copernicus

That may be the view from Perth, but I would remind you that your perceptions are filtered through a news media that has something of a history when it comes to objective reporting. Who owns Fox News, the best known example of tabloid sensationalism in the US? Why, it's none other than Australian tabloid news mogul Rupert Murdoch! O'Reilly is nothing more than a right-wing gassbag infotainer, and he does exactly the kind of thing that has made Murdoch a very rich man.

Self-centered nationalism exists everywhere, not just in the US. You just get to see all of our warts in exaggerated detail, thanks to people like Murdoch. And don't mistake me as criticizing Australia because of Murdoch. People like him and O'Reilly exist in the woodwork of every country. They are just the ones that do what they do better than the competition.

I'll say one thing about O'Reilly. His best moments come when he has guests like infotainer Arianna Huffington, who understands his shtick and doesn't let it get to her. She is every bit his equal as a talking head pseudo-journalist entertainer, and it can actually be fun to watch them go at each other like old friends trading insults. When O'Reilly gets someone on who can't handle him, he just goes into Gong Show mode. The sad thing is that most people who watch O'Reilly (on both the right and the left) take him so seriously as a journalist. It is like people who think that professional wrestlers are really fighting each other rather than engaging in an elaborate choreography that requires some talent to pull off properly. Because O'Reilly is taken seriously, he has a significant impact on the way real TV journalists behave in the US. He is also able to have an impact on public perceptions of real events.

Evangelion

Copernicus -

Oh, really? Well, since I don't actually have a television, I rely on the BBC News Website for my daily news.

So tell me - just when, exactly, did Murdoch acquire the Beeb?

I don't watch Faux News, and I don't watch O'Reilly. In fact, I don't watch any Murdoch production whatsoever.

I don't have a TV, remember?

Agreed!

Would that be via the many Murdoch productions that I watch on my non-existent TV?

Just curious.

Oh, I understand you perfectly well. And I certainly agree with you on this point.

But the point is this: yours is a nation which consists primarily of Christian Americans. And the majority of these Christian Americans would seem to be of the "Fundy" type.

Not only that, but their political leanings appear to be deeply Conservative.

So really, you do indeed seem to have a majority of people who fall into the category to which I referred in a previous post.

pz

This is true. It's as true that Australia consists primarily of christian Australians, England consist primarily of christian Brits, etc.
Um, no. This is false. Fundamentalist christians are a minority, it's just that they are a well-organized minority that tends to act in concert on many political issues.

Nikolai

The majority are too indiferent to religion but feel loyalty to their respective Christian denomination, and will therefore respect the opinions of fundamentalists. Also, there has been a recent flood of people joining the more fundy churches, with the moderates getting more conservative.

Evangelion

If they are indeed a minority, it's disturbing to realise that they're one of the most powerful minorities in your entire nation.

ex-idaho

Without a doubt the Fundies are minorities in this country but the US electorate has dwindled down to almost nothing therby multiplying the power of this highly organized and plotically active minority.

Evangelion

Ah, yes... I keep forgetting. Voting isn't compulsory over there, is it?

Well then.

Seems to me that the buck can't be passed too far from the punters, can it?

snoiduspoitus

If my in-laws are any example, there's lot's of single-issue voters out there as well. They'll continually denounce this or that republican agenda, yet invariably vote republicans into office because of their 'pro-life' beliefs. Wish they'd just stay home.

crownboy

What exactly did the PhD guy talk about on the show that you guys are refering to? (You guys made many references to it without fully explaining it ).

And yeah, O'Reilly is an idiot. I read about the WTC victim's son interview in Harpers. Truly sickening.

copernicus

Evangelion, surely you are aware that Murdoch's empire started out in the print media, and has only recently branched out to pollute cable TV. And my main point was that your general criticism of America was hypocritical. We are discussing a network whose news style was imported from Australia. That is no more Australia's fault than it is the fault of US viewers. There is little about US citizens that makes them all that different from Australians. Except you folks in Australia have a tendency to use too many diphthongs. BTW, I use the BBC news page, too. It's very good, but I also like to monitor what stories the major US outlets are featuring.

I want to make it clear that I am making no criticism of you or your choice of news sources. I do hope that you read some print media. Since none of his outlets seem to identify his association with them clearly, you probably wouldn't know if you were getting news from him. Murdoch spins the news in whatever way makes him the most money. In the US, his people are unabashedly pro-American. In other parts of the world, they may well hype anti-Americanism. It's the hype that sells.

This only reveals the extent of your ignorance about America. As others have pointed out, it is a completely false impression. Not even the BBC can escape the pressure to print what attracts people's attention. And its readers are attracted to stories that highlight the extremes. You must have heard the old cliche about "Man bites dog!" when it comes to figuring out what is newsworthy. The daily reality of life in the US is that the vast majority of people want tougher gun control laws, worry about US unilateralism, dislike fundamentalist religious doctrine, support environnmentalist policies, and like Australian accents.

The state school board in Oklahoma was briefly dominated by anti-evolutionists (which made international headlines), and the public corrected the situation at the voting booth. Bush caters to religious fundamentalists, and is something of a religious nut himself, but he does not reflect the attitude that most Americans have towards religion. If you had spent much time in America, you would have learned that fundamentalists lose more at the ballot box than they win. They are, however, an important political faction--part of a dominant conservative political coalition. That dominance has surfaced from time to time in American history, but has never been a constant.

Same comment as before. This reveals deep ignorance on your part. About two thirds of the population votes conservative or liberal consistently, and the remaining third swings back and forth. We are in an extended period where the middle tends to swing to the right. I expect that to change, but maybe not in the next election. It depends on how quickly people come to blame Bush for his messes. They will eventually, but they are slow to anger.

Out of curiosity, have you ever visited the US? It sounds to me like all your observations of American life come from secondhand sources. Certainly, if you visited more sparsely populated rural areas, you would find that your stereotypical approach to Americans makes more sense. But the US is a very diverse country, and you would certainly be surprised at the breadth of that diversity if you had a real chance to observe it. Most Americans live in urban or suburban areas, and they are definitely not fundamentalist christians.