Who kicked who?

DB

Since when are sales figures a useful measure of 'better quality'? Are you honestly saying The Sun, Mail and News of the World are better quality than USA Today? On that count, 'Hello' is better quality than the Spectator.

Let_us_not_feel_superior

Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president. Marr and Naughtie are brown noses.

adrian drummond

Fraser, I hope you are not equating quality with quantity. Some papers in this country and simply dreadful but sell in relatively high numbers. I think the figures you quote reveal more about the readers than they do about the quality.

salieri

Nobody deserves respect for front-loading a question with such tendentious condescension, compounded by lousy grammar - "Since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here... ". TC came over as a supercilious creep.

Nick Cohen

Shouldn't that be Who Kicked Whom?

Fergus Pickering

Wasn't it in America that they had a journalist inventing stories big time? I've forgotten his name. Perhaps youcan help me here.

dearieme

"Since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from The Scotsman." Smashing, an offensive non sequitur following a false premise: journalistic standards really are super in the States.

Old Hack

Talk about pots and kettles: Peev should have respected the retraction and put it down to being a slip of the tongue. For Carlson to suggest that US Journalism is in a better state than the UK - well we both have publications to be proud of and others we'd rather not discuss. There's just as much trash printed in the States as there is here. Anyway, isn't the Sun technically US owned?

CS

First James Forsyth writes about Clegg choosing the "least worst" option. Now Fraser writes about "who kicked who". Not sure if James is a Scot (Forsyth sounds slightly Scots) but, if he is, what on Earth has happened to the Scottish education system?

Chris

The link to Salon.com doesn't work

Trumpeter Lanfried

American practice allows remarks to be retrospectively taken 'off the record.' British practice insists on prior agreement. But so long as both parties know which convention applies, and stick to the agreed rules, what's the problem? However, Carlson's insulting remark deserved, and should have got, an immediate and robust contradiction, not a smart alec rejoinder.

Pete Hoskin

Chris: thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now.

Verity

The NY Times writer who was caught inventing stories wholesale was Jayson Blair. Funny how the name Blair always seems to be associated with misuse of power, isn't it? USA Today is a lightweight and shouldn't be used as a comparison. The NY Times is admittedly lefty, but it is a heavy hitter, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Enquirer, The Los Angeles Times all have very large circulations. The American equivalent of The Sun and News of The World readers are soaked up by The National Enquirer.

DougS

Geez . . . what a tempest in a teapot -- all around. Powers' comment is a "no big deal" as far as I'm concerned. She doesn't literally think Hillary a "monster." It's a -- to my way of thinking -- pretty benign figure of speech, a bit much but nothing especially bad, given the nature of a political campaign. "Monster," sheesh!. Everyone's so sensitive. As for whether it should have been off the record, this seems to be simply a misunderstanding as to how that works: in the U.S. catching yourself so quickly as Powers did would probably take the "monster" comment off the record; in the UK obviously not. As for who won the "debate" between Peev and Carlson, it was a resounding draw; maybe Peev came out a bit on top. Carlson is largely considered a lightweight over in the U.S., and his indignation rings mostly false here, as elsewhere. How did he get into journalism? Didn't finish his B.A. but rocketed to the top, etc.? Hmmmmmm . . . . His father is the former head of the U.S.'s BBC, i.e., the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As I say . . . tempest in a teapot. And this is a big, important "scoop" . . . Stop the presses: Obama operative thinks Hillary's a creep, jerk, monster, uh, uh, uh, a fink! As for newspaper sales, Fraser, the UK is the size of Michigan and as you say much smaller in population. We never developed national newspapers, because while you folks could deliver them by train, transportation here (or other means) didn't allow it until the past 10 - 15 years, so there are a lot of city/regional papers -- and bigger differences in regions (arguably) than in the UK.

Fraser Nelson

Fergus, you're thinking of Jayson Blair. Or Stephen Glass (from the vg 04 film Shattered Glass). Circulation isn't the only indicator of newspaper quality, but its a pretty big one. The Spectator is at record circulation right now, in this murderous market, and we're hugely proud of that. CS, I'm the only Scot in CoffeeHouse village. (And Earth should not have a capital E.) Trumpeter, what would your response have been? Its a genuine question, I can't decide myself what I'd have said to Carlson - so many options. But you hit the nail on the head: unless its agreed otherwise there is no retrospective "off the record" while the tape is whirring. I doubt any politician would try that in Britain. Basic rules of engagement. Old Hack, if Power had said something she didnt mean then I may agree. But her slip of the tounge revealled genuine venom, a hugely important factor. It gives a vivid example of how the Democrat race may turn into dog-eat-dog and hand McCain victory by the sheer volume of vitriol splashed around on the left.

salieri

But it's not venomous or vitriolic to call Billary a monster who'll stoop to anything. A rather genteel understatement, I would say.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Fraser: A good response would have been, 'You cannot be serious.' But it is so easy to think of these rejoinders after the event.