Overheard at the bar the other night, spoken between two always-loud friends from the same part of the British Isles:

"Well, I get both CNN and the BBC, you know, and I always think--well, let me put it this way: CNN is entertainment, and the BBC is news."

"Oh, very much so. By the way, isn't that weather guy...Rob Mar...Mar...."

"Marciano! A real hottie!"

"Can't get enough of him!"

To impress upon his mate (and, I'm fairly certain, everyone within earshot--he's that type) the seriousness of the distinction, Speaker 1 drew out the word news with suitable fake-RP/genuine-gasbag portentousness: nee-yeeewwwwwz.

I'm usually very good about not chortling audibly in such situations, but I happened to be sitting with my English buddy, with whom I e-mail news stories and things back and forth frequently through the day. I made the mistake of catching his eye. At that point, it was over.

Of course, it wasn't the novelty of the opinions expressed that I found funny. I've heard that kind of nonsense many times before. But it's still nonsense.

I have little objection to the characterization of CNN as a source of mere entertainment, given that its "in-depth coverage" is like World Book Encyclopedia come to life: all cutesy-poo visuals and repellantly chipper presentation, presumably calibrated to reassure the mass audience that it will not be confronted with anything too complicated, taxing to the intellect, or challenging to existing assumptions.

I just don't see how the BBC--especially BBC World, which has notably CNN-ified itself over the years--can be thought to bring anything more elevated to the mix. It's not that the BBC is worse. For one thing, the reporters don't do as much of that gruesome, would-be-matey joshing with one another as they do on American channels. (Is there no way to make them cut that out?) But you get the same pat, preconception-confirming reporting on stories that you get everywhere else. You get the same "heartwarming" human interest pieces, which I sometimes think are purposefully contrived to make any civilized person's flesh crawl. You get the same asinine patter made necessary by being on the air all day. And you get the same unilluminating Q&A shows. Even the Hard Talk guy, whatever his name is (if he were cuter I'd make more of an effort to remember), is more known for his confrontational-jerk style of delivering questions than for actually, you know, drawing better information out of his subjects than other interviewers do.

At times I prefer the BBC because I find the cool composure of the newsreaders welcome. Just spit out the story already. At other times it's kind of nice the way CNN (as well as MSNBC) is populated by people who appear frankly aware that they're feeding you Spam on Wonder smeared with Miracle Whip Lite. That probably says something about my native Yank preference for forthrightness.

Just to end on a suitable note of (North) American frivolity: Rondi thinks Silda (Mrs. Eliot) Spitzer looks like Jennifer Aniston. There's totally a Hollywood angle on everything if you just look hard enough!