Britain’s distinct journalistic style is proof of its cultural independence
The American newsroom is beset by anxious handwringing: slowly, it seems, the Brits are coming for every top job. The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg News, and the Associated Press are all now helmed by redcoats. Many of these appointments have been met with internal consternation (American suspicion of the Brits is an under-reported phenomenon), but none as much as the attempted appointment of the Telegraph’s Rob Winnett as editor of the Washington Post. The Post’s British CEO, Will Lewis, was already struggling to court the affection of his newsroom. With his bid to impose Winnett’s Fleet Street sensibilities on the place, he may have jeopardised his entire mission.
Hiring Winnett should have been Lewis’s “crossing the Delaware” moment: Winnett is lauded for his generation-defining exposé of the parliamentary expenses scandal. But America did not care. After what appeared—from the outside—to be a newsroom revolt, the Telegraph has announced that Winnett would stay at the title and is no longer headed to America.
The episode highlighted something often overlooked: the Americanisation myth, the idea that British cultural influences have been subsumed by American dominance, is a farce in the world of journalism. Instead of being consumed by American practices, British journalism has maintained its own distinctive style, one that can prove resilient even within the larger global media environment.
Despite American media’s larger-than-life role on the world stage, British journalists like Winnett remain powerful symbols of the independence and credibility that the UK media institutions continue to offer. This resistance to adopting American newsroom norms challenges the assumption that British journalism is vulnerable to Americanisation, illustrating instead that Britain has an enduring presence in the media world with its distinct values and practices.
Moreover, the Washington Post drama sheds light on the cultural tensions between the two countries. The British style of investigative journalism, with its emphasis on direct confrontation and scandal, clashes with American approaches that often favour access-based, insider-driven reporting. For British journalists, such a shift can feel like a betrayal of their core values. Winnett’s return to the Telegraph indicates that despite the pull of American media, the UK still fosters a unique journalistic tradition.
This cultural divide is further proof that Americanisation, at least in the realm of media, is more myth than reality. As American media continues to globalise, it must reckon with the enduring differences that define other nations’ media cultures. The resistance to a British editor at the Washington Post, and the subsequent reversal of the decision, is just one more example of how the global media landscape is more complex than many assume.
In the end, this drama reinforces Britain’s enduring influence on the media world. Far from being overtaken by the American model, British journalism continues to assert its own, ensuring that its distinct voice remains powerful in the age of globalisation.
