, G+G, you'd know that despite endless public criticism, the producers, editors and more senior staff are so blinkered they hardly ever accept criticism, but justify their choices with "we felt it was best" {and damn the public}.

That woman a while ago (controller of R2 and 6Music), who chose Russell Brand, only resigned (eventually) after Ross and Brand embarrassed her badly (another of her choices was Chris Evans for the drive slot on R2, which displeased a majority at the time).

It probably won't. But it's our choice to worship at the alter of the great god America. If they choose to not make us their idol in return, that's up to them.