World View of the United States of America

[quoudam72]

What The World Thinks of America will be broadcast in the UK on BBC Two on Tuesday, 17 June 2003, at 2100 BST.

If you would like to join the interactive debate join here

People around the world take a dim view of the US, poll suggests Survey results

You can watch the programme on the tele (UK) or on your computer on the website located here.

[Acriku]

Is there a moral at the end of this story or is this another rage against the machine dealy? I'll try to watch it, but why is everything on BBC? I have to move my butt to the next room to get that channel :P

[zamboe]

I posted this yesterday on Gob's topic "Iraq issues", quondam75 good idea to make a new topic though.

btw I hope it's on BBC international TV. Usually they put good stuff only for the local BBC (UK only).

[quoudam72]

Acriku just move your butt to the other room and I have no idea yet if it is rage against the machine haven't seen the programme. :P

We can talk about it after the programme has aired. Zamboe you can watch it on your computer I provided a link in my leading post on the subject. ;)

[Dunenewt]

Kinda on-topic:What to people around the world think of the BBC?

[Dante]

Nearly every single channel we get is BBC. ;)

Seriously though, they're a major broadcasting factor, they used to have a monopoly on it. . . and 50% of the channels I recieve are BBC. Nothing against them. :)

[zamboe]

What I don't like about BBC is that they discriminate the timming of broadcast their programs, BBC international signal is not their priority.

[SurlyPIG]

That's wierd...in less than an hour the CBC is broadcasting a special of the same name, but the ad said it was put together with 9 of the world's biggest broadcasters...I'm guessing it's just a localized ripoff.

At any rate, my opinion of the BBC is the same as my opinion of the CBC. At best, it's good journalism. At worst, it's government-funded propaganda.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Have any of you actually watched the BBC program yet?

[Mahdi]

Like it said on the CBC commercial, it was made by nine of the worlds broadcasters. Quondom only said BBC because thats probably what is airing the special there. I missed it unfotunatly. Will have to wait for a repeat.

[Egeides]

I did. It was pretty interesting and went through the subject quite completely. They talked about people's opinion on Iraq, USA, Bush, cultural expansion, and a few other parallel aspects. Quite a few person were invited to talk, from around the world (Brasil, France, South Africa, a woman from Middle East...).

Basically, US' citizens have a pretty different view of many things, and people around the world have a pretty different view of what's going on, face to Bush (which is strongly opposed).

But an important fact is to notice: not all countries were represented (obviously). It was mostly industrialized countries (key ones: France, Russia, USA, UK, ) and a few others (I recall Indonesia).

Interesting points:

- 48% of non-US people saw US as a threat.

- Most saw US as a bigger threat than N.Korea, Iran... except Al Qaida

- 2/3 saw Bush negatively

- The 1st product that comes to mind when we say "USA" in a Middle East country is "Bush's chicken", some deal coming from Bush (father) :D

- After discussing US culture, it was said Americans were nationalists but didn't see themselves as such. They are for democracy (personal comment: It's not democracy, damnit!).

- 65% non-US people said US army made the world more dangerous (included Canada, Israel and )

- Russia, Indonesia, Korea (not France! I'm surprised...) were the ones most opposed with USA, Canada was the less

- MOST SOUTH KOREANS SEE USA MORE DANGEROUS THAN NORTH KOREA :O

- Most people are against Saddam, but also against US attack of Iraq (the ones that had majority approving the war: US, Israel, Uk, Australia)

Of course, I didn't put everything, just major parts... in all this US citizens had a pretty good opinion of their country, but it wasn't totally white/black. The reason why I didn't wrote alot about Americans' opinion is that they were more like I expected, but also because I didn't found it back on the video ;D

[Mahdi]

Jsut an addition: Canada did have the highest pro-US poll results, but they were still 57% for and 43% against.

[die4honr]

if all these people think bush is stupid or dumb then why was he elected president...he obviously did something right, i mean who cares if he is just finishing off what his daddy started. i say he relieved the world of a threat that was getting stronger by the day i mean who could imagine if saddam got his hands on nukes

[quoudam72]

Majority of what was said on the programme was the same as what we have been saying here on the Fed2K site. I am not sure about the percentages and survey satistics but in the essence of expressing opinions they are very simiular.

[Egeides]

if all these people think bush is stupid or dumb then why was he elected president...he obviously did something right, i mean who cares if he is just finishing off what his daddy started. i say he relieved the world of a threat that was getting stronger by the day i mean who could imagine if saddam got his hands on nukes

His own administration admited that the Florida counts had a problem (in their favor) some time ago... but still changed nothing without saying it. I believe W.Bush cheated, and it's Jeb Bush that's in Florida...

[SurlyPIG]

I caught most of it and was glad I watched it but had a few problems with it...

Namely, how do you define a 'threat'? One could say that anyone with power is a threat, in which case, the US obviously is the greatest 'threat' in the world. I suppose the military capacity of the US is practically omnipotent compared to Al-Qaeda operatives that live in caves. Maybe I have a little laywer in me or something but the technical range of language in this case isn't narrow enough...the questions needed to be more specific.

[Acriku]

They recounted and recounted, and it remained the same. Get over it, even Al Gore got over it (atleast publicly).

What is up with the question that "Is America more dangerous than the Al-Queada?" Jordan had majority to poll yes, which is not surprising with occupation of the Al-Queada in that country.

[SurlyPIG]

Egedeis there was no corruption, that's the just the nature of the US electoral system. It's the same as our parliamentary system, it come from the UK's 'first past the blocks' system of regional representation. I'm against it in both cases, I think it's outdated and obviously it becomes disproportional. It only works for systems where citizens vote consistently and there are two total parties. If those factors are not constant then it's not a fair system.

If you're going to be critical of the US system, you should know that ours is far worse. Because of the 5 party platform theres terrible regional alienation and party alienation. In US, because it's almost entirely 2 parties, the % difference in popular vote with power seatswon was like 1.6%, but in Canada, it was 14%

[nemafakei]

I did indeed watch the programme.

"BBC international signal is not their priority"

True, that's because the BBC is mostly funded by the British television owner.

I must remind you of the sample size - only 10,000! Peter Snow always is sure to put such things in context. Good man.

Other than that, the figures that made me laugh the most were:

89% of the US think they're the best place in the world.

18% of the rest of the world agree, and by far the best part of the remainder thought that their country was better.

"if all these people think bush is stupid or dumb then why was he elected president"

Intelligence is relative. And 'all these people' are non-americans, mainly. And it was the US that elected him.

[SurlyPIG]

"89% of the US think they're the best place in the world."

Why does that strike you as funny Nema? I'd imagine that the residents of country X probably think country X is the best place in the world, otherwise, why, of all places, would they live there?

[Egeides]

ACE, about corruption, you may read this if you want to see my complete point:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10562

If you want something about media corruption that affected the campaign and still affects mass medias now:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16172

The author of both articles is Greg Palast, Pullitzer Prize of investigative journalism. It doesn't make him right, but it does mean his methods are recognized. He wrote "The Best Democracy Money can Buy", which is about Bush's election and I dunno what else. He also wrote I dunno what :P He's a Canadian that now lives in UK because papers didn't accept to publish his stuff in Canada and USA (he writes about Saudis namely).

[SurlyPIG]

Well if that first link is true and unexaggerated that's freaking scary...I've never liked the Bushies very much and always thought Jeb was the worst of them. That's honestly the first time I've heard anything about that. I assumed that you meant votes were somehow tampered with or something. I guess, if it's really true, we know what Jeb meant when he promised his his brother Florida...

There are valid reasons for harping on for-profit media, but if it weren't there, what would we have? We would probably have publicly funded media like the BBC and the CBC, but that is just as easily corrupt. An example of such is when good ol' hockey analyst Don Cherry spoke out against the government over the war and said that Canada should be fighting by our brother's side...and for that he almost lost his job. Now I'm not saying that it's the most appropreate of things for a hockey analyst to be commenting on political actions, but if he can't voice his opinion, then celebrities like Martin Sheen or the Dixie Chicks or Oprah shouldn't be able to either. Besides, the guy is a Canadian icon! I mean, he's practically a cartoon he's so blatantly and offensively Canadian. Anyway, there are also privately funded media like PBS that rely on individual or corporate donations. Again, same problem. If they report something their sponsors don't like, they'll suddenly find their operating funding in short supply...

I think that all types of media are required to sort of check and balance each other out. Corporate, public, and private included.

[Egeides]

Well one problem is that an editor can decide to fire a journalist and decides what will be the content. So, obviously, it wont be against the owners' interests... I'm not so sure state's medias are better: someone knows a bit about the Russian's Pravda?... But I think that if editors didn't have such a power over the journalists, and/or if their rights over journalists' were limited from the moment it asks their impartiality, then it'd be better.

This is not to mention that perhaps cooperative newspapers could exist (or even forced to exist: created by state and independant thereafter). Anyway, the whole thing is that journalists should not be put out for their ideas and those with specific interests shouldn't be able to interfere with the truth since it is not their right, even if they owe the media.

PS: If you want an exemple, perhaps I should mention that Palast's arguments were discussed very seriously in France but... not alot in Canada. But the French journalists are muzzled when Vivendi's interests (or else) are threatened :-X

[SurlyPIG]

Well that's a very heavy ball to throw Eg, and even then it would still be prudent to maintain other systems of media. I'm against eliminating any kind of journalistic voice because I'm against control of information and therefore against mind control. Wouldn't it be best to just keep all the different medias around, and start new ones whenever practical?

[Egeides]

I'm not for eliminating any kind of media either... But I'm against letting some having more power than some others for monetary reasons. Some rules should be instaured though. If one guy in fact defends a certain point of view that is profitable to him while making everything to look like being independant, there's a problem. I know a journalist with a few decades of experience that said me she wouldn't ever be able to talk about weapons imports/exports in canadian newspapers. She said the same about canadian banks that are profitting from not very white money... or too white perhaps? ;D

Besides, you already knew that Bush is presently trying to permit some laws that will let major medias merge in fewer hands? It's alot more profitable for medias (monopoly, or close) and it is said that it will bring a more republican media (but... he doesn't know that ::)).