Robert Gibbs attacks the British press - fair?

I was somewhat taken aback by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' harsh criticism of the British press in his daily briefing today.

Here is a link to the Politico story on his comments.

"I want to speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media," Gibbs said. "In some ways, I'm surprised it filtered down."

"Let's just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper," he continued. "If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be the first pack of clips I'd pick up."

I think that for those of us who have worked in the British news media, this is a little jarring. I find that the U.K. has some pretty fine newspapers - The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Financial Times, The Times, The Evening Standard, and many others.

On the broadcast side, the BBC provides comprehensive international news coverage as do other domestic outlets. In fact, under British law, broadcasters are held to a higher standard of reporting accuracy than are their American counterparts. There is a fairness doctrine in the U.K. and stiff penalties exist, usually too stiff, for reporting that is proven libelous in court.

There have been many cases where editors and journalists have lost their jobs for shoddy reporting, yet most papers and broadcasters do not hold back on critical analysis and satirical treatment of the government. One example that springs to mind is the case of Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, who lost his job over the publication of faked abuse photos from Iraq. Here is the story from 2004

To broadly claim that British press reporting is inaccurate is a bit sweeping.

British newspapers, of late, have done quite a bit of enterprise reporting on U.S. politics and policy, especially since the war in Iraq began in 2003. It seems this reporting compares favorably to the reporting of U.S outlets, especially when so many media organizations in the United States are alleged to have political agendas of their own.

To be fair to Robert Gibbs, there have been cases where the British press has not excelled. The newspaper business in the U.K. has a rather unsavory tradition of checkbook journalism where editors, mostly from the tabloids, often pay large amounts of money for exclusive stories. These stories are mostly kiss-and-tell fluff. But that mentality has trickled down throughout the business. As a broadcaster, I would often be asked by potential interviewees whether they would get paid for their time. Clearly, when cash is introduced into the equation, accuracy or candor may take a back seat. As most of you will know, Richard Nixon was paid for his series of interviews with David Frost.

There is also a certain uneasiness that I find when consuming British news content, because often facts or claims are often not sourced. American newspapers are generally much better at giving at least an indication of where their information may have come from. This is not to say that the British press reports in question do not have reputable sources. There is just not much disclosure.

In addition, the British press has an unfortunate habit of rewarding rather dubious behavior by reporters. Reporter Gerri Peev of the Scotsman was given an award for her "scoop" in this story

Sadly, the comments that formed the basis of the story were given off the record. But that didn't stop the article being recognize at the Scottish Press Awards.

I'm interested to your opinions on this subject. I believe the British press has its problems. But I'm not sure they are more numerous than those of the American press.