Jun 6, 2013 3 min read

Although this newspaper is very much a part of “the media,” we often are critical of their behavior. In particular, we have used this space frequently to flog television – still the most popular medium for information – for its excesses and obsessions.

The Internet has forced all media into a race to be first with the news, regardless of accuracy. The consequences of this competition were most evident after the Boston Marathon bombings, when television networks broadcast and websites posted rumor and speculation rushed to viewers as verified fact.

It is helpful to step away from the fray as we did recently, to leave the country and view events from abroad, through the filter of foreign media. That additional perspective gives us a better idea of what is serious and important, or just plain interesting, and what is not. Certainly, what is happening in Syria, for example, is important to the whole world; bickering inside the Beltway is not. No mention of the Kardashians, but a New Mexico man wrecking his car while drunk and having sex makes the news.

Gun violence in the United States is reported in Europe, as well, but with a different slant. Here, every incident is just another piece of local news. There, every death is more evidence of an increasingly violent society.

In London May 21, the BBC and other news channels broadcast a single story, hour after hour, at the expense of all other news that might have been happening: the deadly tornado in Oklahoma. Without question, this was news important and interesting all over the world, not just in the United States.

The next day, news of the tornado disappeared, replaced by another breaking news event – the slaughter of a British soldier by knife-wielding terrorists, in broad daylight in a London suburb. For the next 48 hours, television news stations reported almost nothing else.

In the United States, the murder of Lee Rigby made the news, but not nearly to the extent it did in the United Kingdom. A story and photo were published in this newspaper on page A4. The saturation coverage of the event by the media may be blamed for the public reaction it provoked in London: violent confrontations between right-wing, anti-Muslim demonstrators and their opponents.

We often criticize the American media for their fascination with celebrities and their tendency to beat stories to death, but they are nothing compared to the British media – swarming sharks darting to the next feeding frenzy.

You’re lucky to get 60 seconds of weather reporting each hour on TVs in England. When clouds and rain are likely almost every day, there’s just not that much interest in the daily forecast. Britons must be astounded by our local television stations’ obsession with weather (“Reporting live, from Canonsburg, where snowflakes are just beginning to fall!”).

The media come under harsh criticism in Britain, as well, and not just from the populace but the courts. The British press does not enjoy the unrestricted freedom that we have here, guaranteed by our Constitution. Stepping away from our shores gives us a chance to consider and appreciate the freedom of our media, and our freedom to ignore them if we choose.