. Instapundit seems pleased with this story by the BBC’s Justin Webb. Mr Webb has been a frequent target of this blog, as you’ll see if you do a search for his name. Nonetheless recently there has been a conscious effort by Mr Webb to address mindless anti-Americanism, and the BBC’s anti-Americanism in particular. Good for him.
But he isn’t out of the bubble yet. Mr Webb sees the fact that lots of guns can be combined with a safe atmosphere. He sees it and reports it – many of his colleagues have not stretched the skin of the bubble so far. However the only cause suggested for this tranquility is the lack of public drunkeness. For all I know that is so, but it is far from unusual for people outside the bubble to put forward another cause: the guns themselves. As Instapundit quoting Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.”
I’m not saying Mr Webb should have stated that hypothesis as fact. But it could, and should, quite easily and naturally have been included as another potential explanation. After all, an apparent solution to a paradox ought to be part of a story about a paradox.
Reality check for all you who seriously believe the US is more peaceful than merry England:
The murder rate (the number of murders per 100,000 of population) in the US is around four to five times higher than in England.
Any given individual is therefore four to five times more likely to be murdered in the US as he/she would be in England.
In England and Wales only 9% of homicides feature the use of firearms.
In the US, 73%
The incidence of rape in the US was an amazing 17 times higher than in England in the 80s, but now seems only to be three times higher.
The US is therefore a place where the people are often armed, very polite, but more likely to murder/rape you.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
Tsk,. tsk.. tsk Oxfordian Era… there you go again.
There’s no pleasing you. I already admitted you have a shred of intelligence.
What sort of “teacher” were you again?
roc:
when you describe Frei-
“he seems like a generally witty and amusing chap”
I think you are just trying to wind people up.
I met Frei once. He is indeed witty/amusing.
.
“In England and Wales only 9% of homicides feature the use of firearms.
In the US, 73%” –
why is that relevant? When you get murdered, you are dead.
Andy,
Jack Bauer 4:46 pm –
I rest my case.
“What sort of “teacher” were you again?” –
again the infantile scare quotes.
What ARE you doing, playing on your mummy’s computer? You are liable to get your behind smacked and sent to bed without your cocoa.
john bull..no doubt your figures are correct for murder rates etc and are something to be deplored…but…a large percentage of these murders etc take place in a few large cities (think gangs) and as such do not represent America as a whole.The incidents of casual violence and theft in a greater part of the States is much less than here.The city I live in during my time in CA has just had a murder…the first in several years and it is big news…over here on merseyside…well take your pick! most of my extended family in America have never experienced any crime whereas my family in various parts of U.K. view it as a constant tax on daily life….I know which I prefer. I still love living in England but the awareness and ever present feeling of criminality makes it difficult to justify bringing up my family here.
Jack Bauer “#3. I passed no judgments on the places you mention.”
How about “San Francisco and California values are a dirty word for the aforementioned America.”?
Since it needs spelling out, I have met Americans in many situations and in many places. My brother-in-law is American, I’ve had holidays there and I’ve spent extended periods working with representatives of oil companies. I’m saying that the politeness, while welcome, often gives way to petulance, rudeness or even aggression at the first sign of adversity, unfamiliarity or disagreement. In my experience this is not confined to people from the East and West coasts. It also seems to apply to Americans visiting Indonesia and Thailand. Apparently, American guidebooks do not point out that browbeating Thais will get you nowhere.
If you want genuine good manners, go to Japan.
ROC, I genuinely think Frei is quite amusing. I don’t agree with most of what I infer to be his politics but he has a reasonably light style which I find preferable to the self satisfied air largely prevalent on the Beeb, and as Natalie’s original post notes he does appear to have a mind of his own
I hope that the owners of this blog read this thread from top to bottom. I read the first 30 or so comments this morning, thinking how refreshing it was to read some incisive, informative debate rather than the trolling, extreme sweeping falsehoods and ad hominem insults that have sadly become far too prevalent in recent weeks.
It is therefore sad to see that, on my return, this thread too has degenerated into ridiculous and personal argument based on insult and one-upmanship rather than basic fact.
There are some contributors here who do nothing but ruin the quality of this blog, either by constant insults, trying to change the subject of the thread to what they want to talk about (usually themselves) or by espousing extreme views without any facts to back them up. These people have no place on these message boards.
The likes of Laban, David, Natalie and others work hard to produce an informative blog and a compelling case against the BBC. Sadly, owing to the moronic contributions of a small minority, the comments are becoming unreadable.
You are rightly proud that you rarely censor posts and allow everyone their say. Sadly, I feel the time may have come where free comments for all is no longer in the best interests of this blog.
“I’m saying that the politeness, while welcome, often gives way to petulance, rudeness or even aggression at the first sign of adversity, unfamiliarity or disagreement” –
sadly, I have to agree. Americans do seem to have a problem with people who come from other cultures. The astonishing thing about the USA is that on one hand you have huge diversity between the various States (and I am talking about local culture, not landscape), and yet there is a constant thread of homogeneity, at some level, and diverging from it causes such problems.
“f you want genuine good manners, go to Japan” –
I have not been to Japan, but I have met a great many Japanese socially and professionally. I will agree with the social good manners, but I also encounter great difficulty on the part of Japanese in grasping that there may be very different cultures that are as legitimate as their.
Knacker has it in a nutshell. Forty years ago I was proud to be British/English. Now I am ashamed and the BBC and the bleating wooly-minded liberals have had a big hand in achieving that.
“- Yes, you sure do talk ignorant nonsense. In some parts of quite polite America, I was warned not to stand behind a car reversing out of a parking space and indicate to oncoming drivers to wait and let it come out, which I would do in most parts of the UK without thinking about it, because I might give rise to road rage from those oncoming drivers.”
Oxfordian:
You do indeed talk nonsense. You claimed that in London Texas people would not push into a supermarket queue for fear of getting shot. This was nonsense and I said so. I pointed out that criminals would think twice about home invasions, because then they would get shot. You ignored that, and instead came out with the above comment, which I can’t even understand. Why exactly would you want to stand behind a car which is reversing anyway? I don’t follow. Anyhow, what you seem to be saying is that if you do that you might piss someone off, not that they will shoot you.
Nearly Oxfordian “I have not been to Japan, but I have met a great many Japanese socially and professionally. I will agree with the social good manners, but I also encounter great difficulty on the part of Japanese in grasping that there may be very different cultures that are as legitimate as their.”
I have not had extensive dealings with the Japanese but colleagues who have say that they are a delight to deal with once you understand their ways. I believe they are making a genuine effort to be more outward looking. Serious people in many ways – interesting to talk to.
“Oxfordian:
You do indeed talk nonsense. You claimed that in London Texas people would not push into a supermarket queue for fear of getting shot” –
what drivel. I have not been to Texas, and I have never said any such thing.
Barry,
I agree with all that. Most of them have been more than delightful, and as you say – made a great effort to be more outward-looking. Then there have been some who were not so delightful, in ways that I found astonishing given what I have always taken to be the Japanese code of honour, but there could be all kinds of personal and/or cultural reasons for that which I have never got to the bottom of.
Heron,
David gets the commentariat he deserves. He’s taken the blog downhill and made it a tabloid bunfight with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. If he wants to improve the quality of the comments, then physician heal thyself.
Hillhunt | 28.04.08 – 4:47 pm |
In real life he may be a witty person, but the impression I get when watching him, he is rightly referred to by some as Sneer Frei.
Cockney | 28.04.08 – 5:16 pm |
OK, we can agree to disagree.
Heron,
Now, now, they’re just having a little flame war over who is more polite. I say sometimes unintended humor is the best.
If it’s OK to bring race into this, it has to be admitted that a large proportion of the USA’s rate of violent crime comes from two sources which are not a reflection of the character of America or American values.
Firstly, South American immigrants. One only has to look at the murder rates in countries like Mexico to understand why the influx of Hispanic immigrants into America has pushed up the murder rate. Latino gangs are some of the most violent in the world and are currently terrorizing a lot of areas. The contribution to the murder rate from South American immigrants (legal and illegal) is a reflection of the US’s lax immigration policy, not its “culture”.
Second, it cannot be denied that African Americans commit a share of violent crime which dwarfs their ratio in the population overall. For instance, blacks in America are seven times as likely as whites to commit murder and six times as likely to be murdered. These figures are straight from FBI statistics and are freely available on their website. All of which means that at only 12% of the population, they commit well over 50% of America’s violent crimes.
Those who will then say that America’s racist slave past is to blame for the behavior of young black males in the ghetto should realize this – American slavery isn’t responsible…the violent left wing radicalism and “black power” movement of the late 60’s and early 70’s is.
Before this time, even during segregation and other shameful moments in American history, African Americans had a low rate of crime, strong family values, a strong work ethic and a strong recognition of the importance of education. When the noble civil rights movement of the Martin Luther King era lost its moorings, those forces which had previously been held at bay were right there to fill the vacuum. Thus we saw the beginnings of the theatrics of the Black Power movement.
Add to the mix the incessant encouragement from white radicals in the early 70’s, who did their best to get as many blacks onto welfare as possible (Google George Wiley and ACORN) and to encourage black mothers to have kids with no help from the father, and we saw the start of the ghetto welfare culture the violence of which was encouraged by angry black radicals like the Black Panthers and saw the birth of gangs like the Bloods and the Crips.
As an illustration, it was recently pointed out by a black commentator here that more blacks have been killed by the Bloods and the Crips in LA alone since 1980 than were ever lynched during the entire period of American lynching.
Given that the inner city violence problem of America has its roots in attitudes which are no real reflection on American culture, and given that those rates of violence have largely been confined to ghetto areas and have mainly consisted of thug-on-thug killings, it seems unfair to judge American society in general by its overall murder rate.
When you take black and Hispanic rates out of the mix, the US has a homicide offender rate lower than Germany and France…
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
knacker:
“This isn’t much of a problem for me, an American, but it is for you: the word is out in the US about what Britain has become. You have been tarred with the BBC’s brush and are now widely perceived as arrogant, ignorant, smug and in helpless and terminal decline.”
Not true. Americans still regard Britons with great affection. You’ve been reading the Guardian and BBC on-line a little too much, I suspect. Log off. You’ll be less angry and they’ll earn less advertising revenue.
Jason “When you take black and Hispanic rates out of the mix, the US has a homicide offender rate lower than Germany and France…”
Provided, of course, that certain offences in Germany and France should not also be taken out of the mix. There are certainly offences in the UK that could be removed.
The ever anti Bush TOADY show are doing yet another hate report with Will Self and Simon Schama both of whom hate Bush! No room for anyone who supports Bush? Why would TOADY give a platform to their mortal enemies?
Has the USA lost its ‘moral authority’? and both guests concentrate on attacking Bush! Bush is evil and Bush is crooked and the war is evil and Bush is to blame and Bush is……! FFS Why the constant one sided attacks on Bush? Why no dissenting opinions? What is it about the socialists that they have to blame everything on one person? These leftist beeboids are like a dog with a bone, they never let go once they have their nasty teeth into something!
Will Self could only harp on about the “fall of the Berlin wall” wasamatter Will, still broken hearted that your socialist heroes destroyed themselves and that a Republican helped it along? Whats up Will? still dreaming of the socialist utopia lost to the evil capitalists?
WTF? Why do we have to listen to these childish foot stampers who can only carry on their pathetic grudges and finger pointing?
“Americans still regard Britons with great affection” –
yes, they do to a large extent, as I said several days ago. But that does not mean that they cannot look with sadness at the mess in today’s Britain.
I had Schama as my director of studies at university. He was known for his patronising lefty arrogance, unmitigated by any shred of personal charm.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“You claimed that in London Texas people would not push into a supermarket queue for fear of getting shot”
You are right, you did not make that comment, you merely defended it. I shall have to be polite and apologise, sort of. I still can’t see the point you are making about standing behind cars which are reversing though.
“You are right, you did not make that comment, you merely defended it” – err, no, I didn’t ‘defend’ it. Ever worked for the BBC? Just wondered … I confirmed that my experience is similar: that you should be careful not to assume that perfectly ordinary behaviour in the UK would be accepted as ordinary in the USA.
As to cars: well, I thought you’d get it by now, but OK, let’s draw you a little diagram. I didn’t mean EXACTLY behind, but sort-of behind, slightly to one side. Call it 10 degrees away from a line produced behind the car and collinear with its longitudinal axis. Have you really never stood at the entrance to a friend’s driveway to help him or her reverse into the road, holding up your hand to stop approaching traffic? Obviously, you have never lived.
When did the UK and Europe ever look to the US for “moral authority”, which we have now lost because of Bush? I forget.
Rob and Nearly Oxfordian,
I made the comment you are both sparring about.
Read it all at:
deegee | 28.04.08 – 6:51 am
It was in the nature of a sarcastic question, in a chain of questions designed to attack the idea that gun ownership genuinely correlates with politeness. As Social Scientists say it’s a spurious relationship.
You can tell it was a question, not a claim by the ❓ at the end of the sentence. Perhaps I should have put < /SARC > or 🙂 at the end of the sentence. It was designed to show, not that citizens are intimidated into politeness by the thought the victim of their rudeness might be ‘packing a piece’. but how ridiculous is the idea that gun ownership and politeness are connected.
Rob
You should be quite aware of the source of the quote. You copied the paragraph in full, including all the question marks.
see Rob | 28.04.08 – 12:13 pm
At the time I thought you were confusing politeness with criminality but I didn’t have time to reply.
I suppose it’s possible to be a polite, violent criminal but how successful would you be?
This thread has got me pondering along the following lines:
Why is it that, other than the recent momentary removal of the rose-tinted China glasses (which will get put back on with an improved prescription once the torch smoke clears), the only place in the world in which the BBC has reporters who are shamelessly condescending towards the locals, and always highly critical and at times hostile towards the incumbent government, is the US? Do any other Beeboids laugh openly in public forums (such as their blogs or regular columns) at the people whom they cover?
And Israel.
David Preiser: Those questions will stay rhetorical, as you know, because you’re not going to get a decent answer from the BBC or any of its supporters. We can all come up with plausible reasons, but endless conjecture ain’t the American way; we prefer pragmatism.
So, what to do? Closing down the BBC’s US operations is easy enough: far as I know, there are no first amendment issues that protect foreigners like Frei, and you can be sure that, in the right hands, a careful examination of his visa application would justify a humiliating eviction in front of lotsa cameras. But that’s like an elephant trying to bugger a flea. Are we afraid of Frei and is he worth the effort? No, emphatically not, from our POV: he’s ridiculous and mildly annoying, but more sad than seditious. The harm done to the British people by more-of-the-same is another matter, but that’s theirs to fix.
I’d favor the rebirth of USIA, only this time with fangs and claws around the globe — well funded and staffed from the private sector, fully independent of the State Dept and w/ direct links to the A-G’s office and (I forget its current name) Dep’t of Immigration.
None of which will help ordinary, decent Brits recover their country. They’re on their own there; you fix your own messes. In Britain, the rot’s in deep.
“When did the UK and Europe ever look to the US for “moral authority”, which we have now lost because of Bush? I forget”
Post WWII I think there’s a fair argument that we did.
“Do any other Beeboids laugh openly in public forums (such as their blogs or regular columns) at the people whom they cover?”
This is the crux of my complaint about the approach.
I think there’s some level of affection in what Frei does in his ‘colour pieces’ on ‘middle america’ (if that’s an acceptable term??) but the overriding thought is that he’s patronising people who don’t conform with metropolitan norms.
In contrast, on TV the BBC does a great deal of programming on small town/rural areas of Western Europe (France and Italy are favourites), with a similar air of incomprehension that people in developed countries can retain family community and an affinity with tradition. In this case though the presentation is less patronisation but more breathless enthusiasm (no doubt resulting in a rush of tourists wrecking the places).
Any coverage of stable and reasonably functional third world life is of course presented as high art inherently superior to our corrupt western ways.
knacker | 30.04.08 – 3:49 am |
I’m just not sure I’m comfortable with any broadcasting organization directly linked to a national government, even my own, so I have misgivings about your USIA suggestion, as superior to the current BBC product as it may be.
Unfortunately, Matt Frei has full First Amendment protection here because BBC America is on paper a joint venture between BBC World and Discovery Communications, a US company. The only thing anyone can do is drum up enough complaints that we’re tired of the national broadcasting organization of a foreign country sending foreign nationals over here to tell us their perspective on our news, and particularly on our elections. No news broadcast coming from that position has a chance of being worthy of respect. This is not even strictly legal when viewed from that angle.
“Why is it that, other than the recent momentary removal of the rose-tinted China glasses”
I don’t see how that squares with China’s longstanding banning of BBC content to Chinese audiences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7312240.stm
If it was as rose-tinted as you suggest, one would assume the Chinese would have been falling over themselves to have the BBC broadcast there.
Chinese language content is still blocked, I believe.
p and a tale of one chip | 30.04.08 – 4:25 pm |
I don’t see how that squares with China’s longstanding banning of BBC content to Chinese audiences.
If it was as rose-tinted as you suggest, one would assume the Chinese would have been falling over themselves to have the BBC broadcast there.
Chinese language content is still blocked, I believe.
The fact that China blocks content does not say anything about how the BBC reports on China, does it? How is that relevant? I’m not saying that the BBC is unaware of what goes on in China, I’m saying that they don’t report on China anywhere near as unfavorably as they report on the US, and on the same topics.
The BBC most certainly has not made a big deal – save for this recent spate – of being blocked by China. If anything, the BBC should be constantly reminding everyone that the Chinese government has blocked them. I suppose it never occurred to them until they rant into trouble over Tibet, and their Olympic coverage was in peril.
Still, the BBC has been promoting China lately, and no question. Quite the opposite of its US coverage.
“The fact that China blocks content does not say anything about how the BBC reports on China, does it?”
You’re kidding. It is the guiding reason behind blocking the content.
“I’m saying that they don’t report on China anywhere near as unfavorably as they report on the US”
Based on what exactly?
“The BBC most certainly has not made a big deal – save for this recent spate – of being blocked by China”
How do you know? Most of the BBC’s lobbying for being unblocked will undoubtedly have taken place behind closed doors, to “save face”.
At the time of the block, 1999, the BBC certainly did mention it regularly.
“As to cars: well, I thought you’d get it by now, but OK, let’s draw you a little diagram. I didn’t mean EXACTLY behind, but sort-of behind, slightly to one side. Call it 10 degrees away from a line produced behind the car and collinear with its longitudinal axis. Have you really never stood at the entrance to a friend’s driveway to help him or her reverse into the road, holding up your hand to stop approaching traffic? Obviously, you have never lived”
Nearly:
Now I see what you are getting at. No, I have never done such a thing, and to be honest I think it would piss me off a bit if I was driving along with the right of way and someone did that, but I would not be moved to shoot. But if you think that’s living, you ought to try something really exciting, like bridge.
p and a tale of one chip | 30.04.08 – 5:18 pm |
At the time of the block, 1999, the BBC certainly did mention it regularly.
At the time. From then until now (the website is no longer blocked) one would normally expect that most, if not all, reports on China’s politics, or people’s daily lives, there would be a little tag on the end mentioning that the BBC website is still blocked. I don’t recall ever hearing that during or after any BBC report I have seen on or from China in the last year at least. In fact, it was not so long ago that BBC World News did a three-part encomium on how China’s wonderful development was benefiting all and sundry.
If the US blocked even one pixel of BBC content, it would be the number one topic for ages. How many people in the UK are aware that the BBC News website had been blocked? Not nearly as many as ought to.
China has blocked lots of foreign news sites, not just the BBC. They even block certain Chinese terms like “free speech” on domestic traffic. The BBC was never so critical of China as to deserve special treatment.
David Preiser (USA) | 30.04.08 – 4:09 pm
USIA redux: No, I’m not suggesting a gov’t broadcaster charged w/ pumping sanitized news at US citizens in the US (hey, the BBC is surely enough of a warning for the entire free world), but rather an information agency operating outside the US and specifically charged w/ countering anti-American propaganda. The security agencies have other things to do.
There are lots of modern media tools and techniques, none involving traditional broadcasting; all are more aggressive than the bureaucratic press releases, goofy trade-show exhibits and crude VofA-style propaganda of the past. And I can’t see any libertarian objection to channels back to domestic agencies that handle applications for visas/work permits of hostile foreign broadcasters: they are foreigners, not US citizens.
As I said, I don’t favor hounding BBC America: they have no idea how they harm themselves, so let them keep digging.
But I understand your frustration, and someone will likely decide to act. I know nothing about World and Discovery Communications. However, ”on paper a joint venture” sounds like a figleaf any good legal team could shred: US corporate law won’t protect a sham, and general equitable remedies will handle most artifice, including stalling for time. Then there’s the FCC. And visa and green card issues… Many ways to go, all legal.
Sorry David, I’m still having a laugh at China blocking media is nothing to do with the content of the media.
And now you’ve decided that a hypothetical example of the US banning BBC evidence is support for your earlier statement that the BBC sees China with rose-tinted glasses.
p and a tale of one chip | 01.05.08 – 11:15 am |
Sorry David, I’m still having a laugh at China blocking media is nothing to do with the content of the media.
The BBC has probably been the least critical of China of any of the large Western news organizations for years. They certainly have shown lots of China love in the last year or so in what are supposed to be news features. Yes, I must have been imagining all those reports and my nictitating membrane closed and my cochlea shut down momentarily when they mentioned China’s censorship of the BBC website. All due to my poor, biased brain’s inability to process things that don’t fit into my tiny world view, naturally.
And now you’ve decided that a hypothetical example of the US banning BBC evidence is support for your earlier statement that the BBC sees China with rose-tinted glasses.
I’ve just now decided that, have I? The BBC jumps at any chance to portray the US in a bad light, even reporting second-hand lies if it suits them. Until very recently, they jumped the other way for China. I expect them to return to form shortly.
It is all very well giving the devil his due and all that, as David (Vance) generously does in this thread re Justin Webb’s acknowledging of anti-Americanism. No harm in that.
However, what I want to know is why the juvenile Justin can boast (yes, BOAST) that he played his part in creating anti-American caricatures, yet KEEP HIS JOB WITH THE BBC.
For one thing, it is poor quality, lazy, incompetent, juvenile journalism. For another, the BBC pretends to be oh so anti-racist and respectful of other parts of the world and all that.
So why does the BBC print this boast of Just Juvenile’s on the BBC website, as if it is something to be PROUD of? Why is the BBC not ashamed of it? Why is he not ashamed of it and ashamed of being a poor journalist? (He is a poor journalist in other ways too. How does such a poor specimen of the trade get to be so smug and sneering?)
Why was he so sure that that he could indulge in this boasting and get away with it – indeed not only get away with it, but keep his job IN AMERICA?
It’s a serious question that the BBC should answer, just as it should answer questions about its standards and ethics; its declining standard of literacy and lack of editorial quality control over this; its misleading of the audience over the callers / guests (Dave Blogger and the Hamas terrorist associate and promoter) on its Have Your SAY programme discussed on another thread.
I thought there had been enough scandal recently about misleading the public and that someone had been sacked, so why is the BBC still misleading the public?