From Guardian Unlimited (some colourful language ahead):
‘Last week G2 launched Operation Clark County to help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio. In the first three days, more than 11,000 people requested addresses.’
Following this is a collection of responses from Americans who had heard of the Guardian’s distress over the state of their democracy. These ranged from the intriguing, to the bewildering, to the out-and-out hilarious (‘Mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you'd all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace’).
Has the Guardian completely lost the plot in its attempt to demonstrate such Grave Concern over the election? Someone there must have realized that such a plan would likely spark anger amongst Clark County voters; Americans would surely resent being told what to do by anyone, let alone a newspaper whose leftist slant makes the New York Times look like the Daily Mail. (Advocacy journalism such as this does not usually exist in mainstream North American media.) Imagine that you are Joe Undecided in Ohio and you get a letter from your typical Guardian reader imploring you to vote for Kerry: ‘Thank goodness this not-at-all patronising British person knows more than I do about my own nation’s affairs. Heaven knows what took me so long to make up my mind. Why, Britain must be some kind of political Utopia if all they have time to worry about is my vote… and, of course, fox hunting!’
Despite the paper’s unwillingness to admit this may have been a mistake, even the Kerry campaign has expressed its dismay at the stunt. Ohio is a key state and one Bush barely won four years ago and one Kerry’s supporters are desperate for now. Unless something big breaks in the news in the next few days, this election is going to be quite close. In an irony almost too mind-boggling to enjoy, is it possible that the Guardian just helped George Bush get re-elected?
Comments (2)
I enjoy reading the Guardian, although less so when it is needlessly graceless and chippy. But the reaction to its inter-meddling in the US election tells us a lot about the assumptions which the paper's editors and 'liberal' readers alike make about their rights (e.g. to express themselves).
The real tell-tale is that they assume an entitlement to pontificate about what others should or should not do.
The present worrying elision of personal preference and legislative imperative stands on the shoulders of this busy-body mentality.
This means that classical liberal values of tolerance and fairmindedness (extended even to the unpopular, discredited and voiceless) are endangered for us all.
You never know who is next.
Posted by Anon V7 | October 21, 2004 3:38 PM
Posted on October 21, 2004 15:38
I'm still hoping that The Guardian was doing the whole Clark County thing as a joke, but either way, it doesn't seem to be having the response that was intended.
There still hasn't been any obvious outraged reaction from the States (that I've noticed) to the apparent decision to commit more British troops to action in Iraq, however. As has been suggested in the House, this could also be seen as an attempt to influcence the elections...
Posted by Nosemonkey | October 21, 2004 2:06 PM
Posted on October 21, 2004 14:06