"George Alagiah, well-known to the BBC's British audience as one of the broadcaster's main news anchors, is eager to try out his presentation skills on perhaps the world's toughest audience: the U.S.," the Financial Times says. But there are some differences between his U.K. style and his U.S. counterparts. Quoting the story:

"'The difference will be that it won't be George Alagiah's views about the news, but the programme will give both sides, and I will vigorously examine both sides of the story,' he says, 'referring to a contrast with the often right-leaning views adopted by many top US anchors, such as Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel."

(Do "many top US anchors" express "right-leaning views?" I don't think so. Also, O'Reilly isn't an anchor.) Update: 11:13am: An e-mailer responds: "O'Reilly may not be an anchor, but he has an hour-long platform night after night on a channel that brands itself as offering "news" to the public. While the FT overstated the presence of right-wing anchors on US TV (beyond FNC, at least), O'Reilly is an anchor in so far as he presents a program on a news channel. You and I may disagree that he fits the description of an impartial news "anchor," but FNC has blurred that line so much that it's only really us media types who still see the distinction."

Also: "If BBC World takes off, Mr Alagiah might be tempted to push for one feature common to popular US anchors -- multi-million dollar packages. 'That is another difference which exists between us now,' he jokes."