Slashdot Mirror
Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America
acey72 writes "The BBC News are
reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA. Netcraft spotted the change on Monday, and have a report on the matter. Oh well, at least John Kerry's site still works for us outlanders." At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site, but Europeans cannot (without going through a U.S. proxy).
How much of a solid foreign policy this guy has.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Does anyone see this as anything other than stupid? I mean, he's blocking all overseas absentee voters, and he's not exactly making himself look good to the rest of the world. Of course, come to think about it, he really hasn't done that in the past either. ;^)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
people actually read the lies on any politicians re-election or election web page? i'm a bush fan, but i've taken a look at both bush's and kerry's web pages, and they are both so full of crap it's unreal. so honestly, who cares if you can't read lies? go on a search (google) for the truth, and make up your own mind on what you believe to be true, not what you are told is truth.
President Bush Supporter
Geez, at least put up a sensible message like "To reduce traffic load non-US visitors will see blah blah blah". Despite the fact that non-Americans aren't voting you should at least have some half decent PR.
Anyone know why? I don't know I'm asking. I bet it's a preemptive action to prevent DDOS attacks from outside.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Um...this is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE. The people not voting next week should have NO IMPACT here. The official policies of the United States, whoever is in office, are not disseminated by political campaign sites, but by myriad other means.
In some way it makes financial sense, by cutting bandwidth costs. They're mostly excluding people that can't vote for you anyway. On the other hand, they're excluding American voters overseas, maybe not such a smart thing. And it's bound to generate bad publicity. Maybe not such a bright idea as they originally thought.
This change of permission is very literal, almost comical example of not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and siding with the interests of business.
Blaming this on the capabilities of the provider is not an excuse.
They don't want to waste campaign dollars on bandwidth. I'm fine with that.
Any webmaster can block connections from any IPs he doesn't want connecting, I don't see how georgewbush.com should be any different.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
ideally, yes... but given (admittedly biased personal view) how the administration has been in dealing with the rest of the world (i.e. basically ignoring them), i am not as hopeful. it's the general attitude (as reflected in something like this) that scares me, not the intent...
It's not like any of them visit the site. And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason. It's not like they are using Bush's site as a reference. They should be more concerned if Moore's or Soro's site is blocked.
This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda. And since there are still an extremely wide variety of ways to get at its content and information from outside the US, it's obviously not some kind of "international censorship".
While I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with this (other than the collateral overseas abenstee voter damage), it does point out something about this presidents beliefs:
What the rest of the world thinks does not matter.
While you're at it, explain to me how it's right for the Guardian to encourage its UK readers, i.e., not US citizens, to start a letter writing and email campaign to Ohioans encouraging them to vote for John Kerry
I thought Americans were pretty keen on a concept called "free speech"?
Oh - hang on... What year is it again?
Actually, there's a good reason for everyone else in the world to be able to view the web site.
Like you said: This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda.
You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry, right (worldwide polls put Kerry at 70%, Bush at sub-20%, with only Korea and one other nation backing Bush)? And perhaps doesn't understand why Americans are so different?
Since the rest of the world is going to have to live with whoever's voted (mostly foreign policy issues), it's nice to be able to actually find out *why* Americans vote the way they do. I may not be able to vote in your election, but I sure am going to have to live with your decision. And reading the propaganda straight from the horse's mouth is the best reason to why Bush may be re-elected in.
(Note: I know that Kerry and Bush are equally bad choices (worse in some places than the other, better in other places... but really, it's a decision on two bad choices - or as we say in Canada, picking the least offensive) - yet for some reason or other, Kerry's more popular outside the US.
Bush's website will perhaps tell us why Americans are so divided to be split even on how they'll vote? And let us do the research. There may yet be something Bush does that no one outside the US knows and it's posted on his website. The international community has been wrong before - I don't know, maybe Bush is a really great guy - but at least it will help us find out why the preferences are so skewed.
Um...this is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE. The people not voting next week should have NO IMPACT here. The official policies of the United States, whoever is in office, are not disseminated by political campaign sites, but by myriad other means.
Perhaps it could have been treated as some sort of demonstration of democracy to internet-using citizens of the new Iraq and Afghanistan, an indication of the Right Manner of Doing Things?
Instead, there's just an error message with no explanation. Even a polite error message would have been an improvement...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
That citizens of the US living overseas can file absentee ballots. (Although it may be too late for that now, not sure.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
In a word, no. At least not in the USA.
During the campaign, both candidates try their best, with a straight face, to promise that everyone who votes for them will get to spend a night with the Swedish Bikini Team (or the equivalent male group, if they are so inclined) after the election. In addition to the free Lincoln Towncar, forgiveness of their mortgages and all taxes until the end of time.
Oh, and they'll make you immortal, too!
After the campaign is over, all that is forgotten (including the so-called Party Platform), and the winner gets on to the proper business of government - taking your money, and giving it to someone else.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
For those of us that can see it, it's still a farce.
:)
Only big corporations and large republican contributors actually have access to the president. All others - "access denied."
Kerry is not necessarily popular. It's just that Bush is unpopular, and Kerry is the only alternative.
"ABB" reigns.
Yes, its a political campaign site, and yes the people outside the US wont have a chance to affect the elections, but since the policies of the US have such a massive impact on the world, why shouldnt we be allowed to see the campaign pledges etc on this site? Whoever gains office next week doesnt just affect the US, it affects the world, but only the US gets to say who gains office.
"George W. Bush is President of the United States, not President of the Rest of the World"
The annoying thing is that he thinks and behaves as if he were.
This action actually speaks volumes about the man's foreign policy and his understanding of the need to win the hearts and mind of non-USians.
As for ordinary American citizens, they should feel free to write to anyone they want.
This is not to say I think it's a good idea, but then I didn't think the Guardian's campaign was a good idea either. Though I also didn't see it as ill-intentioned.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
Seriously... "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells? No? Okay, then let's bomb the only country in the middle east that isn't in bed with al Qaeda. Check? wow, we don't have enough jobs, but we're leading the world in screwing ourselves. Great, great.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
> and wasn't discharged until 1970
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
Democrat delenda est
So you are saying that Blair, Americas lap dog, has just as much influence as the President of the US? Americans usually choose to be ignorant of the ways of foreigners, which is why Bush makes a great representation of the average person. We live in our own sphere and refuse to believe that outsiders can influence us. People from other nations tend to be a lot more aware of the world community, especially America.
/. poll? "If you couldn't vote for Kerry or Bush, who would you choose?"
Are we to believe that people in the Bush campaign aren't rich enough to foot the bill for the last week of a site that's been up in one form or another since 1999? While anyone can find a mirror or archive, it's the thought that counts. It's just another example of how, generally speaking, Bush doesn't care about the worlds population unles it suits his agenda. He doesn't read papers or watch the news because he doesn't like what they say. When the world community disagrees with he, he just ignores them and does it his own way, mocking the other countires the whole time, until he shows back up on their doorstep, hat in hand, pleading for help. It sounds like this man lives in his own world.
You know what I would love to see as the next
I bet most Americans couldn't even name any of the policies of the Libertarian or Green partys, the 2 largest 3rd party candidates. I find it hard to believe that so many people believe all they hype by the media and fail to realize that the Dems and Repubs are unable to represent the majority of the country. Is America so diverse that only two colors can fill in the map of our demographic? Imagine if all the disillusioned voters and non-voters banded together and voted for Nader, the person with the strongest standing on the presidental ballot with a major part of his campaign being to abolish the winner take all electoral system. Even if you don't agree with his policy to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, or make drugs a health and social issue nstead of continuing the failing criminal model, or even if you think his semi-isolationist internationl stance is crap, he and other 3rd party candidates are the only way electoral reform has a shot in hell of happening. The two major parties agree to refuse sharing their power, while America eats its own shit, continuing to believe that the lesser of two evils is an acceptabe mentality in a democracy.
You do realize that, fundamentally, no matter how "ironic" you think it is, that US citizens do not and should not have any say whatsoever in the outcome of Afghanistan elections? And that, therefore, Afghanistan has no actual reason to serve anyone other than voters?
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Off-message? so is the .com ...
;).
at least it claims that Bush's foreign policy is based on:
------
The strategy has three pillars:
- We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
- We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
- And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe."
-----
Hello??? Have I been living in the same universe as these guys??? All three pillars involve "peace"? What happened to preemptive war, the axis of evil, not caring what the rest of world think, etc. etc.
I guess the site must have been hijacked by some crazy flip-flopping communists democrat freaks
An illustration of how everyone wants ".com", no matter how appropriate. I could joke about how politicians are for sale and thus should be in .com, but really, it's just dumbing down the whole naming system. Another I've noticed is "moneyfactory.com" for the mint; which I believe is rather definitely part of the government and thus should be a .gov. By all means, get the .com too (it's only $10) before it gets squatted by a porn site, but set it to redirect to the real .org site.
But I realise this has as much hope as Linux being called "GNU/Linux", or media differentiating between hackers and crackers.
Wow. Your post just reeks of dumb. You're basically saying that the U.S. should be able to invade any country suspected of harboring terrorists, and nobody else should have a say in it. Not the invaded country. Not its allies. Not our allies. Nobody. We are judge, jury, and executioner.
As to your belief that police don't owe anything to the policed, that's just what a police state would want you to think. In theory, the police are supposed to be under the control of our elected representatives, who are voted in and out of office by the policed. It sounds like you don't think police should be held responsible for abuse of authority or police brutality, and that strikes me as an insane attitude.
If America continues its economic slide, it could get overtaken by China and India. Then you're going to wish you'd been a little less eager to popularize the idea that a country should be able to do preemptively invade another country if the invading country feels that it's in the interests of "national security" to do so.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The US was, and is, a nation that fostered terrorism in quite a number of countries around the world. Do you think that gives China the right to send in the helicopter gunships and take over?
Nobody liked Saddam, but more people are worried about the terrorist actions of the US than were worried about him.
Remember, double standards come home to roost. Unless you get a heap more humility and start acting to the standards of the civilised world, one day you are going to find out that type of behaviour hurts.
Don't whine about it then, you're not special and have no special rights. Learn the lesson now, before its too late.
As opposed to the one sided local media?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
BTW grandparent is mad funny.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
And I am sorry to say it, but that is exactly the attitude that leads to the hate of Bush and the US worldwide.
If you are weary of the outside world trying to influence your politics, then bloody well stop trying to affect other peoples politics. I mean seriously, was that a troll? You can't invade other countries and then turn around and say "Why the hell are the rest of the world interested in our politics?"
But I forgot, the UN didn't agree with the US, so the UN is automatically irrelevant. Better go veto another Israel policy eh...
Yours is one of the most informed and insightful comments on this topic that I have yet read. It asks a question that I will try to (perhaps imperfectly) answer.
The first mistake non-Americans make when analyzing American politics is the over emphasis of political parties and positions. The American system of government is one that emphasizes election of individuals rather than of parties or ideas. In America, politicians may claim membership in a (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) party, but they have no obligation to the party platform... nor do the voters expect them to. If you doubt this, look at Zell Miller (Democrat?) or John McCain (Republican?).
Contrast this then with the rest of the world... In many (most?) other constitutional democracies, it is possible to vote for a PARTY in addition to a local representative. The local rep is beholden to his party and platform for advancement (the locals may elect him, but he can never become Prime Minister unless he does as he is told).
In those countries that are NOT democracies, PARTY is still important... In communist nations (China, Cuba, etc) an official owes EVERYTHING to the party and must do as they are told... and the same is basically true in the Dictatorships and Monarchies around the world. In SOVIET RUSSIA, the PARTY FINDS YOU! (Sorry, had to get that in.)
So the world reads the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, and of the two Candidates, and notices that the Democrats claim to be more receptive to the "needs" and "wishes" of the "world" and especially the "UN"... it's no surprise they find this preferable.
The "world", and especially the "UN" resents it when the US goes out and does things without being told. Bush has done this, and asserts the right of the US to do so again... Kerry has not. Go figure.
So why do Americans not see Bush and Kerry in the same light as "The World" does?
1) Americans really could care less what the rest of the world thinks about what it does. We spend plenty of time with our historical revisionism and tearing down our heroes and leaders and don't need any outside help, thank you! Moreover, Americans know that the "World" lacks the capability to do what we do, so we are naturally skeptical when that same "World" tries to tell us how we MUST use that ability.
The "World" may view America is Arrogant and Ill Informed, but Americans generally think the same of the "World".
2) Americans (or at least the famous group of "SWING VOTERS" that gets so much press) look more at personality and performance than at platform or party. And to complicate things for the foreign observers, we don't look for the same things every election...
Performance wise.... Bush doesn't have a perfect record (and "The World" thinks he has a poor record indeed), but Kerry has no record (Hasn't authored any legislation, has no "cause" except opposition to military action, but surprisingly, claims to support (in substance if not in form) current policy toward Iraq, at least last time I checked). So.... performance is moot to Americans.
That leaves personality... Kerry comes across as an upper-crust/elitist/knows what's best for you Snob. Bush comes across more as an "average joe"... opinionated, but not necessarily the smartest guy in the neighborhood, certainly not a know-it-all (Americanism for snob). Frankly, we like the Bush personality better, but not much better. Some of us are put off by his being opinionated, and many of us wish he "looked" smarter
Maybe it's just me, but as an Ohioan I suspect a personal letter from someone in the UK would be vastly more interesting than the pure crap I'm getting from the campaigns in the mail and on TV. If someone (a real person, and not a political campaign or corporation or something) wants to share their opinion with me, I'd probably look at it. Why not? It's just as unlikely to sway my opinion as the rest of the stuff. Anyone who bases their decisions in an election on any one data point, particularly something they saw in an advertisement, isn't really doing their job as a citizen IMO.
But the angry reaction to the letter writing campaign strikes me as jingoistic and immature, at the least. Yes, the letters are unlikely to tell us anything we don't know, and we've got enough pure opinion pieces to wade through already. But if a sincere person (a citizen of our most important ally in Iraq, I might add) thinks it's worthwhile to send me a personal letter, I'm going to read the thing. It probably won't be of political interest but it might be interesting on a personal level.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
The U.N. knew the location of, and was keeping tabs on, those hundreds of tons of high explosives. The knew right where they were, and exactly how much, and had pictures of them. Ditto the WMD manufacturing precursors ("dual use") that were reported several weeks back.
The U.S. invasion led directly to such chaos that all of this stuff was able to be trucked out. As you say, moving this stuff requires a massive effort. It's amazing the amount of incompetence and understaffing that had to be going on that this could happen. Even with full knowledge of the exact location and inventory of all sensitive materials before the invasion had even begun, they still couldn't keep the bad guys from hauling off truck after truck full of stuff. Hell, in the case of the WMD manufacturing, they even dismantled and took off with the buildings!
Before the invasion: a very bad guy had lots of conventional explosives, and was wishing for WMDs but probably wouldn't have been able to get them unless the sanctions were lifted (per the inspection group). He was an egomaniacal dictator, hated in the region, and jealously guarded what he had. It is not apparent that he would have sold his stuff to others. He was a bad guy, but was not a direct or apparently indirect threat to the U.S.
After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists.
I personally believe that this is NOT the fault of the troops, who did the best they could; it was the fault of the administration only seeing what they wanted to see, ignoring intelligence, estimates and requests they didn't like, and George W. "we're not going to have any casualties" Bush trying to do the job on the cheap because he thought he could get away with it.
Thus, as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there are now hundreds of tons of high explosives, plus entire buildings full of specialized WMD manufacturing machinery and tools in the hands of we know not who.
Feel safer?
Funny, I don't remember seeing American troops flying crosses as they ran into battle.
Hmmm, Try reading this or this.
FreeSpeech.org
I went to the website you link to and I saw no proof for terrorism link to Irak. Lie.
Human rights violation ? Ok, the US violates the human rights too with the Guantanamo camp. W should invade the US too.
The 350 tons of explosives didn't disappeared under the UN's nose but under the US's nose. They disappeared in April 2003. Check it now.
You are too stupid to admit that there are simply no WMDs in Irak despite that even GWB himself and his administration admitted this fact. I believe you are definitely lost.
Iraq: war to save the U
Don't even get me started on the Iraq war. John Kerry should be thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
This "insightful" comment is the reason I distrust Republicans and won't vote for Bush. Too many seem to equate reasonable dissent and constructive criticism with treason.
Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose...
There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others. Abortion is a difficult personal choice that only a woman and her own conscience can make. I find it particularly disturbing that the religious zelots on the right would outlaw late term abortions with no provision for protecting the life of the mother. By doing so, they will surely kill some women whose pregnancy has developed serious life threatening complications. It must truly feel rightous to have such moral clarity that you know that the fetus's life is always more important than the mother's.
FreeSpeech.org
If you really understand how interconnected the world has become, you wouldn't have that attitude.
The US is an economic powerhouse, one that is tied with trillions of dollars of international trade and debt. What's bad for the US economy is bad for the world economy. If the US debt keeps going up, and the US has problems paying it, a whole lot of foreigners are out of a lot of money. If the US imposes tariffs on trade, it's not just American workers who suffer, but workers in countries that trade with the US suffer.
So from the point of view of a foreigner, it makes perfect sense to keep abreast of American politics. This is something many people due, because it has a direct impact on their lives. Even as an American, I make it a point to keep abreast of politics in Europe and Canada. These regions are important strategic allies, and important partners in trade. In the future, the EU also looks like it will become an important competitor economically. As a result, I would be foolish not to keep informed of their politics, because they have a direct impact on my country's economy.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester.
;-).
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
I have three pillars for you too..
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and the Truth is a Lie.
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
It's not viable, even with serious equipment.
Now the intersting thing is that "serious equipment" is a moving target. But the basic argument is that it can't develop outside the womb if it were, for instance, born that prematurely.
I think this is the definition of viability for fetuses, but I'm getting a little murky on the terms. Of course that's a grey area too, which is why doctor's have to consult with women to determine that a fetus is not viable before a regular abortion takes place. Please disagree with this if I'm wrong.
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Shit, starving people all over the world who have kids are basically sentencing a certain percentage of them to death. Where's the outrage about that? At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached. If we're gonna have penicillin, clearly a human invented way of choosing which people to keep alive, I can't see the moral dilemma in choosing which people to prevent from being alive. The same could be said about distribution of food and medicine on a world wide scale. The Catholics are at least consistent on this one, they're pro-life for everything.
Interesting point about the not-aborted daughters, but I totally disagree. Certainly some of those girls are happy and have an excellent life and relationship with their mothers because they were born at the right time. How many too-young unwed mothers produce children that will go with them to political rallys? So I think their sentiment does make sense, choosing to end a pregnancy through abortion allows you to provide the best life for your eventual child.
"I had a dream the other night that all the babies prevented by the pill came back.
They were pissed."
- Steven Wright
dea9: Visualize your mailing lists to actually SEE trolls!
I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies.
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
They proved that with the 2000 election.
Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag
But I'm voting for him anyway
We aren't concerned with terrorism, because terrorism is mostly affecting the US.
But it's not. The USA faces practically zero terrorism. 9/11 was a spike, and we've caused at least 20x the damage to innocent civilians in our fight against terrorism. Americans have a better chance of having a new disease named after them than dying in a terrorist attack.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, so he can push his agenda and use that fear to get reelected. Bush has many killed more Americans than have all the terrorists combined, through fear and budgetting, and even more foreigners in the name of preventing another 9/11. Americans will vote for Bush because they believe his lies.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself. The bin Ladens gave the Bush family $1.4 billion before the 2000 election. If we caught the terrorists, there could be no war on terror, no war for the control of middle east oil production, which is the greatest concern of the Bush family.
No..probably they have been better informed by that foreign media and of course have discovered that there is more to the world than the US.
I watch both US and European news broadcasts and the US broadcasts are heavely polarised and polished. It seems they are afraid they might hurt their viewer ratings by being too critical or reporting on issues that may alienate their viewer base.
The reports generally lack depth, especially when it comes to reporting on events outside the US. With the US networks we can see over here it seems the facts are secundary to the entertainment value of a story.
Some of the European channels are guilty of the same, particularly some of the many commercial ones, but generally the European channels present the news in a far more balanced and neutral way. And they pay a lot more attention to what is going on in the rest of the world, which helps to bring a lot of what is happening into perspective.
As a bonus of being in Europe you get to watch the news from different countries as long as you speak more than one language. That should help offset any bias. (I speak Dutch, German, French and English so that gives me access to quite a selection of sources.)
O..and as for the US elections the reporting I have seen on the European channels is mostly neutral and professional which can't be said for the American channels.