With all the struggle and hardship due to the economy right now, currently, in America, it is hard to remember the impact of the struggling economy worldwide. But it does help to put things in perspective. That’s why I was very happy when I found this BBC article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7779023.stm ) which explained the situation in Europe, though not with as much detail as I would have liked, perhaps.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has long been a favorite of mine, because it gives such an expansive view of the world (or so it seems to me) as opposed to the American-oriented New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. For breadth, you can’t beat the BBC. But that brings me to the main point of the article which I had a problem with. It had no depth! It was fluffy and sugary, and it sounded great, but for actual substance it was somewhat lacking.
The article begins by talking about a € 200,000,000,000 package organized by the European Union, designed to rejuvenate the failing economies within the countries of the EU. This is really the only hard statistic they give. It appears to me, that any in-depth discussion of a clearly controversial topic such as this, should not be given over to statements such as: “Mr. Brown said measures would include "judicious" tax cuts,”; “He described the agreement as ‘good news for the UK and good news for Europe,’”; “the deal was greeted with scepticism by both opposition parties.” It should rather include tangible, empirical evidence regarding the claims made by both sides. Statement of opinion never helps in an argument. Nor does it clear away the veils placed by the vaguest and most ambiguous statements that politicians are wont to make. The author spends an inordinate amount of time dropping the names of politicians everywhere, along with the nebulous comments that seem to be made to obscure the truth.
Of course, it may be the case that the details have not been made available to the press yet (which the author states later on) but in that case the entire article is rendered meaningless! Why am I reading this?
But perhaps I am being somewhat harsh on the author, because it was certainly a very well-written portrayal of the feelings and emotions circulating around Europe. Moreover, being the simple, unilaterally-minded American that I am, I now feel tremendously educated in matters across the sea.
On the plus side, you can almost hear the author’s British accent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I believe that this article is actually about the reaction to the stimulus plan, and not the plan itself. If it is about the latter, it does a poor job of fulfilling its purpose. for one thing, what are the 2 billion euros going to be spent on? Faltering banks like in the US? Infrastruclure? tax breaks? Theses are hard facts, and do not need to be quoted by politicians, tehy just need to be stated. That's why I think this article was just a string of quotes about the reaction of the plan. I'm not quite sure why these quotes wouldn't be included in the original article about the bailout, though.
Post a Comment