‘I prefer the American *ideal* of a watchdog press that is independent of government and, as much as possible, politics.’

‘Would we be better off with an openly partisan press?’

You cannot be serious! I guess it’s hard to discern things in the dark.

‘I’d also argue that US journalism deludes itself in believing in its objectivity.’

That’s much more like it.

‘I do believe that we are poorly served by the pretence of objectivity.’

Even better.

How many of your papers have prominently reported Nelson Mandela’s comments? Hans Blix’s pique at Mr Powell’s bullshitting about his report? I’ve got a million of ‘em folks but my wife’s muscling in to use the machine. Suffice to say that the Guardian or the Times, ‘partisan’ as they may be, never stoop as low as your papers of record in their burial of unpleasant facts or opinions. Your pundits are only fearless to the degree that their opinions align with the establishment. It’s a career like sales and in that corporate culture you find the bland but zealous goody two shoes types do well. Yes sir no sir, three bags full sir. Whereas it seems to me the tradition of press independence is much stronger in England.

American journalism used to be respectable; now it isn’t (excepting marvels like Helen Thomas). Great to see people at least talking about the problem, but the diagnosis appears to be ‘lack of partisanship’ which would be hugely amusing if it wasn’t so worrying. Try ‘excess of bullshit’ and see how you go.

I’d also argue that US journalism deludes itself in believing in its objectivity. Most broadsheet journalism in the UK is also concerned with a dispassionate search for “truth”. But, for example, it’s clear that The Guardian’s viewpoint (in the choice of stories it pursues, as well as how to present them) is broadly on the left, while the Telegraph is on the right. They trust their readers to apply those filters.

The tabloid papers are an entirely different world (and most of the stunning circulation numbers to which you refer are tabloid, not broadsheet — only the Telegraph, of the broadsheets, has a circulation that nudges beyond 1 million). The tabloids operate far more to an agenda pronounced from on high (whether it’s the editor or the owner).

Andrew, can you elaborate a little on the studies which have found that “citizens find partisan information more politically useful than so-called objective information”? I’m not sure I undestand what that means.

I’d like to see a return to some muckraking, even at the expense of objectivity.

In the US, newspapers rarely have a nationwide appeal. There are exceptions — newspapers engineered to have a nationwide audience, like Gannett’s USA Today. Or large metro newspapers like the New York Times. In fact, NY papers might have that kind of wide-spread appeal, except that as you get further out of NYC, you get into the sphere of influence of other metro publications in Philadelphia and Boston.

“The British national newspapers are aligned with the various political factions in England. They make no pretence of objectivity. And, according to several landmark studies dating back to the 1950s, citizens find partisan information more politically useful than so-called objective information.”

Okay. So which is it?