New York Times media columnist David Carr (2/24/14) seems to think the relationship between CNN and Piers Morgan was doomed from the start:
It's been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate–the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt–and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
That's a peculiar way to define "provincial"; surely one can be deeply interested in the United States and deeply interested in the rest of the world at the same time. A better example of provincialism might be, well, David Carr, who goes on to write:
When something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events because, after all, he just got here.
Morgan came to the United States in 2007, that is, some seven years ago. Certainly many if not most New York Times articles from other countries are written by non-natives who been in those countries for less than seven years. Should we therefore dismiss what Times correspondents are saying about significant events in other countries because they "just got there"?