BBC's Katty Kay talks travel with Rick Steves

"He sees travel as a way for people – Americans, especially – to bolster their sense of understanding of the people and the world around them. "

I would say that's entirely optional.

The first time that occurred to me was reading Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_Abroad

It follows a group of Americans on a trip to the "Holy Land" in 1867. I was impressed by the sub-group he mentions that managed to resist all "foreign influences" through the entire trip.

Read the interview. Rick says we should be more than mere tourists... that also becoming "travellers" and "pilgrims" is the path to a more valuable experience... we should "...be thoughtful, ...spiritual, ...poetic, ...having fun with nature and meeting new people and drinking new drinks. That's just what really carbonates the whole experience."

I doubt these noble travel objectives get realized all that often. Oh, I seem to remember this sort of thing to some degree from back in my 20's, when I had oodles of free time to hang out in hostels and on beaches and not much money (but enough for beer) and I'd meet strangers (mostly other travelers from the US, Canada, and Australia, but also some Europeans) on trains or wherever. I enjoyed the "carbonation." But I only got the smallest of small introductions to other ways of life, other cultures, other centuries of history, etc. And I really doubt that multiple trips to Europe are crucial for understanding the European experience. Most who travel - no matter what country they are from or where they travel - are tourists. They stay in hotels/apartments and go to museums and restaurants and ride bikes or hike and take day cruises and walking tours with a tour guide... and they speak English with their travel companions. They do not live life as locals do, even if they pretend to do so with a long apartment stay. When they come home, they consequently do not return with a true understanding of what makes Europe tick, or with a new language under their belts, or how to stop wars from happening. They remember - and write trip reports about - the tourist stuff. Their flight. Oktoberfest. They blisters on the St James pilgrimage walk.

So I really do not get how Rick expects travel to accomplish the kind of stuff he talks about...

If our travels can save us from one needless war, that's going to do a
lot to cut back on heartache and the pollution of this planet. And
that's a good thing.

If you really want to understand Europeans a little better, or have a perspective-altering experience, I think you need to plan something extraordinary. Live with a family or in a voluntary service brigade for X months. Get a job that places you in Europe for months on end, and work in an area of endeavor that you are interested in. Learn a language. For shorter stays, STUDY whatever interests you about Europe BEFORE your plane lands there so that you arrive with a focus for learning more. It is often what you bring to the experience that determines how meaningful your time is - not just traveling widely or often.

Oh, I'd agree with Rick on the benefits of travel. But it's up to the people doing it to take advantage of the opportunities. Or not.

But you can't win if you don't play so you can't take advantage of the opportunities of traveling if you never do it.

One of the reasons I have traveled has always been to try to escape, even for a short while, the incessant stream of bad and frightening news we consume daily in America. And it used to work. But we just returned from Poland. Across the country, I didn’t speak with a single person (beyond the basic conversation exchanges when one travels) who didn’t want to know how I felt about American politics and to explain why America is behaving the way it is. We were simply tourists, and stayed in Airbnbs and hotels, so as Russ said, we really didn’t plan an ‘extraordinary experience’ or live like locals. Nevertheless, more than ever before, I came home with a clear understanding of what at least some Europeans (admittedly a limited sample size of about a dozen, in shops, restaurants, hotels, on the train, etc.) think about America today. Without bringing it up, I got an earful, both supportive of America and not, but many more not. In my travels over the past 30 years I’ve never been in such a stressful spot. When I worked for the State Department, this wasn’t an issue. You did your job by following the talking points and delivering the message, whatever it was and no matter what you thought of it personally. Now, do I say what I really think? Deflect the questions? Wave the flag and point out anything good the US does for other countries, people, cultures and economies of the world? Encourage people to wait and see, and in the meantime, give America the benefit of the doubt? Or is it better to empathize with or try to ease the fears of people who only see the world order crumbling at their expense? What would you do? Talk about travel as a political act….

RobertH is right. Not everyone wants to travel that way. But it doesn't make RS wrong for encouraging that attitude. I think his intent is not to have tourists project and defend their own politics, especially so out of context, but to learn what people in other countries experience and see if that has an impact on your politics.

One thing that comes to mind is the number of people who report here on the forum, about their experiences with free or low cost medical care while traveling in Europe. Do they come back thinking "why can't we have that here"? Maybe not and some just are glad they didn't have to spend money on it without reflecting on why.

We just got back from Ireland where we had a number of conversations with locals who told us how our US policies directly impacted their countries and their lives (food costs -Ukraine; fuel costs - Iran; tariffs-jobs). Noting how accepting they are of immigration, with a shrinking native born population. But if you just want to travel for food and art, then you're missing something.

Your experience mirrors mine, Wanderlust58. Europeans I've chatted with over the last 50 years or so always wanted to express how they felt about our government and "to know how I felt about American politics" - and expected ME to explain it. Our country is the talk of every town and always has been - and they have always been mostly critical rather than supportive, no matter the administration. In the 70's they tended to complain mostly about our military bases and presence. The complaints vary by trend and decade, but they are largely negative, usually followed by a comment about how friendly Americans tend to be.

I've always found this odd. I've never even thought of putting them on the grill about their government's policies when I travel in Europe - or when I bump into a European coming to CALIFORNIA, in which case we talk about what they've seen/done and what they like/dislike about their experiences here... why would I have questioned them about Angela Merkel, when they came here to have a nice vacation? I really don't know what this tells me about European culture, other than the fact that they are more intensely oriented toward politics than we are and don't have any reservations about the possibility that they might be making American visitors to their country really uncomfortable.

With the exception of Covid, travel to Europe has increased exponentially for decades. Along with other countries, the US is now overpacking many European cities. Is that a plus? I see the economic boost Europe gets from this increase. What I don't see: positive results in the areas Rick brings up... cessation of armed conflicts? Reversal of climate change? Environmental improvements? Even if all these things were getting better, why should we credit increased travel? Sorry, Rick... I don't even see a hypothetical causal connection.

I recall my visit to Europe as a teenager on a bicycle trip and happening across an old man in the Netherlands that wanted to thank me as a representative of the US for making it to "rain food" on them when he was starving as a young boy just after WW II.

I contrast that with this:

The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, was shocked when Trump
laid out his demand for Greenland in their initial conversation after
the president’s election to a second term, diplomats said. Trump later
upped the ante by saying he wouldn’t exclude using military force to
seize the island. Vice President JD Vance, on a March visit to an
American military base in northern Greenland, said “Denmark hasn’t
done a good job at keeping Greenland safe” and that the island would
be safer under an American umbrella.

I can see why some conversations are different now.

I appreciate everything Rick Steves does.

Happy travels

"RobertH is right. Not everyone wants to travel that way. But it doesn't make RS wrong for encouraging that attitude."

He isn't wrong. I just can't find it in myself to be as optimistic as he is. On several issues. But I admire him (some) for it.

No, I don't think you can make a things are always that bad argument.

We're having our Hitler moment. It's not going well.

Every year, before traveling anywhere, I read Phil Cousineau's The Art of Pilgrimage. The book focuses on the things that make travel a spiritual exercise. I think it helps me to avoid the provincialism, selfishness, and ignorance of many who travel, and also to prepare to embrace new experiences that are bound to occur. We try to apply the suggestions in the book as we prepare for our trip.
We research the area we will be visiting before we go. We study the current events and politics of the area, and we make sure that we can represent our own events and politics in a clear fashion. We do not take tours; instead we go out on our own. We do visit tourist sites, but we always venture further out. We walk or take local transportation. We try to speak the local language, often a way to engage with real locals. We do not stay in hotels or apartments in posh areas. We eat in restaurants frequented by locals. We shop where locals shop.
I agree in part with Russ that most who travel are tourists. I think many Americans exhibit a provincialism regarding our country and ignorance of others. I'm often amazed at posts by those who don't appear to look at a map or a guidebook before a trip, but rely only on what other people have seen and done. How can that kind of travel be authentic and relevant? How can we be part of humanity if we don't engage with the world?
Travel is expensive. It should be more than following the crowds. At the very least it gives us the opportunity to interact with people unlike ourselves.

That's a seriously-dedicated approach, musicmoll1, not all that far away from the "extraordinary" plans I was thinking of for enhanced cultural understanding abroad. You probably come home with all kinds of great table-conversations in mind.

I think many Americans exhibit a provincialism regarding our country
and ignorance of others. I'm often amazed at posts by those who don't
appear to look at a map or a guidebook before a trip, but rely only on
what other people have seen and done. How can that kind of travel be
authentic and relevant?

Some are like that, perhaps. IME the "ignorance" issue is genuine. A lot of us can't find European countries on a map of Europe without country names in bold print. Can we agree to fault the flawed public education system for this kind of ignorance? I've taught English to a few thousand Europeans in my career, the vast majority of whom knew a ton about this country long before they came here to study English - knowledge not acquired independently but because their ed systems require this sort of knowledge prior to graduation. Even smart people here latch onto suggestions from friends/acquaintances/forum members when they have a near-zero knowledge base to begin with and only a few media images and stereotypes in their heads to guide them.

I would never expect a tour - especially one marketed to US participants (pick any guided RS tour) - to result in some deep understanding of Europeans. The exotic outcomes that Rick's travel philosophy seems to promise in the interview are unlikely to materialize when rubbing elbows with other Americans.

Provincialism... depends on what you mean. I don't actually recall meeting/seeing/hearing any Americans abroad who were on pro-America crusades. Sounds like a very dated stereotype to me. I have in fact seen a few North Americans acting too rowdy for the environment - note quite frat-party style, just being loud and brash, as though they weren't guests in Europe. (Germans, btw do have a similar reputation in certain places on the Mediterranean, not sure if it's a false stereotype or not. I guess every culture has its clowns.) On the other hand... I've also seen small groups of US travelers talking among themselves in inaudible whispers because they were fearful that locals might find the presence of a US accent offensive - as though some travel authority had beaten this lesson into their heads before their trip. And I've read all kinds of forum posts where Americans are thinking they should dress European or disguise themselves in someway so as not to offend... I think it would be more rewarding for most Americans taking the typical 2-3-week Europe trip if they just left their shame unexpressed and tried to enjoy themselves - appropriately that is.

I don't use the word provincialism to mean an overt pro-American crusade. I use it more subtly to identify the tendency to believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world by people who have never been outside of the United States, like many members of my family. I think many tourists have an epiphany when they finally do travel internationally, but, like you stated, a tour is not likely to offer an experience that will provide one.

I think Europeans want to know if what the media reports about American politics is true. I wish I could tell them all it is not.

Since the election has been over I rarely encounter anyone I know who talks about politics any longer. Everyone I know in the US seems to just go about their daily lives like they did with every other administration in the past.

Probably because many people I know will not forget the 60's and 70's when there were the dark days of the Vietnam war. Today's issues of tariffs and deportations of illegal aliens are minor to American "older folks" in the grand scheme of history. The recovery of Vietnam and what real political damage that was done during that period should be remembered to keep some real perspective on what real bad administrations can do.

I wish travel was politically free and I wish someone as influential in travel as RS would keep politics out of travel, but we all have personal freedoms.

That's quite a politically slanted post for someone who doesn't like politics, Threadwear :)

I have been traveling internationally for 34 years, the past nine full time. Here's what I've learned:

There is no one right way to travel. The only right way is what is right for you. There is no need to try to prove why your way to travel is better than another's. It's only better for you.

There's also the argument, especially among influencers, as to title. Are you a tourist? A Traveler? A Temporary Local? Having worked in the tourism industry, I can tell you a little secret. The people you are visiting don't care. If you are visting somewhere, staying in short term accomodation, and eating most of your meals outside your accomodation, the true locals see you as a tourist. The tourism industry sees you as a tourist.

My take is simple. Just the fact that someone is willing to travel to another country and allow themselves to be introduced to a culture other than their own is a plus. How far they are willing to go outside their comfort zone is subjective. But at least the first steps are taken.

As to how Americans are being treated this year, a lot of assumptions are being made by people who have not traveled outside the US since January. I have been in nine European countries over the past 5 months. I can tell you that I have seen no difference in the way I have been treated in comparison to previous years. There have been no "Yankee Go Home" signs--although I have seen quite a few NY Yankee baseball caps--and no rude treatment. Almost every country these days has their own problems and locals are more focused on those.

Just go, enjoy, show respect, and you will come back a winner.

Just go, enjoy, show respect, and you will come back a winner.

Sounds like something Rick might say and sounds like the right way to travel.

Hear! Hear!

Well said Frank!

Happy travels!

I wish someone as influential in travel as RS would keep politics out
of travel

Yes, but I suspect his very forward embrace of politics and political causes is at least partly responsible for his high visibility and commercial success in the first place. In the business world, there are few products Americans can purchase which promise improved international understanding and world peace - and will "destroy" the ethnocentricity which plagues them, turning them into "happier Americans" and "citizens of the world."

AFAIK, RSE is the first and only enterprise to associate such large and lofty results with its products. Previously, this kind of marketing was unique to election campaigns, but a large number of travelers and wannabe travelers have apparently responded positively to this sales approach. As long as it's working, Rick probably won't be changing his approach/philosophy anytime soon.

That's quite a politically slanted post for someone who doesn't like politics, Threadwear :)

Oh, I don't mind talking politics, but I don't believe travel should be politicized. What is the point? I consider myself an intelligent person, but I would have to look up for most countries the name of their leadership and political stand (conservative or liberal). I honestly could care less about the country's politics unless it is detrimental to the safety of me as a traveler.

My advice, pack even lighter your opinion baggage, leave political opinions at home and just enjoy your new surroundings.

As long as it's working, Rick probably won't be changing his approach/philosophy anytime soon.

They have the freedom to be political and as long as the actual tours are apolitical, it won't affect the customer experience. However, just recently I read a post here somewhere about an RS guide who was being politically critical of US leadership and it did not sit well with the poster because that wasn't what they were paying for on a tour.

I honestly could care less about the country's politics unless it is detrimental to the safety of me as a traveler.

I tend to find more interest in being amongst people and their culture in action rather than prioritising visiting a cathedral or a museum. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I honestly could care less about the country's politics unless it is detrimental to my safety as a traveler.
I think Europeans want to know if what the media reports about American politics is true. I wish I could tell them all it isn't.

Interesting, because on the one hand, you don't care about another country's politics, but at the same time, you think Europeans want to know about American politics. The truth is, there are no Europeans in general, because there is only the individual European who either cares or doesn't.

Having read the article my first reaction was ‘or you could just go on holiday?!!’
If it makes you feel better to think you are a traveller or ( heaven help us!) a pilgrim good for you, but you are still a tourist, and in Rick Steves’ case a business man, with a product to sell. I certainly don’t doubt his good intentions but there is still a bottom line.

Much is made on this site about interacting with the locals, to the extent that it can on occasion feel that locals are seen as just another tick on the holiday list ‘visited museum, saw palace, met local….tick tick tick’
But when a local might want to interact back with you, and yes it might be about politics, it is seen as a weird intrusion.

I can only speak for my country, because ‘Europe’ is not an amorphous mass, but whether you are interested in US politics or not it is pretty hard to avoid. It is in the news, in the press, all over social media.
And what happens over there does actually impact over here on many different levels, so you shouldn’t be surprised if some people might want to talk about it when they meet an American.
Perhaps being a good traveller is acknowledging the impact your country is having on the world and not choosing to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable.

And finally off topic, there is an odd recurring theme on this forum about ‘Europeans’ wearing NY Yankee hats as if it represents an affiliation to the US? It really doesn’t, it’s fashion. I’m sitting here wearing jeans and a pair of converse it doesn’t mean I am about to play baseball or go mining for gold in California.

The innards of another country are lost on many people who go on vacation. There is travel and there is vacation. Mutually exclusive.
The ones who may stand to benefit the most and bolster their sense of understanding often have no understanding, nor care to.
To go somewhere for a reason limited to that one reason such as a beach vacation you don't have to bring with you a desire to understand. You don't have to do anything but immerse yourself in the singular aspect for which you journeyed. There no necessary interest. Who cares?
Yet, those are precisely the ones who would benefit. So when RS speaks about travel it is not the sort of travel.just described.

I can only speak for my country, because ‘Europe’ is not an amorphous mass, but whether you are interested in US politics or not it is pretty hard to avoid. It is in the news, in the press, all over social media.
And what happens over there does actually impact over here on many different levels, so you shouldn’t be surprised if some people might want to talk about it when they meet an American.
Perhaps being a good traveller is acknowledging the impact your country is having on the world and not choosing to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable

Well said, and would read exactly the same for Canada.

And finally off topic, there is an odd recurring theme on this forum about ‘Europeans’ wearing NY Yankee hats as if it represents an affiliation to the US? It really doesn’t, it’s fashion.

Of course it's fashion. Or its trendy. Why do I know it's nothing to do with the US or even the Yankees? Because non of the hats I see are actually in the Yankees official team color--midnight navy blue.

"If it makes you feel better to think you are a traveller or ( heaven help us!) a pilgrim good for you, but you are still a tourist..."

Yup. And no matter how intensely you wish to understand "European life" or "the European perspective", the wannabe traveler/pilgrim searching for generalizations is fighting a losing battle. Conversations with locals - even if you share the same level of language skills - may make your visit more interesting, but they will also be...

• random and few in number (extremely anecdotal evidence gathering)
• conditioned by one's own pre-conceived notions - whether accurate or inaccurate - about country X (confirmation bias)
• conditioned by one's status as a tourist (locals aren't necessarily going to interact with you like they do others; outside observer's paradox. Also... there's a commonly-recognized European tendency to be less open with strangers.)

You could spend 8 hours a day interviewing locals during your 2-3 week visit - and still have nothing but junk for evidence to mull over.

If the French bakery gal treats you dismissively, or tells you to take your imperialist backside home, what do you conclude about that? That the French are rude, or hate Americans? That our government in fact must be imperialist?

This notion that you can contribute to international understanding, or be an ambassador for your homeland, or see your homeland through the eyes of the average European just by traveling for 2-3 weeks and staying 3 days here and 3 days there, is a lot of wishful thinking with no evidence behind it - a lot of presumptuous bunk, IMHO.

Do Swiss, Italian, and Swedes vacationing in the USA gain enhanced understanding of the American experience and actually acquire it - whatever that is? I doubt that hitting NYC and a few national parks or similar can achieve that. It's no different in reverse. It sounds noble. It might make us feel better about having the financial resources for European travel, or feel more knowledgeable about the planet and it's people than those who do not or cannnot travel abroad, but I think intellectual modesty and honesty have to play a role here. I enjoy interpersonal chats with locals when I am able to have them in my travels. I still think about the chat I had with a Belgian guy and my girlfriend at the time on a train trip through Yugoslavia to Greece 50+ years ago. But I can't pretend, beyond what they mean to me personally, that these one-on-ones have the potential to end wars or pollution.

"But I can't pretend, beyond what they mean to me personally, that these one-on-ones have the potential to end wars or pollution. "

Only as a long term thing.

And that is one issue I'm less optimistic about than Rick. I believe there are just as many (more?) mechanisms (with people) tearing things down as these kind of mechanisms to build(?) things.

Which one will win? When/where? Short-term/long-term? Depends...

So, since I can't know I do the best I can with what I've got and let the rest...

"Sufficient unto the day the evil therein"

This all goes both ways. Just as there is no European in general, there is no American in general. We’re all individuals with different backgrounds, priorities, and life experiences. Quite frankly, plenty of Americans aren’t happy with other Americans right now (understatement of the year), so it can get old to be lumped together as if “we” all think alike. We don’t.

Regarding travel, Rick’s statements not only apply to U.S. travel to Europe but also travel within this country. States differ. Regions differ. Geographies differ. If you grew up in Virginia and have never been west of Pittsburgh, for example, then you may not be helping yourself or anyone else. Not picking on VA—pick a state, any state.

Rick’s been making these points for years. I’ve distilled his thoughts down to: educate yourself, open your eyes and ears, be willing to learn, and don’t always assume that the way you’re used to living is the way that everyone else lives.

"...so it can get old to be lumped together as if “we” all think alike. We don’t. "

But it's easier to lump things. So it will probably keep happening. Really, it's all about how (and if) you want to stretch who you are/how you think. A lot of people don't want to. For different reasons.

If the opportunity presents itself I'll ask a generalized political question, like what are the biggest challenges a country faces. Often, it's healthcare and energy costs. I don't bring up political figures because who knows if that person likes them or not? I don't want to start an argument.

I'd guess the only way to "live like a local" is to join clubs, understand the history and culture, speak the language well, and once you get in with a group a little bit, attend their sporting events, etc. Probably the best way is to actually work real jobs with them. Really get to know each other.

Lots of opinions around travel and its effects, but a common denominator amongst travelers is that they ('we') value Learning. It takes effort and expense to see new things, to temporarily experience a different place and culture in the hopes to better understand. There's a humility in traveling, a trait sorely lacking in today's (global) political rhetoric seeking to divide everyone, and monetize either by sale or by vote their uncompromising 'camp'. Travel, by contrast, literally brings people together. It's an attribute which sometimes gets lost in a social media landscape of TikTok hits and bucket lists, but this is a better planet when we're united and humble enough to learn from each other. That's what Travel offers at its core.

My visits to Europe are but tiny moments in a vast mosaic of history, culture, science and lived experiences of billions across thousands of years. What can I learn or understand or appreciate in such random and insignificant moments? But a brief candle, signifying nothing, utterly meaningless, a speck-- and all that jazz. When that Swiss guy a couple weeks ago gave me a meaningful look, dropping his glasses down 1/2 an inch (or should I say a 1 centimeter?) and said something to the effect that the US couldn't be counted on any longer, how dare I dare to think I learned something meaningful across continents and cultures? I guess I'm goofy that way. I find meaning where I shouldn't and miss meaning when I should.

"My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet
what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?” ― David Mitchell, Cloud
Atlas

Recently I watched a lecture series on the history of modern physics. Circa 20 hours of lectures. A paltry fraction vs hours of study, experiments, math and uncomfortable chairs and chalk boards and unkempt hair. What's the point? How can such a tiny 20 hour sample hope to give me any insight into such a dizzyingly complex subject?

There are two types of people: splitters-- those that are finding new subtleties and differentiating all things. And gatherers. They synthesize disparate stuff and make wholistic theories. And the final type that can't count and post on RS forums. That's me! The type that doesn't get it (and how!)

Happy travels.

Probably the best way is to actually work real jobs with them. Really get to know each other

Yes, there's some truth in that on the one hand, but partly it's also a bit of wishful thinking - unfortunately.

I work for a global company, and here at the Munich headquarters, people from around 65 nations work. First of all, that's great because it teaches me to engage with these nations and gain a great deal of understanding for other ways of life. And in direct interaction with me, these colleagues from other countries also learn something about 'us Germans' (although I don't want to generalize, of course).
But here's the thing... because what they learn from interacting with me is my already adjusted behavior. I've learned to behave in such a way that I don't immediately exhibit every bad German habit. Outside of the bubble here at the company, these colleagues meet Germans who are sometimes a bit different, and that can be truly shocking :-)
Several times a week during lunch or coffee breaks, I'm told 'funny' stories from outside of the company, and I diligently try to explain the whys and wherefores. And thank goodness I'm not the only German colleague who gets to answer some questions about 'the Germans' :-) All in all, it's a lot of fun and a great experience that enriches my life incredibly.

Regardless of one's political leanings, it must be argued that the things that have happened in the last 6 months affect the entire world. People that we meet abroad are looking for information more than our opinions. If we have the opportunity to answer their questions without injecting bias, we should.

the things that have happened in the last 6 months affect the entire
world. People that we meet abroad are looking for information more
than our opinions.

Nothing new here. "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold" has been a truth since WW II. US power and influence has had many Europeans feeling like the tail on a dog's backside for decades. Some have implied - and some have even told me - that they think they should be voting in US elections.

Europeans looking for facts about what our government is thinking, saying and doing can't depend on today's very partisan media, sadly enough. An even more unreliable source of facts is American tourists in Europe! They should instead go to the horse's mouth; published White House statements, taped press briefings, and other taped appearances of our elected representatives provide the most DIRECT information.

That said, IME, Europeans who want to discuss politics with ME face to face have always been more interested in MY opinions, as if I mattered. Go figure.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

I’m sorry Russ, and I’m wording this very carefully, but for unbiased reporting I think at present the White House etc is very far down the list for truth and accuracy.
This is not said from a political standpoint but from practical experience of working with some US departments over the years.
Bias has always been built into the media but it has definitely got worse and not helped by social media.
Some sources are better than others, whilst it is by no means perfect I have more faith in BBC reporting than most newspapers.
The situation is perhaps further complicated by an increase in people shouting ‘bias’ when they simply don’t agree with what is being said rather than anything being inaccurate.

We in Germany are fortunate enough to still have functioning, independent public media and TV news. Therefore, we are presented with a clear, fact-based picture of current US politics. Americans tell me that our news on public TV takes some getting used to, because the news anchors only present facts without their own opinions, which seems a bit boring. I like that and I prefer to get my information from independent news sources rather than asking a tourist on the street what they think. What a person thinks is only important to me because I want to get a sense of how that individual is doing in the current situation and how that person feels. I don't want a picture of the state of the nation from that person, because their opinion is obviously politically colored and no longer neutral.

The bbc is a decent news source. Sometimes they do interviews with noted travel writers— like Rick Steves. Say, that guy is pretty good too. I always enjoy getting Rick’s take on things— all that travel has given him a broader perspective!

Happy travels!

What a person thinks is only important to me because I want to get a sense of how that individual is doing in the current situation and how that person feels. I don't want a picture of the state of the nation from that person, because their opinion is obviously politically colored and no longer neutral.

Precisely.

Yes, Emma, everyone must of course think critically when they approach anything they watch or read, including horse's-mouth sources. But excluding offical government sources and/or the actual words of horse's-mouth sources from your diet of information intake would be an ostrich-like approach to sorting out fact from fiction. You can't honestly criticize someone if you don't hear what they've really said and how they've said it; 5-word snippets from media sources are insufficient.

All historians agree that one should study primary sources. Good point. Folks should read the stuff Stalin and Hitler said.

Whether those primary sources are reliable, sober, thoughtful and fair vs. delusional, lying, hateful, crazy. or just plain the spawn of a criminally insane thoughts of narcissistic personality disorders, well, that's a different kettle of fish. For example, that guy who runs North Korea set a club record for golfing there or so I heard him say in their official sources. I dunno about that though.

But I agree with Emma. The BBC is pretty good. I like Katty Kay. I like Rick Steves too.

Happy travels.

Russ at no point did I say I ignored US government sources.
What I will say,and again being incredibly ‘polite’, its credibility is facing increasing amounts of challenge.
It’s going to take a lot to build trust back.

Regarding the BBC Ros Atikins segments are always a useful watch on the news channel, as they explain complex situations in the news very clearly.

It's important to to get a good balanced diet of media I think. I watch TalkTV sometimes on Youtube, even though I find it absolutely abhorent. I watch hours of live streams of demonstrations when I go down that rabbit hole. I often find myself better informed of what actually happened at protests representing both sides of the aisle covered by the big mainstream outlets. I have to admit, GBNews has been confined to the "Don't recommend this channel" pile though. I also watch and read a lot of media with a left bias, my natural inclination. Confirmation bias is a good feeling and I enjoy it, but I definitely try not to get stucj in what they call "the echo chamber" these days.

Bias is good. It helps one form one's own opinion through weighing up other people's, many of whom are more informed of the situation. Being able to disagree strongly with something that is plainly opinion rather than fact helps. Personally, I don't struggle to identify mistruths or opinion being presented as fact that much (I don't think anyway). "Read between the lines" is a nice old moderate phrase that identifies a way of thinking about what you consume in the media, including what Karoline Leavitt says at the podium.

I've had an interest in current affairs since very young. I can remember a lot of politics and news events from my early childhood I've found as I look back now. This all sounds like blowing my own trumpet, but it's just stuff that's helped me with understanding news and media over the years.

Sort of off topic, bit I've been binging on a channel that has a huge archive of World In Action documentaries from late 60's until the 90's on the Northern Irish troubles. Watching it now, I've been quite surprised how much I remember from the time. Well worth clicking through if you're interested in Irish modern history.
A Troubled Land Archive World In Action Playlist (35 videos)

As far as Rick goes, I find his boomer (not in a derogatory way) hippy idealism rather endearing. It's really heartening that he can run a successful business and not be afraid to have such thoughts in public. The only thing I'd pull him up about in this interview is not being a bit more sympathetic to the impact of air travel on the climate. It's a really tricky position for him to take, given that his business depends on flying people to Europe, but a bit more empathy at least would have been nice. Carbon credits and all that jazz are a bit of a nonsense imho.

"...I find his boomer (not in a derogatory way) hippy idealism rather endearing. It's really heartening that he can run a successful business and not be afraid to have such thoughts in public."

Yes. I admire his optimism. Much better than most of what we get now.

This entire post and responses just proves why politics have no place in travel. It is just another polarizing topic with no right or wrong answer.

Can we get back to debating, carryon vs checked, train passes or point to point, direct booking vs 3rd party bookings, guides vs no guides, independent travel vs tour operators. Those have real answers. LOL

Maybe someone will mention Viator on here and we can trash them instead of politicians.

I really like this bit of the interview:

RS: Not at all. The best souvenir you can take home is a broader
perspective. A good traveller won't see culture shock as something to
avoid. That's sort of the default: help me escape culture shock.
Culture shock is a constructive thing. It's the growing pains of a
broadening perspective and it needs to be curated. That's what I do as
a tour guide and a travel writer. I curate culture shock. I just love
the thought that when we get out of our comfort zones and travel, we
have a broadening perspective. That's the beautiful thing about travel
– and a lot of people miss it entirely. They're just on the beach.
They've changed the weather, but they haven't changed the culture.
That's a vacation. There's three kinds of travellers: tourists,
travellers and pilgrims. The default is just to be a tourist and focus
on little fun stuff. That's seeing the road as a playground, and
that's okay. But I like to also see the road as a school – that would
be the traveller. And I like to see the road as a church or a mosque
or a synagogue. That would be the pilgrim. I like to mix those three
things together, and not just to be a hedonist and not just to be a
monk, but to be thoughtful, to be spiritual, to be poetic, to be
having fun with nature and meeting new people and drinking new drinks.
That's just what really carbonates the whole experience.

"I really like this bit of the interview:"

Agreed. Thanks for posting it.

"...polarizing topic with no right or wrong answer."

Sometimes there are, sometimes not. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

With his emphasis on touring as a part of a vacation, I've found Rick's work a wee bit snobbish about the working class British experience, both in how he's covered the British seaside, and how he covers resorts popular with Europeans. Europeans are much more inclined to go somewhere and stay put. The places where it's popular for them to go there and do that in Spain and Italy tend to get a bit of a bum deal from Rick. I haven't been a lot of places, but the places I've been to, I've generally been to a lot and stayed there for a while, getting to know the places and culture (including local political movements) pretty well. If you'll allow me to be a little glib, I don't care that I've never spent two nights at a central Rome hotel and I didn't see The Coliseum. Do you know what I mean?

Interesting observations Gerry. You seem to make a fair point.

But what's this? Not seen the coliseum? Even after famed British director Ridley Scott filmed sharks swimming in there? That's hard to pass up!

Happy travels.

We in Germany are fortunate enough to still have functioning, independent public media and TV news. Therefore, we are presented with a clear, fact-based picture of current US politics. Americans tell me that our news on public TV takes some getting used to, because the news anchors only present facts without their own opinions, which seems a bit boring.

There’s plenty of American news that operates this way, public tv news and also local news. I am surprised your American friends are so ignorant. Well, laziness breeds ignorance.

Biased American news is only available by payment. The unbiased TV news is free.

Incidentally I can watch BBC News and DW News for free locally, they are broadcast on public TV in my market. A lot of us know Katty because she read the evening news from Washington for the BBC. Now the American BBC Evening News is read from Singapore.

Interesting observations Gerry. You seem to make a fair point.

I'm maybe being a bit unfair, because it's just cultural differences at the end of the day. Horses for courses. It wasn't until I started posting on this forum that I gained an awareness of how people, particularly North Americans, tour Europe.

I'm probably a bit of an outlier on this forum with how I travelled from my late teens until my 40's (51 now; haven't been many places except London and Scotland for a while). When I look back, most of my travelling has been for music or to meet friends, or a combination of both. Clubs in Ibiza, Sonar Festival in Barcelona, performing in Brussels. The only time I've been to Rotterdam was to buy records at Clone.

I feel bad about how ill-informed I am about cultural and historic "tourist" sites in the cities I've visited a lot, and I haven't seen a fraction of the amount of places many people on here have. I can't imagine going on Rick's Best of Europe tour though. That seems much too much like work to me.

I would add that I'm a lot more informed about the historical and cultural sites of Europe than I was a couple of years ago thanks to the good people of RSE. I do now have a bank of info in my head, should I choose to get out and visit more cathedrals and museums on my next trip, wherever that may be.

Russ at no point did I say I ignored US government sources.

I have no idea what you read or ignore and was not accusing you of ignoring anything. I suspect you (Emma) mistook my words "your" and "you" for references to YOU (Emma) when they were actually referring to people in general... as in "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" or you "you have to fly into Heathrow if you want to visit Stonehenge" (which is known as the impersonal use of "you.")

I invite you (Emma) to re-read my sentences using "one" / "one's" - or to reword with people in general in mind, as that's how I intended them to be understood.

Apologies for the confusion Russ

None needed. It's easy to misread ambiguously-worded comments like this. I should have been more cautious with this common English-language pitfall...

"I feel bad about how ill-informed I am about cultural and historic "tourist" sites in the cities I've visited a lot, and I haven't seen a fraction of the amount of places many people on here have."

When I did the Ven-Flor-Rome RS tour the guide told us about one of her favorite movies, it was about Venice.

"Bread and Tulips"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Tulips

In the beginning is a scene where the main character is on vacation with her Italian family. You see them trouping through weeds to (what looks like) ancient ruins. The guide, in an extremely bored voice, explains that these are blah blah and therefore "Italians are the greatest (civilization)".

I got the idea that this was what passed for "...how ill-informed I am about cultural and historic "tourist" sites" for (a lot of) the people there. Much like where I've lived in a lot of the US where the people were similarly disinterested in such.

Interesting point Robert.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it understand why the Venetians built a city in a swamp, that's what I always say.

Rick Steves goal of making us better travelers and better people, well, that's rubs me the right way!

Happy travels.

I hope the people who are regularly subjected to my posting on here don't think I'm some sort of philistine. I've been to Barcelona maybe ten times and never been inside the Sagrada Familia. I'd like to count the cultural experiences I've had in Barcelona or Amsterdam (twenty? visits, never been to the Anne Frank House) as every bit as valid as seeing the things popular with visitors.