those stories that do make headlines in both the US and the UK will likely reflect the biases and world-views of those nationsùand journalistsùthat spawned them. Can these then even be called the "same" story at all?
A strikingly different world-view is ultimately fostered within massiveùyet isolatedù populations such as those of the US and the UK. Ultimately, everyday Americans have little actual connection to their "special friends" across the pond, and vice versa. In this, media coverage assumes an illusory character that lulls the Anglo-collective into a sense of solidarity that is wholly manufactured. If Americans and Britons receive different news stories told in different ways and from different perspectives, on what grounds are these two populations expected to cultivate a shared vision? Or, for that matter, maintain a "special relationship"?
Where international news purports to bring the world into focus for the individual, in reality different styles of media coverage refract world events through a local prism, casting familiar spectrums for the individual to gaze at. Where the individual is situated will have much to do with the spectrum he or she sees, and the conclusion that is subsequently drawn. Ultimately, it should not be perplexing that American news outlets such as The Los Angeles Times contain different slants on the same issues as does a British newspaper such as The Guardian.
Later, some news pieces originating in the US will be contrasted with similar stories originating in UK publications. These stories, dealing with the Israeli fence and the idea of unilateral disengagement, bring some different slants into relief and lend credence to Michael Goldfarb's conclusion that "all journalism is local" (111). The Israeli fence is a particularly useful device in this context, as the American predilection with regard to Israel is generally opposite that of the British. The manners in w...