h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think this says as much - if not more - about American media than it does about American education.

The rest of the world is hardly reported on American TV and radio, and in American newspapers, apart, that is, from NPR, PBS, and the more 'serious' papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times etc. I believe that this state of affairs is much worse now than it used to be.

When I first arrived here I started watching World News Tonight on ABC (with Peter Jennings if memory serves), but found that unless there was a major news story going on in the world, 80% of the content was about American national news, and there was a four- or five-minute 'world news roundup' toward the end of the programme, just before the 'and finally' story. I've found that kind of proprtion be the case with most American news reporting.

I've long been of the opinion that because of the British Commonwealth (and previously the British Empire), the UK has always had an outward-looking attitude (indeed, the current BBC World Service grew out of the Empire Service which began in 1932), and this has been reflected in the way that news is reported. When I was growing up and watching the news on television/hearing it on the radio, I was quite used to finding that the first two or three items would be news stories from overseas, and not just the headline style brief mentions that I often get on American media, but in-depth reports.

I also think that the legacy of the Empire and Commonwealth affected my education and the fact that British kids were (still are, I hope) taught a great deal of world geography. And when I was taught about about a country at school I didn't just learn to point it out on a map, I learned about the people, the terrain, its exports, agriculture, politics and a little bit of its history.

Even though I listen to American public radio most mornings and evenings (their equivalents of the Today programme, and PM), I still find that I get most of my world news by listening to live streams of BBC news programmes on Radio 4.

Geography means colouring in, so that the arty and physical types can be good at two subjects each .

I got the Middle East version of that little geography game all right first time . A triumph for computer game based education.

Most of the stuff I remember from geography classes had nothing to do with countries really - it was largely about flood plains and scarp slopes, the swedish timber industry and arable farming in Manitoba.

BH, you touched on something with the Commonwealth example that I was considering, and that's the fact that, although there might be no formal Empire or Commonwealth of America, the US is decidedly not an isolationist country. It's ironic that international news is played down so much in the media American media.

Forgive the stammer at the end there!

Saoránach Bomba - I do agree with you to an extent that the US is not an isolationist country. Leastways, its government has a world outlook, as the government of any large Western democracy must, but in most instances that's going to be because of trade, and in recent years, globalisation.

The American people in general though have to search pretty damn hard to find information about the outside world in their mass media, and my limited experience here has been that a lot of Americans (particularly those from the heartland and the south) still seem to view the rest of the world through the eyes of a tourist visiting a theme park. And who can blame them when that's almost the only view of the world they're ever presented with?

For decades, Americans have had it drilled into them by their government and by mass media/popular culture that America is self-sufficient and self-sustaining, that it's the best country in the world ('Hey, it must be - just look at all the people who want to come and live here'), and that there's little reason to look outside the borders. Many Americans have chosen to ignore that indoctrination and make the effort to become more worldwise. Many more unfortunately, haven't, which is why we have discussions like this one and why there exists the stereotype of the world-ignorant American.

Oh, btw - I did hear a plausible explanation for the disappearance in recent years of world news from American media, but as is so often the case, when it comes to needing that information in a discussion like this, I can't remember it, nor where I heard it

I'm sure it was something to do with Murdoch though

>> Unless we start sending the lowest common denominator to bomb them from space, I don't think it matters <<

But you're doing that already.

RF

I was in New York about 6 years ago and was watching the news on TV...they had about 25 minutes of New York news - a bit like our regional news progs only it wasn't billed as being regional - and then they announced "...and now, World News"... I thought hurrah!, maybe some news from home (UK). Ha! "World news" contained not a single item about anything anywhere outside of the USA!



PS - Love Bill Bryson! Have just started listening to his audio books - even funnier than reading them!

As far as georgraphy education goes, I did a GCSE in Geography (age 15-16 for the non-UK researchers) and it wasn't things like being able to locate countries and name their capitals, it was learning about agriculture, the weather, coastal erosion, that sort of thing. The only thing I ever remember doing in geography about a country was a topiuc on Japan. At the time, I could name the four main islands of Japan, and point them out on the map. Now I can only name one and I wouldn't be sure which one it was.

To halt any further discussion of the quality of my geography lessons, it may not actually have been a geography lesson this occurred during. In fact it may well have been a french lesson.

I too learned about CBDs, pipelines across alaska, scree and hanging valleys and about hydroelectric projects in the (then) Upper Volta.

Well yes, but presumably the first thing you learned was where all those places actually are. I don't see they could spend a whole years geography lessons just on pointing out countries on the map.

Some people just seem to think learning where a country is is irrelevant, provided you know their GNP, forestry and such things. Just seems to be knowing where it is to begin with is the basic. Like learning how to read before doing litterature.

Yeah, but hang on there - I can read and I studied literature. However, long before I studied it, I simply read books for their enjoyment. So, I was familiar with Shakespeare, Orwell, Pratchett, Tolkien etc, either from conversation, reference or personal readings, without ever having studied literature.

Similarly, I watched the news when I was a kid. Long before I ever learnt geography, I knew that the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme had been assassinated in the capitol, Stockholm. I knew the Middle East was a mess and that the US and the USSR were at odds over nuclear weapons. I similarly knew of a famine in Africa, although I still cannot point out Ethiopia on a map. I don't think that diminishes anything else that I know about Ethiopia or the rest of Africa or the rest of my geographical knowledge. It simply means that I haven't memorised the details of its location, focussing instead on the broader issues.

So, despite having learnt geography, including location, GDP, annual rainfall, main exports etc, a lot of my information and knowledge comes from elsewhere and often predates the formal education bit.

Americans are severly handicapped by the lack of quality both in their general education system and the media, who focus almost solely on USian issues and then not even the most important stuff. I happened to be in Florida when Katrina struck, and there was very little on the news about the situation afterwards. It was a huge buildup beforehand, with storm watch this and storm watch that, but the aftermath was less publicised until world outcry became impossible to ignore and the media had to follow it up.

cheers ismarah

I played each of the geography games linked to earlier - I did pretty poorly indeed! I can pinpoint most of the Western countries, I did pretty well with Canadian and Australian provinces, terribly in Africa. I struggled with countries like Albania and Slovenia.

I need an Atlas - convieniently enough, I have a £10 book token to be used up.

Incidentally, why does the Europe map appear to count Scotland and Wales as part of England? That annoys me, and I'm English. It must infuriate the Scots and Welsh!

Knowing where countries are is useful because it means you also know where they are *in relation to each other*. Knowing which countries are neighbours or whether they're islands or double landlocked etc. can potentially add a layer to your understanding.

I agree its not critical knowledge for life, but equally I do think its good for people to be encouraged to look for diversity of experience.


<<"I played each of the geography games linked to earlier - I did pretty poorly indeed! I can pinpoint most of the Western countries, I did pretty well with Canadian and Australian provinces, terribly in Africa. I struggled with countries like Albania and Slovenia.">>

On the Africa map labelling game I gave up at around -250 points. I got Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Egypt, but I know all those from playing Medieval - Total War and the campaign map stops at the Sahara .

I ended up on -1000 and something. I got South Africa, Egypt, Sudan, the countries you hear about, but had no idea for places like Guinea. I ended up just clicking repeatedly on each place until I got it right.

The Middle East version of that geography game is wrong - it says Bahrain is where Qatar actually is. I struggled most on Canada and US states which surprised me a little, I expected Canada to be easy.

The others I had no problem with, but I am an incurable geography

I tried the europe version, that didn't go as well as it should have. Where exactly is the Russian Federation? They didn't seem to show any of Russia.