Two things I hate about British media coverage of the US elections
- 6 Feb 08, 03:12 PM
First, the use of the term “middle class voters”. The trouble is that “middle class” in America means a very different group of people to the British “middle class”. In the USA “middle class” essentially means “middle income” – the average Joe – people we in Britain might term “lower middle class” or “upper working class”. But the “middle class” in Britain are essentially the top half of the population - the better off, people in professional jobs, who own their own homes and so on. This difference explains why American politicians, Democrat and Republican, frequently win cheers for saying “we’ve got to do more for middle class voters”, whereas any politician who said that in Britain would be taking a huge risk. They would be condemned as elitist, and accused of neglecting the less well-off. So talking of "middle class" people in the the American context becomes confusing and meaningless for a British audience. It's better, if talking of the American "middle class", to use the term "middle income".
Second, can we please stop referring to Hillary Clinton merely as “Hillary”? Calling politicians by their Christian names implies an element of favour or intimacy. It’s dangerous and should always be avoided by independent journalists and especially broadcasters. Would we have called the 1980 presidential race a contest between Jimmy Carter and Ronnie? Of course not. OK, one needs to distinguish Hillary Clinton from her husband, so she should be called “Hillary Clinton” or “Mrs Clinton”. And the same argument applies to the Labour and Conservative contenders in the current London mayoral election, who are often referred to in the media as “Ken” (Livingstone) and “Boris” (Johnson). It’s terribly unfair on the Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick and all the other candidates.
Comments Post your comment
Things I hate about British media coverage...
"But the “middle class” in Britain are essentially the top half of the population - the better off, people in professional jobs, who own their own homes and so on."
Who says so ?? This asinine and ridiculous reference to 'middle-class' as a definition which excludes the lower middle class [whatever that means] is just preposterous. These labels aren't used in Wales or Scotland for that matter.
The bizarre assumption that when one speaks about 'middle-class' that the audience knows just who you are talking about is absolutely lamentable. As is the recent foray by Jane Garvey to label Radio 4 as being 'too middle-class'.
The term 'middle-class' applies to most Britons anyway. Or do you have some sort of arcane 'class-scoring' system along the lines of credit scoring where no-one knows the rules or how many 'points' each facet of one's lifestyle 'scores' or where the 'pass mark' is.
This specious, facile argument seems to suggest that only professional people are interested in Radio 4 and its coverage of culture, arts and other 'intelligent speech'.
As a working class Welshman this ridiculous outmoded ill-defined tosh has got to stop - witness the contrast between Welsh funding for the arts and the current hoovering up of funds by the Arts Council. No doubt because of some idiotic assumption that the arts are too 'middle-class' and that the Olympics are for all. Despite the fact that they are sucking up money from sport for all programmes.
If I was controller of the ±«Óătv I would roast on a spit anyone [and I do mean anyone] who used the phrase 'middle-class' without defining precisely what they meant by it.
It is redundant, useless and about as much use in the diverse, meritocratic and multi-cultural society we live in as that equally vapid and loaded phrase 'British Values'..
Here endeth the lesson !
Complain about this post
Genuinely good points. Despite considering myself fairly knowledgeable about US politics I had never noticed the middle class/income lexical subtleties.
p.s. I just looked up Jane Garvey and now I wish I hadn't. I despise anti-intellectualism, which is rampant in this country, often under the guise of 'anti-elitism'.
Complain about this post
Is Mrs Clinton a good friend of Mr. "call-me-Tony" Blair? Or indeed Mr. "call-me-Dave" Cameron? And what about her campaign posters: most of them are 'Hillary' ones. And isn't she trying so hard not to lose votes for being too, well, aloof? Obama, sorry - Barack, definitely wins on the charisma front. But then again, never mind...
Complain about this post
Is Mrs Clinton a good friend of Mr. "call-me-Tony" Blair? Or indeed Mr. "call-me-Dave" Cameron? And what about her campaign posters: most of them are 'Hillary' ones. And isn't she trying so hard not to lose votes for being too, well, aloof? Obama, sorry - Barack, definitely wins on the charisma front. But then again, never mind...
Complain about this post
Perhaps a perusal of Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class" is in order?
Slainte!
ed
Complain about this post