"Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution. But it is America's bill of rights, so I guess it doesn't apply when British journalists writing in British newspapers assert their freedom.

Rarely have articles in a British tabloid received so much attention in the US as John Pilger's recent pieces in the Daily Mirror. It was his "Mourn on the fourth of July" polemic which provoked the first wave of media anger.

He called the US "the world's leading rogue state" which was guilty of undermining international law and referred to President Bush's administration as a criminal gang responsible for killing twice as many people as died in the world trade centre atrocity.

This is not the sort of material that could come close to being published in a mainstream American paper, and - in the immortal words of Dad's Army's Corporal Jones: "They don't like it up 'em, sir, they don't like it one bit." "

Raoul says this about that^:
"Shows a large fraction of the UK population was against the war, in the first place. Shows sending troops to another country is a very serious matter. Shows the UK press is more varied in editorials and viewpoints.
I wonder which one of the US or UK press is less susceptible to self-censorship."

I say is that neither the person who wrote this article nor Raoul understand what "Freedom of the Press" means. Not even a CLUE!
Freedom of Press is about State vs individual. The constitution is not a Bible, rather the entire document is about defining the role of the State and it's relationship to the individual- with one central idea, limiting the power of the State.
So for example, since the UK has laws in which a person can be sued for libel (using power of state) which have a lower theshold (it's very tough to prove libel in the US) the UK has less Freedom of Press.
Diverse opinion is a RESULT of Freedom of Press [govt not inferring with freedom of speech]. It's NOT a guarantee provided by the goverment (any guarantee provided by govt would REQUIRE limiting individual freedom) that a person is free to say whatever they want without critism (even foamingly mad hostility) by People (Press). Nor is there any govt guarantee that a person must liked or supported if that person says something stupid (only a Lefty can be counted on to support such STUPID notion).
Another OBVIOUS point is the "American press" didn't remain silent regarding this apparently stupid article, but instead considered it worth talking about (why, I haven't a clue- probably because they have over-inflated opinion of this wackjob writer).
As for Raoal's opinion of the varied in editorials and viewpoints of American press. I would guess that Raoal is not very familar the extent of the US press. Though I would agree that more would be better. But, I would guess that if you could accurately measure the comparative quality of America vs UK (or Europe), that America has better press. Now if Europe was *actually* the center of the universe, then perhaps it's press is better.
Now, as far as entertainment value, personally I can say I enjoy the UK press more than America- and love watching members of UK (or even Canadian) Parliament discussing matters. The American Congress is hideously boring in comparison.
Oh, and I also generally like a British accent, and even though there are a lot of them, there is a shortage of "colorful" Brits.