Yes, I’d agree that the editorial line of the Daily Telegraph is pro-American and has been pretty consistently sceptical about Obama. Of the two Telegraph items quoted, one was pretty much in line with quite a few good articles right here, to the effect that the operation was brilliant and achieved a result that all right-thinking people wished for, but that the inability of the White House to present an account of the operation which remained consistent for more than five minutes has merely inspired the conspiracy loons (fringe in the US, but mainstream East of Suez, outside Israel).
As for Tim Stanley’s blog in the Telegraph, I don’t think it was meant to be anti-American, although I’m not sure, since his scribblings are virtually unreadable. Anyway, I suspect Soeren Kern and I are the only two people worldwide who managed to reach the end of Stanley’s blog, so don’t over-rate his influence.
As for the Guardian and the Independent, I am tempted to point to their very limited circulation, too. The only trouble is that most of the few people who do read them are all employed in the MSM, often outside the UK. I am amazed how often the Guardian is cited in US, Canadian and Australian articles, when it has so limited a readership in its home market. Part of the reason is that the last (labour) government in the UK advertised posts in the civil service exclusively in the Guardian, as does the BBC; some local authorities also continue to do so, I suspect. The Guardian’s real threat, however, is only that it is effectively the house magazine of the BBC, which has a much greater reach and which has been tying itself up in knots this week, not wanting to praise the American action, but not wanting to criticize Obama, either.
