1. Brit tabloids are more explicit.

Yanks read their own hugely popular National Enquirer because as the ad says – they ‘want to know’. But they don’t find out. At least, not everything. When visiting the UK, even hardened Enquirer readers blush at the intimate detail in the popular press.

2. Brit papers declare political affiliations.

US papers merely hint at these, maintaining the appearance of objectivity (though regular readers know precisely where they stand). Brit-papers abandon pretence, and nail political colours firmly to the mast. Editorials are partisan, outspoken, and in case you’ve missed the point, you can read the articles:

“LABOUR LEFT’S DAY OF HUMILIATION”;

“HEARTLES MAGGIE PLUMMETS IN POLLS”;

“UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS OUT OF CONTROL”.

3. Yanks don’t have national newspapers.

America is a ‘made for TV’ nation. This, too, is an accident of geography. Until the advent of recent technology, nation-wide print distribution in a single day was virtually impossible. And, old habits die hard. Today’s San Franciscans would rather read the local Chronicle than theWashington Post. Miami readers take theHerald in preference to theLA Times. The relatively newUSA Today has tried to fill the national newspaper gap, but with limited success. It fails to represent a real ‘community of interest’, and is more a pot-pourri of interesting stories.

Besides ... in a country as big as America, there are always problems about ads. Who in Seattle cares if Sears Ft Lauderdale is having a tyre sale? The only possible exceptions to this rule, with real claims to National Newspaper-hood are:

1. the Wall Street Journal – Bible to America’s share-and-bond-buying, tax-sheltering Super Establishment all over the country, and

2. the New York Times – because everyone everywhere is happy to read ads for Bloomingdale’s.

Snigger Press

The ‘popular press’ in each country adopts a different ‘tone of voice’. British tabloids may be explicit, but they are also utterly childish and puerile, figuratively giggling like schoolgirls at the merest mention of anything’ smutty.

Brit-press also postures a great deal, and affects a moral view ... which allows canny editors to keep developing a cracking good story, while pretending to play it down:

‘PRINCESS MICHAEL’S SECRET ROMANCE ...

WHY THE PRESS SHOULD LEAVE HER ALONE’

Ameri-tabloids are less coy, and adopt a straightforward approach. They simply accuse people of being drunk, disorderly, romantically linked or morally out-of-bounds. ‘Evidence’ is not a huge problem; they elevate rumour and gossip to the status of fact, fly a few kites, and are seldom caught out. Yanks can afford to ‘publish and be damned’. This is because US libel laws are far less restrictive than Britain’s, and editors know that – unless they run afoul of Carol Burnett – they’re home and dry.

Which also gives them the right to be unpleasant. If the Brit-press is prurient, Ameri-rag runs often to the downright nauseating:

‘3-YEAR-OLD MIRACLE MOM GIVES BIRTH’

‘DWARF REMOVES OWN GALL-BLADDER WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC’

‘RELIGIOUS FRENZY OF UFO WOMAN’

But, this is splitting hairs. If there are small differences in style between British and American popular papers, there is one major and over-riding similarity. They are all owned by Australians.