Why are so many US media outlets headed by British journalists? According to David Carr in the New York Times it's because of our journalistic culture. He writes:

"The one question all young reporters on Fleet Street are taught to keep foremost in their mind when interviewing public figures can be best paraphrased as, 'Why is this jerk lying to me?'"

By contrast, he thinks American media "frequently bow to power even as they seek to hold it accountable."

Carr also believes the thinness of "the dividing line between the business and editorial side in British journalism" is A Good Thing because "those who rise to the top have a good grasp of numbers… a characteristic that is increasingly prized in corporate America."

Before we explore that claim, here's the Brit list. Newspapers: Mark Thompson (New York Times CEO), Gerard Baker (Wall Street Journal editor) and Colin Myler (New York Daily News editor), previously edited by Martin Dunn.

Magazine editors: Anna Wintour (Vogue), Joanna Coles (Cosmopolitan) and Glenda Bailey (Harper's Bazaar). Television presenters: John Oliver (The Daily Show), Piers Morgan (CNN). TV executives: Deborah Turness (NBC News), Paul Lee (ABC entertainment division) and Jana Bennett (A+E Networks). Internet: Tina Brown (Daily Beast) and Nick Denton (Gawker).

I think Carr's first point is correct. There is an aggression about British journalism that tends to make it independent of government and inherently suspicious of the establishment in all its forms.

This antagonism can be viewed in positive terms as scepticism, a journalistic virtue. It is articulated in Carr's piece by a quote from Joanna Coles (once of this parish): "We [Brits] are used to adversarial relationships. The value of ideas — articulating them and advocating for them — is what sets people apart."

However, the British bloody-mindedness can also be characterised as cynicism - a journalistic vice - which is perfectly illustrated by that apocryphal "jerk" reference.

Carr touches on another factor that surely influences our journalism, namely the very different political culture:

"Newspapers and radio still play a central role in the civic life of Britain, and parliament is a kind of gladiator pit that can make congress seem like a Montessori school."

Two overlapping areas he fails to explore are the Transatlantic differences in newspaper ownership and political partisanship. Nor does he mention the competitive effects of Britain's heavily centralised media.

These three aspects, as Coles implicitly acknowledges, have fostered a sharp-elbowed type of advocacy journalism. It is second nature for British editors to launch campaigns and, as far as they are concerned, the bigger the target the better.

Similarly, our television tradition is heavily influenced by the desire of our public service broadcaster, the BBC, to avoid any taint of being a "state broadcaster" by holding the institutions of the state, most notably the government, to account.

Despite the regulated requirement for editorial balance, our current affairs television is much more aggressive than anything broadcast in the United States. And our interviewers are much more aggressive than their US equivalents.

We can also point to having led the way with political satire. But it's fair to say that The Daily Show under Jon Stewart, and now John Oliver, has taken up that baton with great success.