British TV is very snooty about American TV. It's completely unjustified. And I'm not just talking about West Wing, 24 and Lost. I mean current affairs too. NBC's Meet The Press is more penetrating than Andrew Marr's Sunday programme for example, election coverage is much more sophisticated and C-SPAN much more comprehensive than BBC Parliament. The sooner the BBC is forced to share the licence fee the sooner we can begin to see some fresh approaches to delivering quality broadcasting.
US coverage of Iraq is in a different league to that offered by the BBC. Exhibit A is the video below: I've just spent 56 minutes watching this Charlie Rose programme discussion of the state of Iraq. What struck me most about the programme is the focus on substance rather than politics. When Jack Straw appeared on Radio 4 recently the interview became intensely political. There was little interest in what was transpiring in Iraq. John Humphrys was still playing 'Gotcha' - playing loose with the facts - and trying to embarrass Jack Straw about the politics of it all.
If you really want some sort of understanding of what's going on Iraq please watch the video. The two New York Times reporters interviewed by Rose talk about the real improvement in the security situation in Iraq, the possibility of al-Qaeda meeting its "Waterloo" but they are realistic about the fragility of the progress. All of the gains have been the product of bottom-up co-operation between local communities and American troops. The Baghdad politicians are still contributing relatively little to Iraq's future although recent events in Basra suggest a hitherto absent boldness of purpose.
The video also offers a fascinating history of the last five years. The two reporters - who have spent much of the last few years in Iraq - talk about the looting that greeted liberation, whether an 'American Caesar' might have changed the course of history, and the tragedy of Fallujah.
I'm grateful to Coffee House's James Forsyth for alerting me to the video.
