Davids Medienkritik

Top Pet Issues for German Media Coverage of the United States

Here is a list of German media's favorite "pet issues" in coverage of the United States. Very often - real news and balanced coverage are thrown out the door as German reporters dig wherever they can for stories that cast the United States (and particularly anyone in the United States not left-of-center politically) in the worst possible light.

Top pet issues include:

1. Perceived American religiosity and/or prudishness.
2. Perceived American obsession with guns and violence.
3. The death penalty.
4. The perceived excess and superficiality of American capitalism and (non)culture (i.e. fat people, the super rich, SUVs, fast-food, M-TV/hip-hop culture, Hollywood, corporate scandals, buy-outs and "excessive" profits.)
5. Exaggeration of social inequality in the United States (i.e. amerikanische Verhaeltnisse, poor Americans are starving and freezing to death or at least struggling with 2-3 jobs and no health insurance while the rich live it up. Perception that America has no social safety net or a woefully inadequate social safety net.)
6. Racism in America
7. America as gluttonous world polluter.
8. Perceived American unilateralism/exceptionalism (i.e. Iraq, Kyoto, ICC, Guantanamo)
9. Perceived American "hurrah" patriotism or "hyper" patriotism (i.e. flag-waving).
10. Perceived American paranoia/overreaction about terror and obsession with security and the "war" on terror and the perceived willingness of Americans to sacrifice key civil liberties (the Patriot Act has become a favored target) and take extrajudicial actions involving torture, renditions, etc.
11. The perception that the Bush administration controls (or at least dominates) the media and can somehow intimidate or cow the media into following the party line. The perceived view that there is a lack of diversity of opinion in US media (because it is allegedly dominated by conservatives!) The perceived view that FoxNews, talk radio and blogs are the menacing conservative vanguard of what all US media are becoming or have already become. (i.e. US media are "gleichgeschaltet" or in lock-step with Bush and the neo-cons.)
12. Anything that casts a negative light on the US military (i.e. Abu Ghraib, trials of US troops, bombings or killings of civilians real or imagined).
13. Anything that casts a negative light on the Bush administration.
14. Iraq is a disaster-quagmire-catastrophe-debacle perhaps unparalleled in human history. Iraq = Vietnam = defeat and humiliation for America, the US military and Bush.
15. The perception of the US as an imperial hegemon out to expand its global power and military-industrial complex while using democracy as a convenient (yet false) excuse to do so. Oil = blood = Halliburton = war.

Interestingly enough - the same European elites who complain about the supposed black-white world view of the American friends themselves enthusiastically disseminate and consume a hyper-simplified view of the United States (characterized by the pet issues listed above) that largely ignores the complexity, diversity and sheer expanse of the American experience. 

A Minor Torture Incident

Not that you should care...it's really nothing of any importance...don't even know whether it happened at all. AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD IT PROVE?

Anyway, since you're asking, here's the story (again, no big deal, really):

EU Soldiers Accused of Torturing Civilians in Congo
The Swedish military has accused French soldiers of torturing civilians during the EU-led Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2003, one of the bloc's first joint missions.
Five years ago, the European Union sent some 1,500 soldiers to DR Congo as part of a UN mission to take action against the bandits marauding the north-eastern part of the country. The troops were there to protect the civilians.
Now the Swedish military is saying that French soldiers tortured Congolese civilians during the operation. The German government, which didn't send troops on the mission but provided logistical assistance, couldn't confirm the accusations.

"The Foreign Ministry is not aware of the report," a ministry spokeswoman told DW-WORLD.DE. "We will examine the issue."

Now - that means a lot, I can tell you. Until the examination is finished (somewhere in the vicinities of the 22nd century), the German media's coverage of the incident will be merciless till truth is found.

Or not.

After all, what's all the fuss about torture? I mean, there was a war going on, and some folks got a bit agitated in the course of it... Perhaps these "civilians" weren't so civil at all?

Don't we have more important things to talk about? Such as this incredible, huge torture scandal in Abu Ghraib which for the upteenth time was presented in last week's edition of German left wing weekly magazine stern. (Hat tip Jane)

WMD: The Dishonesty of German Politics

A Wall Street Journal report, referring to several articles (1, 2, 3) in SPIEGEL:

Curveball Revisited
March 29, 2008

In the long history of U.S. intelligence fiascos, few have been as minutely examined as the "Curveball" episode – the source whose fraudulent claims were largely responsible for the pre-Iraq War view that Saddam Hussein possessed biological weapons. So it's worth noting what a new, remarkable report from the German magazine Der Spiegel tells us about the spy who lied.

According to media legend, Curveball was a creation of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who headed the exiled Iraqi National Congress before Saddam's overthrow. That notion was destroyed in 2005 with the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report on intelligence. But the myth persists in many circles that, through Curveball, Mr. Chalabi had conned his neocon friends, who in turn had conned President Bush, who in turn had pressured a reluctant but spineless CIA into giving him the "intelligence" he needed to make the case for war.

But Curveball was nobody's stooge. On the contrary, he is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, an opportunistic Iraqi asylum-seeker who came to Germany in 1999. His claims to having inside knowledge of Saddam's illicit weapons program quickly made him a prized asset of Germany's intelligence service, the BND. So convinced were the Germans of the reliability of his information that in the fall of 2001 they purchased 35 million doses of smallpox vaccine for fear of what Saddam might be cooking up.

More remarkable is that even after September 11 – when then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised "infinite solidarity" with the U.S. – the German government refused to allow the CIA to interview Curveball in person. Often, the Germans resorted to dishonest pretexts for their lack of cooperation, such as that Curveball didn't speak English, when in fact he spoke it fluently (and as if nobody in the CIA spoke German or Arabic). "It was a blockade that made

The Media's Casualty Obsession and Historic Context

Here a well-written piece on Iraq and the media's exploitative casualty obsession. It expresses a view rarely voiced or printed in German media.

SPIEGEL ONLINE's Perverse Iraq Photo Gallery

To mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War, SPIEGEL ONLINE has spewed forth a flurry of articles as predictable as they are shrill. The most recent installment is a piece complete with a 50-photo picture gallery entitled: "The Pictures of the Iraq Catastrophe: Panorama of the Perverse".

What makes this gallery truly perverse is its total omission of Saddam Hussein's twenty-four year reign of war and terror - a period that could - in fact - accurately be labelled "Iraq's Catastrophe." This conspicuous omission - the fact that German media elites once again fail to remind German readers of the horror of modern-day dictatorship while bashing ideological enemies in the United States - reminds us that they have learned far less about confronting despotism than they would have us all believe.   

SPIEGEL ONLINE Again Speaks with Two Tongues

Interestingly enough, there is a similar photo gallery on the SPIEGEL ONLINE English site that does show Saddam's victims. It also shows more about Saddam's capture and fewer Rambo-style images of US troops. Why the different presentation in German versus English? Why won't SPIEGEL ONLINE acknowledge Saddam's victims to its German readers? Why are US troops presented more negatively in German?

Finally - there is almost never any historic perspective when it comes to US military losses. Every loss is one too many, but there were single days in the Second World War in which the United States lost more men that it loses on average in a year of war in Iraq (roughly 800 to 900). And yet - the far left media continues to insist that America can't sustain such losses - and far too seldom is their credibility called into question for doing so.

Endnote: Somehow there is not nearly the level enthusiasm at SPIEGEL ONLINE when it comes to reporting how another greedy European conglomerate admitted its guilt in greasing the bloody palms of the Saddam regime for a little profit in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. Of course - there's nothing terribly perverse about that...right?   

Gerson hits the nail on the head.

A must read article. Excerpt:

"The second premise of this Democratic argument is that American popularity in these regions could be increased, easily and permanently, by overturning Bush policies.

It is worth noting that American relations with European governments have rebounded strongly in the last few years with the elections of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France. And the next president, Republican or Democrat, is likely to close Guantanamo and sign legislation to restrict American carbon emissions, mollifying two justified European criticisms.

Yet the tensions between American and European worldviews ultimately have little to do with specific policies. Europe is an increasingly pacifist continent -- which is an improvement upon its bloody history, but a source of inevitable tension with a superpower that must occasionally enforce world order. European governments generally view international institutions as a way to constrain American power. Any future American president will continue to view those institutions as a way to amplify our influence in keeping the peace."

Read the whole thing.

WSJ: Press Corps Quagmire

This is a WSJ commentary from William McGurn, a former speechwriter of President Bush. He makes some valid points regarding the prejudice of the White House press corps. Why do I think his arguments are even more applicable to the German media landscape?

Press Corps Quagmire
By WILLIAM MCGURN February 19, 2008; Page A19

(...) By the end of 2006, sectarian violence was tearing Iraq apart, the terrorists were getting away with spectacular acts of murder, and our strategy plainly was not working. For a man said to resist unpleasant truths, the president acted boldly. He replaced his defense secretary, replaced his commanders on the ground, and completely overhauled his strategy. Granted, it would have been better had it come earlier. But it was a tough thing to do, he did it -- and he did it knowing full well that the critics would jump all over him.

The president announced the surge in a nationally televised address in January 2007. A conservative columnist accused the president of offering nothing but "salesmanship and spin." A cable TV host went on a rant declaring "the plan fails militarily, the plan fails symbolically, the plan fails politically." Columnists and commentators either hedged their bets or predicted disaster ahead, with allusions to Vietnam sprinkled in for good measure.

Yet the surge went ahead. In Anbar Province, Marines were sent in to take

Michael Naumann: A Stuttering Nightmare for a Card-Carrying Member of the German Anti-American Left

Michael Naumann (from the left-wing weekly "Die Zeit") is one of Germany's most venomous and polemic anti-American journalists (examples from DMK: 1, 2, 3). As candidate of the Social Democrats he is currently running for major of Hamburg.

Imagine, then, my delight to learn of his devastating performance in a pre-election debate with Ole von Beust, Hamburg's current conservative major. Unfortunately, there is no English translation available for his gaffe. Suffice to say that Naumann promised the "abolition" of children ("Wir wollen die Kinder ... abschaffen") (first clip). In the second clip (38 seconds into the clip) he suffered from a severe and - for a politician - potentially lethal stuttering problem.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Thanks, Michael. You made my day.

The American Dream: Alive and Well

This is something that Marc Pitzke and all of the other German media cynics who love to crow that the American dream is dead should read. It directly contradicts the dearly-held stereotype that the United States is a land that offers little hope of advancement to its poorest citizens.

(Hattip: Mike M.)

Victor Davis Hanson - On Europe and the Future

Another brilliant piece by Victor Davis Hanson - the sort of opinion rarely expressed in German media.

Excerpt:

"Abroad, the European public is more schizophrenic. It wants to make no sacrifices to stop the jihadists, but fears them terribly. It damns the U.S. as responsible for the tense, unpleasant global environment, but then — apparently in private — votes to ensure it has leaders favorable to us. Europeans offer moral lectures to Americans who are paying a great price in blood and treasure for constitutional alternatives in Iraq, even as their own elites in shameful timidity mortgage the Western Enlightenment to two-bit thuggish Islamists.

Afghanistan is not seen as a line in the sand to stop the spread of jihadism, but an embarrassing entanglement that can be blamed on George Bush’s inordinate anger following 9/11. The European attitude toward America seems to be “you must intervene in the Balkans to lead us in the fight against the twilight, but we won’t follow you into Afghanistan to battle against abject darkness.”

For those who thought that the level of European appeasement could not be surpassed following the Dutch murderers, the opera and cartoon fiascos, the pope’s remarks, or the Iranian kidnapping of British sailors, we now are to listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s admission that the implementation of sharia law in Britain is “unavoidable” and probably useful as well. Never was so much surrendered by so few to so many.

The new multicultural and relativist British elite in just a decade or so has managed to make in comparison the 12th-century England of Thomas Becket seem humane. In the last analysis, the real worries about the survival of the West in this war are not with America and its courageous twenty-something suburban kids in Anbar trying to offer something better than the sharia morality of the seventh century, but with the likes of sanctimonious and cowardly churchmen in England trying to spread it."

Read the whole thing.

NATO at twilight?

One man's opinion...

I urge you...

to read this very insightful comment.

And another one...

On October 19, 2007, we published this statement - which now resides on our sidebar:

"A fundamental problem in European media - as Baker and Joffe both indicate - is the disproportionately high levels of attention, coverage, interview time and credibility granted to American anti-Americans and representatives of the American Left as opposed to Americans representing other viewpoints whether moderate, libertarian, conservative, etc. The result is a skewed understanding of what the United States really is."

This time it is another far-left "intellectual" claiming Bush is the worst ever and "too horrendous to be forgotten." Every time I see another over-the-top interview on SPIEGEL with some far-left panderer to European prejudice - the same refrain races through my mind:

...and another one...and another one...

This repeated presentation of one line of American thought with little to counter it - essentially creates a mentality among readers that makes meaningful dialog with non-leftist Americans difficult to impossible. After all - they represent a quasi-evil movement to many Germans.

One has to wonder how much longer the Bush Derangement Syndrome can continue to act as a substitute for original political thought.

Endnote: This past week I spoke with a young German woman in Washington, DC. We were discussing an English language newspaper on German affairs. She explained to me that it represented what "we think of your election." I asked her if it was possible that one newspaper could possibly represent the views of all Germans (naturally the paper celebrated the Democrats) - and whether all Germans could be characterized as one homogeneous "we".

She did finally back away from that - only to launch into a lecture about how FoxNews makes her want to throw up and how America started the war in Afghanistan and Germany should not be forced to do anything to help. I pointed out that America did not exactly start things on 9/11 - to which she had no good prepared responses. When I asked her for an example of FoxNews making her want to throw up - she also could not come up with much.

The point is: It is worth challenging those who approach America with ideas obviously conceived in an ideological media and cultural vacuum. Getting them to think for themselves is the hard part.

Germans Want a Democrat in the White House

This certainly doesn't come as a surprise: Germans want a democrat in the White House.

In a poll by public tv channel ARD roughly two third of respondents preferred either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to John McCain, who came in with 10 - 11 per cent. Most Germans probably hope a democrat as president would keep German troops out of Afghanistan's dangerous south, at the expense of American, Canadian and British troops.

Too bad ARD didn't offer a socialist candidate for choice. He would have scored big among the German public. My guess: 80 per cent, hands down.

How would Germans vote Hitler vs. Bush ? Hard to guess.

Probably a tie.

Thank you, German media.

How Unhoeflich from Gates!

CNN:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to press European allies to contribute more to the fight in Afghanistan during two days of informal NATO meetings that began Thursday in the Lithuanian capital. (...)

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with allies reluctant to send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan. Testifying at the Senate Wednesday, before his trip to the meeting in Vilnius, Gates warned that the issue threatens to break the nearly 60-year-old alliance apart. "I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not," Gates said. (...)

"The Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the inability of the European allies to get their act together," said Michael Williams, an analyst with the Royal United Services Institute, a military think tank. "Not just in terms of burden-sharing, which allies are doing in the north, but risk-sharing."

Gates in his closing statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

In visits to the combat theaters, in military hospitals, and in bases and posts at home and around the world, I continue to be amazed by their decency, resiliency, and courage. Through the support of the Congress and our nation, these young men and women will prevail in the current conflicts and be prepared to confront the threats that they, their children, and our nation may face in the future.

I just wonder if any German politician or journalist would find it appropriate to thank the U.S. troops - or British, Canadian or Dutch troops - for their "decency, resiliency, and courage" displayed during fights in the southern parts of Afghanistan, where, due to a national obsession with military defeat, German troops have not been noticed as yet.   

On the other hand, given Germany's less than stellar record in training the police in Afghanistan, hopes for a significant improvement in the south of Afghanistan through the deploament of German troops may prove elusive:

Germany is coming under severe criticism for failing to train an effective Afghan police force to provide security for the local population and help NATO against Taliban insurgents in the south, according to military officials and defense experts. (...)

Germany's record in training the Afghan police has come under particular scrutiny as NATO and the EU try to coordinate the military, civilian and development efforts to prevent the south from falling into the hands of warlords and drug cartels.

NATO's top military commander, General James Jones, has repeatedly criticized Germany's role in training the Afghan police and the police's inability to protect civilians. "The training has been very disappointing," Jones said in a recent interview. (source)

Surprise: HRW Criticizes Germany for Cowardly Afghanistan Policy

Hard to believe but true: even Human Rights Watch criticizes Germany for its cowardly Afghanistan policy.

As reported in DMK, Germany does not accept a fair share of NATO's military burden in Afghanistan. Now Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, harshly critizes Germany's refusal to send troops to the southern parts of the country, where fighting with the Taliban is very intense. In an interview with German news agency ddp, Roth accuses Germany of providing troops only for the safest regions in Afghanistan.

But...but...we lost WW2!! Germans are still in a state of shock!! Our troops are mentally incapable of brute force!! (Which, btw, puts Germany on the moral ground as compared to that cowboy run capitalist, fascist, christian-fundamentalist state, ifyouknowwhoimean...)

Any diplomatic jobs available instead? Or, maybe, some interesting business opportunities for German companies?

Germany's Role in Afghanistan: Commitment to Fight Terrorism Verbally

The U.S. and Canada question - gasp! - Germany's willingness to share the burden of NATO's Afghanistan mission:

AP: Report: Gates letter urges Germany to increase troops to Afghanistan / January 31, 2008
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written to his German counterpart urging Berlin to send an additional 3,200 troops to Afghanistan, warning that the NATO-led force there could lose credibility without reinforcement, a Defense Ministry spokesman confirmed Thursday. (...) Gates specifically asks Germany to drop caveats limiting its troops to the north of Afghanistan and to send helicopter units, infantry and paratroopers that could join the fight against Taliban militants in the south... While all 26 NATO allies have units in Afghanistan, France, Turkey and Italy, as well as Germany, refuse to send significant numbers to the southern combat zone.

WSJ: NATO's Afghan Failure / February 1, 2008
(...) Maybe France, Germany and other so-called NATO allies (...) heed the Canadian Prime Minister's call to share the war-fighting burden in Afghanistan.
Miracles happen. For the time being, however, the Continentals are in no apparent hurry to break a five-decade habit of enjoying a free ride on security. None seriously answered NATO's call for up to 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan. So the U.S. last month announced a "temporary" deployment of another 3,200 Marines, the second large reinforcement in a year. That brings the U.S. deployment to nearly 30,000, with about half those troops as part of the NATO force of 42,000.
The plight of the Canadians ought to shame other allies. Mr. Harper warned that his country wouldn't extend its 2,500-strong mission in Afghanistan's unstable southern provinces unless Europe ponies up troops and equipment. (...) Though the mission flies a NATO flag, Germany, Italy and Spain put caveats on their troops, preventing them from leaving more peaceful areas to reinforce the Canadians and others in the south and east.(...)
The Continentals fill up lots of air space at policy conferences talking about Europe's readiness to play a prominent role in global affairs. The Canadians are now usefully calling their bluff.

This just in: Germany categorically refuses to send troops to Afghanistan`s south.

Our American and Canadians friends can be rest assured that Germany will unswervingly stick to its commitment to verbally fight terrorism with all possible means, weekdays from 9 to 5.

Update: Times Online: Frosty German reply to US call for help in Afghanistan

Comment from Ray: Germany should not complain that others do not see the nation as a first-rate power or take it seriously after this shameful episode.

First Germany criticizes the United States for being too unilateral in the fight against terror - then when the United States calls for more support from its German ally - it is decisively rejected. This may prompt Canada to abandon the fight - reinforcing views in the USA that many of the NATO allies are not entirely reliable or worth consulting when the going gets tough.

Hessische Landtagswahl: Medien in "Kill Koch"-Rausch

Die Mehrzahl der deutschen Medien schreibt und berichtet sich in einen "Kill Koch"-Rausch. Die hessische Landtagswahl wird zur Volksabstimmung über die Strategie Kochs erklärt, Ausländergewalt zu thematisieren. Als selbsternanntes Vollzugsorgan der Volksseele - genauer: der Betroffenheitslage der Anständigen - erklären viele Medien Koch zum alleinigen Wahlverlierer und verurteilen ihn zum Ausstieg aus der hessischen Landespolitik - ohne Pardon und ohne Bewährung, selbstverständlich.

Dabei wäre es für gestandene politische Journalisten eigentlich eine Selbstverständlichkeit, darauf hinzuweisen, daß bereits deutlich vor dem Start der Anti-Ausländergewalt-Kampagne von Koch die

Davids Medienkritik: Mission Statement

(DEUTSCHE VERSION)

I. MISSION STATEMENT

Germany and the United States, like all nations, have their unique histories, cultures, geographies, national values and priorities. Considering that, it is hardly a surprise that Germans and Americans do not always agree on all of the issues. It would be strange if they did. On the other hand, both countries share a great number of values and interests. We at Davids Medienkritik believe that the shared values and interests far outweigh the differences. That said, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging and discussing differences in a constructive manner. Such a dialog should be aimed at minimizing and bridging the gap between our two nations.

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening today.

A shrill yet influential segment of the German media has repeatedly sought to exploit and exacerbate transatlantic differences. This weblog is a watchdog site dedicated to the documentation of anti-Americanism in German media and the negative influence it has on Germans’ perceptions of the United States.

WELT ONLINE: Tapferer Kampf gegen Roland Koch und die eigenen Leser

(a posting for our German speaking friends)

Besitzt dieser Roland Koch doch tatsächlich die Frechheit, eine der zahlreichen deutschen Lebenslügen zu entlarven: die Mär von der Bereicherung Deutschlands durch Zuwanderer mit überwiegend muslimischem Hintergrund. Über die statistisch ausführlich zu belegende Un-Friedfertigkeit jugendlicher muslimischer Zuwanderer vor allem gegenüber Deutschen wurde in den Medien hierzulande bislang eher wenig berichtet - umso eifriger allerdings über die im Vergleich hierzu deutlich selteneren Übergriffe von "Rechten" gegenüber Ausländern.

Und nun also kommt dieser Roland Koch...und wagt es, gegen den breiten Medienkonsens, zunehmende ausländische Jugendkriminalität als zunehmende ausländische Jugendkriminalität zu bezeichnen! Shocking! Aus den Fluren des Zitierkartells von ardtagesschau-zdfheute-stern-spiegel-süddeutsche und ihren vielen Nachahmern und Nachläufern in kleineren Medienhäusern war zunächst nur indignierte Belustigung über den scheinbar letzten verzweifelten und natürlich vollkommen aussichtslosen Versuch dieses süddeutschen Politik-Tölpels zu vernehmen, die eigene Wiederwahl zu sichern. Als dann aber in allen Umfragen so um die 70 % der Bevölkerung, an schlechten Tagen auch mal nur zwei Drittel, die Koch'schen Thesen gut hießen, war es mit der Geduld der journalistischen Gutmenschen geschehen: mit harten Attacken, mit Unterstellungen und Behauptungen weit jenseits von Wahrheit und Objektivität, soll Koch zur Unperson gemacht und seinen Anhängern der Mut zur Solidarität und zur Unterstützung genommen werden.

Überraschend ist die hysterische Überreaktion der genannten Medien nicht - wir kennen die Hauptdarsteller und den Handlungsablauf aus der Diskussion über den Irak-Krieg, über den Kampf Israels gegen palästinensischen Terror, über amerikanische Investoren in Deutschland, und früher über - Gott hab' sie selig - die Verhältnisse in der DDR oder die Taten der Baader-Meinhof-Terroristen.

Was aber im Falle Koch jetzt überrascht, ist die Parteinahme von WELT ONLINE aus dem konservativen Axel Springer Verlag - gegen Roland Koch. Seit Tagen bemüht sich WELT ONLINE, Roland Koch ins moralische Abseits zu stellen: mit einseitigen Berichten, durch Interviews mit Mitgliedern der Betroffenheits-Kaste, mit selektiven Zitaten aus Umfragen.
Überschriften der Artikel der letzten Tage, entnommen einer Übersicht in WELT ONLINE selbst:

• Türkische Gemeinde: "Roland Koch gefährdet nationale Interessen"
• Roland Koch spricht und nur die Hälfte klatscht
• Koch gibt Versäumnisse im eigenen Land zu
• Kochs Kampagne kommt bei den eigenen Wählern nicht an
• Roland Koch ist aus dem Tritt
• CDU-Präsidium läßt Roland Koch abblitzen
• In Hessen steigt die Jugendgewalt am stärksten
• Schwache Andrea Ypsilanti ist plötzlich stark (Anm.: Ypsilanti ist Kochs Gegenkandidatin in Hessen)

Über die Inhalte der Artikel muß man nicht viele Worte verlieren - sie sind den wohlvertrauten Kochrezepten des Handbuches des Kampagnenjournalismus entnommen: Häme, demagogische Verdrehungen, Unterstellungen.

Bei alledem darf man der Redaktion von WELT ONLINE einen Hang zur Selbstironie nicht absprechen: die Überschrift "Kochs Kampagne kommt bei den eigenen Wählern nicht an" gibt, mit geringen Änderungen, die Lage der WELT ONLINE-Redaktion selbst wider. In einer Umfrage unter Lesern von WELT ONLINE (am 17.1.08) unterstützen 75 % der Teilnehmer Kochs Positionen.

Dies treibt uns zu der Schlußfolgerung: "Die Kampagne von WELT ONLINE kommt bei den eigenen Lesern nicht an". Was allerdings Journalisten solcher Klasse noch nie gestört hat...

America's New Berlin Correspondent: Germany a Nation of Nazis, Bloodsuckers, Prostitutes, Alcoholism and Hopelessness...

Let's face it: Media tend to over-report the most vile and extreme aspects of our society. "If it bleeds - it leads" is much more than a cliche - it is a journalistic fact of life. The danger with the daily sensationalism is that it skews the viewer's perception of reality. In other words, a viewer is apt to believe that the world around him is a much more rotten than it actually is.

Interesting thought experiment: What if you were a foreign correspondent...?

Imagine you are an American correspondent in Germany. You are encouraged by your editors to report only the most extreme, outrageous, strange and dark sides of German society. Your publication chooses to ignore the 97% of issues that bring Germans and Americans together and instead focus on the 3% that most divide the two nations - such as attitudes towards prostitution, social welfare, guns, etc. This seedy sensationalism sells - and that is exactly what your editors are after. For that reason, they also strongly encourage you to write whatever you can on Neo-Nazi violence - not because the issue is genuinely troubling - (and it is) - but because it brings good ratings and reaffirms your readership's dark stereotypes of the Vaterland.

Beyond that - your editors oblige you to bring stories only on a narrow band of pet issues that they have predetermined are of "interest" to the readership. (In fact, you may have been specially selected for your job because you have an ideological propensity to dislike Germany and favor stories that make Germany look bad.) When you arrive in Berlin, you discover that Germany isn't quite the awful place you expected and - because you are a free spirit - the urge is great to report on the many complex aspects of German society. Predictably, however, your editors discourage any independent ideas that might shed a different (you might say balanced) light on things.

The pet issues and big politics are all they want. In particular, the editors want to demonstrate that Germany is a nation infatuated with pornography, cursed by extreme alcoholism and blighted by racist attitudes towards non-Germans. Every other week - if things are slow - the boss pressures you to bring a story on another hopeless unemployed wretch in East-Berlin desperate to get out of the country. He just won't publish your more "upbeat" stories or even critical stories that fall outside the narrow band of pet issues.

The editors supplement your work by sprinkling-in stories cut-and-pasted from news wires on Germans behaving badly worldwide. You eventually realize that intellectual honesty takes a distant backseat to the pet-issue template devised by your editors. Making Germans and Germany look bad at all costs - to reaffirm the stereotypes and political leanings of readers - is no longer something you can question without risking your job.

One week - your publication runs a cover depicting a giant spider drapped in a German flag and wearing lederhosen sucking the blood of a lifeless blue collar American trapped in its web. You realize that this crude reference to recent lay-offs of American automobile workers by a large German multinational is appalling and unfair. The cover sparks a slew of hateful and irrational letters-to-the-editor by readers. You want to speak out against what you now believe is hate-mongering for profit - but again - you fear for your job.

Not surprisingly, the most "self-critical" Germans - those with a particular talent for shamelessly bashing their own nation and people - are held up as heroic dissenters and showered with awards by your publication and others like it.

Finally - because quite a few other publications share the same general ideology of your own and follow the same pattern of reporting - it is not beyond the pale for your editors to proclaim that you represent the "mainstream" of American media and that you are largely fair and unbiased in reporting on Germany.

Turn the mirror around...

Now let us turn this script around. The above is a reflection of how certain influential segments of German media have operated for years now. The latest Amerika-Korrespondent for Stern magazine - Jan Christoph Wiechmann - offers an excellent example. One of his more recent articles is entitled: "Weapons Trade in the USA: An AR-15 with your Coffee?" The opening paragraph reads:

"In Europe one usually receives a cookie with their coffee. In the USA it is an assault rifle: In the Texan solitude, waitresses with highly teased hair offer the things for sale in weapon shops camouflaged as cafes. Normal daily life in Bush-Country."

The article paints a picture of daily life in the USA that is neither typical nor normal. Yet the author intentionally presents the extreme as the ordinary - not because it represents an accurate reflection of typical daily life in the United States - but because it is sure to sell and re-affirm the deeply-held stereotypes of "Stern" readers. Further, Wiechmann cleverly selects a subject - or perhaps his editors selected it for him - that has long been a favorite pet issue of left-leaning German media for years.

Another recent example is an article, entitled "US Tourist Collapses During Sex - Dead," that appeared in SPIEGEL ONLINE on an American who died after overdosing on a potency drug while engaging in sex tourism in Thailand. Certainly - had the tourist in question been Dutch, Brazilian, Russian or German - this article probably would not have made it onto the SPON website. Fellow blogger Joerg of Atlantic Review - who brought this article to my attention - hit the nail on the head:

"If it had been a German tourist, it might not have made news on Spiegel. Or maybe it would have been, if at least the pills were American."

Why is this piece newsworthy at all? The answer is simple: It offers SPIEGEL readers another choice opportunity to look down on Americans.

Looking at the larger picture...

The long-standing media patterns described above - when combined with the sort of ugly and exploitative political opportunism that marked the Schroeder re-election campaign of 2002 - serve to transform the fault lines that represent honest German-American differences of opinion (on questions such as Iraq, trade, the role of the state, etc.) into gaping chasms of misunderstanding and mutual abuse. This leads to the sort of self-reinforcing media-political feeding frenzy that we saw from 2002 to 2005, a period that produced some of the most ugly and irrational manifestations of anti-Americanism in the history of democratic Germany.

Fortunately, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have made it evident that it is possible to disagree with the United States without tapping into the overflowing keg of anti-American sentiment - fueled by the media tendencies outlined above - in their respective nations. As a result of the political changes at the very top, the level of media vitriol has ebbed over the past year or two. It is important to remember - however - that the group of people calling the shots in the German media in 2002 and 2003 are essentially still running the show today. Given the right political conditions and the media's tendency to follow larger political patterns, they would gladly return to the high-pitched anti-American hysteria that flooded German media only a few years ago.

Endnote: Allow us to offer that there is certainly some of what we describe above in American media as relates to Germany - though on a much smaller scale. It is true that some Americans still associate Germany primarily with Nazism, beer or lederhosen. If anything, however, the American media pays far too little attention to foreign issues - and it is the lack of attention to Germany and Europe that is far more troubling.

Stern: "America is Destroying the West"

(By Ray Drake - originally published December 19, 2005)

Stern magazine has finally discovered why life is so rotten in Germany these days. The Western world is breaking apart and its all America's fault. This time it's a commentary in Stern magazine with a dramatic title: "America is destroying the West." Like so many Stern pieces, this article has all the tell-tale elements of the perverted view of America that has come to dominate and cloud the minds of many in the German media establishment. The article's introductory lines read:

"Commentary: America is Destroying the West

By Florian Guessgen

First the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, then the debate over the abduction of Khaled al-Masri. This week shrilly brought to our attention how deep the rift is between the USA and Europe. The West is threatening to break apart. 

Two times in the last week we experienced up close what rights the America of George W. Bush lays claim to for itself when it is trying to achieve its objectives.

Because this state wants to deter potential murderers, murderers are executed in many of its states. Merciless(ly). Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In its selection of methods the state has made itself like the criminal."

As we mentioned earlier on this blog, the furor over the Tookie Williams execution allowed many in the German media an opportunity to gush moral outrage over one of their favorite pet issues: The death penalty. Mr. Guessgen makes no attempt to hide his intent, citing Tookie's execution as evidence of the supposedly "merciless" nature of the "America of George W. Bush."

But perhaps Mr. Guessgen doesn't realize that Williams' first trial on four counts of first degree murder and two counts of robbery began in 1980. The President at the time was Jimmy Carter. Williams' case, like so many death penalty cases in America since 1976, went through a rigorous and extremely expensive appeals process that lasted nearly two and a half decades. The vast majority of Williams' appeals at the state and federal level were heard and rejected long before George W. Bush was ever elected President. (See "LA County District Attorney's Response to Stanley William's Petition for Executive Clemency"  For a moral evaluation of Tookie Williams, check here.)

Due to the particularly violent nature of his crimes (killing his victims at point blank range with shotgun blasts), his role in founding one of America's most violent street gangs and his assaults on others while in prison, Williams' became one of a tiny fraction of murder convicts actually put to death in the United States. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, around one-thousand convicted criminals have been executed. That is less than one execution per state per year. Furthermore, the state in which Tookie Williams was executed, California, is a "blue" state that voted overwhelmingly against George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

But of course when someone gets executed in California, it is suddenly George W. Bush's "merciless" America that's to blame for many in the German media. No need to think, no need to understand the context, no need to differentiate. It's all very simple, just the way Stern's indoctrinated, spoon-fed readers like it: America is destroying the West and it is all Bush's fault.

Put another way, Mr. Guessgen isn't interested in a thoughtful debate on the death penalty or the Bush administration, he's interested in lashing-out at a nation and a leader that deeply threaten his political worldview. If he were genuinely concerned with human rights abuses and international law, he would be better served writing about his own government's business dealings with Sudan. He would be better served chronicling the Chinese government's mass executions or investigating Gerhard Schroeder's questionable service to Gazprom. He might even take a moment to question the German media's relative indifference to the thousands of killings and kidnappings perpetrated by Russian troops in Chechnya over the past several years while Germany and Russia were doing multi-billion dollar business deals for everything from trains to planes to automobiles to gas pipelines. But instead, Guessgen continues his commentary by comparing the United States to the "dark rogues" of the Russian mafia and writes:

"Methods like the Russian Mafia
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. The same principle is also used by the USA in the worldwide hunt for criminals. Because George W. Bush and the CIA are hunting terrorists - mass murderers, they allow themselves the right to kidnap and torture - without consideration for principles of justice or international rights. The ends justify the means. There that German al-Masri is just kidnapped for a short time from the Balkans, dragged to Afghanistan, shut-in, interrogated, probably also tortured. The USA, the home of the "West" works with the same methods of the dark rogues of the Russian mafia."

Davids Medienkritik has no interest in debating the obvious: There clearly have been cases of torture, abuse and mistaken identity in the war on terror. We would openly concede that, at times, the Bush administration has dealt poorly and indecisively with these issues. But Mr. Guessgen's assertion that the United States and its leadership have no "consideration for principles of justice and international rights" is simply absurd and symptomatic of an ideological disconnect from reality.

To claim what he claims, Mr. Guessgen must have completely missed the intense and ongoing debate in the United States on civil rights, torture and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that has permeated all levels of American media and politics since 2001. He must have completely missed the Senate's overwhelming 90-9 passage of John McCain's anti-torture bill and President Bush's recent decision to finally support the measure. He must have also completely missed recent statements by Condoleezza Rice on torture during her recent Europe visit. Mr. Guessgen's overwhelmingly one-sided statements further serve to confirm his disinterest in an honest, balanced and unbiased analysis of what is really happening in the United States today.

Guessgen: American Democratic Principles in a "Deep Freeze"

A second major theme of Guessgen's commentary is that the "George W. Bush's America" is a nation systematically violating democratic principles. Not surprisingly, Guessgen makes absolutely no mention of the emergence of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan when he writes:

"Liberal Principles in a Deep Freeze
The America of George W. Bush (falsely) imagines itself to be in a state of war, both domestically and abroad. The feeling of threat therefore justifies all means - the liberal (democratic) principles, so it seems, have been put in a deep freeze for an indefinite period of time. The West, equally a mythical place and normative credo, threatens to break apart in this war waged in a total manner. Only now is it becoming clear that the German-American quarrel over the Iraq War was, independent of Chancellor Schroeder, a symptom of a fundamental conflict that could shape the transatlantic relationship for decades: The American state is acting in a systematically anti-liberal manner."

By "liberal" Mr. Guessgen means democratic in a manner consistent with individual rights. One has to wonder how he could claim the American state is acting systematically against democratic principles when it has secured democratic rights for over 50 million people formerly governed by horrific dictatorships? Few people would deny that the United States has made numerous mistakes in its efforts to defeat oppressive regimes and terrorist organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but where would the peoples of those nations be today had the world followed the "moral" leadership of the German left and simply stood by and done nothing? Where would the people of those nations have been in ten years or twenty or thirty? Where would their children be?

Obviously, Mr. Guessgen never considers such questions. Instead he simply characterizes recent American actions as "baseball bat democracy." He writes:

"Democracy not as a torch but instead as a Baseball bat
Presently the USA assumes a world, like Thomas Hobbes, that is dog eat dog. At the least the President views the state as a protective community that has been permanently empowered by its citizens to protect them with all means. The state a la Bush is a Hobbesian “Leviathan,” an all-powerful being whose mission cannot be infringed upon by secondary discussions of values. That Bush resembles the dark Lord Voldemort more than the white magician Dumbledore in this, that is calculated. The global mission of the Bush warriors, that consists of bringing the world democracy and the USA security is unavoidably taking on irrational fundamentalist characteristics in all of this. In the hands of George W. Bush democracy is not a torch, but instead a baseball bat.”

Baseball bat democracy? It would seem that Mr. Guessgen is unaware of the Bush administration's recent commitment of $15 billion to combat AIDS in Africa. It would seem that he missed America's extensive rescue and humanitarian efforts and enormous financial contributions on behalf of tsunami victims in East Asia earlier this year. It would seem he overlooked massive US airlifts of aid and monetary donations to victims of the recent earthquake in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It would seem he slept through recent democratic transformations in Ukraine, Lebanon, Kosovo and Bosnia that were vigorously supported by the US government both financially and logistically. It would seem he never heard of ongoing, multilateral US diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve conflicts with both North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs.

But here we must ask the question: How could someone not blinded by ideology have possibly missed all of these things?   

Americans According to Guessgen: Traumatized and Burning for Revenge

Guessgen concludes his article by suggesting that Germans take the moral high road and continue to "confidently extend a hand" to the American friends. He actually suggests Germans visit the US more through exchange programs to gain a better understanding of how "traumatized" Americans supposedly are. His final paragraph reads:

"Perhaps direct contact with the USA will help Europeans to also understand, how much the attacks of September 11, 2001 have changed the psyche of this land. America seems caught in a traumatic state, such as perhaps only relatives of murder victims experience. Pain and sadness are mixed with feelings of vulnerability. And to that is added a burning desire for vengeance, an anger against those who destroyed ones own life as it was earlier. Eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth. America is currently making itself into the violent executor of this feeling. The Europeans must understand it, but they can not accept it."

It is striking how Mr. Guessgen paints all Americans and all Europeans with such a broad brush throughout his article. In blaming America for the supposedly widening transatlantic rift, Mr. Guessgen himself exemplifies many of the simplistic, black-and-white views of America that pollute the German media landscape. Like so many other elites in French and German media and politics, he seems to feel it his good right to speak on behalf of all Europeans without considering for even a moment that anyone within a thousand kilometers might possibly disagree with him. This overbearing arrogance so common in German and French high society is one major reason that several eastern European members of the EU remain so wary of the Franco-German partnership. It is this condescending arrogance of the left-wing German moral elite that must be understood...but not accepted.

"Stern" cover 51/05:
New Stern series:
The history of the CIA
How America's Power of
Darkness Manipulates the
World

(You can leave a message for Guessgen here. "Betreff" means "Re"; "Nachricht" means "Message"; "Senden" means "Send". You may want to send us a copy of your input...)

UPDATE: Mr. Guessgen noticed our article and published a response featuring translations of our work. We subsequently published a second piece of our own in reply.

A Rare Positive Production from ZDF: "America's Other Side"

ZDF has made a rare attempt to portray America in a positive light - with a film entitled "America's Other Side". (VIEW HERE)

Of course anything positive about the United States of America compels its authors to portray it as the "other side" in Germany - in large part because the German media has so thoroughly brainwashed the population into believing the USA is essentially a desolate land of fear, discrimination, violence and excess over the past decade.

Hattip: Politically Incorrect

Endnote: Unfortunately, Klaus Kleber can't help but to take several cheap shots at Bush in the film. He frequently engages in gross and largely inaccurate generalizations - implying Bush rejects diversity, doesn't care about the environment and views stem cell research as the work of the devil. Unfortunately, black-and-white anti-Bush ranting is more or less mandatory to win the approval of the German audience these days. Perhaps including this dumbed-down Bush-bashing was how Mr. Kleber gained approval for making a positive film about America's "other side" from his ZDF editor bosses in the first place.

Der Spiegel on the Dollar: Exaggeration, Sensationalism and Bipolarity

Here's a question for you: Do you remember seeing an extreme cover like this at Der Spiegel when the Euro was weak just a few years back?

            Dollar Nosedive: The Downfall of the US Currency and the Dangers for the World Economy

Not only did Der Spiegel not run a derisive cover on the Euro currency in its weaker days - it virtually gushed-over with propaganda-like enthusiasm at its introduction:

           Der Spiegel in 2002: Euroland The New Money Power

Viewed in isolation - the Dollar cover might not be considered anti-American. Given the larger body of work of Der Spiegel over the past decade - however - it is difficult to characterize the "Dollar Nosedive" cover as anything but a further manifestation of the festering Hate-America bias that plagues the magazine.

Exaggeration and Sensationalism

Particularly dubious is the use of extreme vocabulary including "downfall" and "dangers". All too often, we have seen Spiegel highlight isolated or temporary problems with the American economy in an effort to convince readers that the overall US economy was on the verge of disaster and collapse. One need only recall the infamous article on unemployment in Kannapolis, North Carolina or the exaggerated claims that the American power grid was on the brink of collapse when the lights went out in New York or the claims that the US infrastructure was in "collapse" after the Minnesota bridge incident.

Euro-Nationalism as Substitute for Forbidden German Nationalism

At the same time, Der Spiegel has repeatedly avoided heaping the same sort of scorn or using the same extreme tone in highlighting the various troubles of the European economy, power grid and infrastructure despite relatively similar conditions (a weak Euro not too long ago) and incidents (power outages, train crashes, faulty infrastructure). Instead - when publishing covers on Europe - they've repeatedly engaged in overt cheerleading - (just compare these covers to these covers). Let's not forget SPIEGEL ONLINE's primative excitement when a Eurofighter apparently defeated two F-15s in a mock battle. This thinly veiled Euro-Nationalism is desirable and useful - in part - as an acceptable alternate outlet (along with large sporting events) for forbidden German feelings of national pride. Unfortunately, the Euro-Nationalism of publications such as Der Spiegel almost always counts anti-Americanism as one of its key ingredients.

Perhaps Der Spiegel could - just once - run a story on America's remarkably low unemployment rate (and the jobs it has created for millions of legal and illegal immigrants) despite record high oil prices. But let's not forget - that would call into question the carefully crafted ideological caricature of the United States as hopeless social wasteland and home to predatory global capitalism.

Bipolar Journalism

Of course one can never underestimate the bipolar inconsistency inevitably on display at Der Spiegel. (Eventually what is reported must - in some way - conform with reality - after all.) In 1999, one cover asking if Europe was a new superpower was followed only weeks later by another cover asking whether Europe could still be salvaged. The extreme contradiction can only be explained by the magazine's habitual use of the extreme to sell magazines combined with the publication's utter lack of intellectual consistency. This is nothing new - and we have seen the same sort of journalistic manic-depression on Iraq in recent weeks and months - with reporting swinging like a pendulum between utter doom and gloom - including a cover declaring the Iraq war "lost" - and reports detailing progress in Iraq and the alleged comeback of the Bush Presidency.

Der Spiegel in a Journalistic Nosedive?

The record lows experienced by the Dollar are unquestionably significant for the world economy. Unfortunately, a factual analysis of the economic advantages and disadvantages of a weaker Dollar has been obscured by the blinding light of media hyperbole and anti-American sentiment at Der Spiegel. This potent combination has worked to sell millions of magazines in the past - and there is no doubt that it will continue to sell millions of magazines in the future - as a significant segment of the German population continues to indulge its voracious appetite for virtually anything that casts the United States in a negative light.

In the case of Der Spiegel's journalistic standards - it would be quite tempting to characterize them as being in a "nosedive." That would not - however - do the magazine justice. One must, after all, attain an altitude slightly above gutter-level to first make such a drop-off possible. 

More Bias from ABC News?

Yes it is not German media - but we have written in the past to ABC News on this sort of thing and it is worth following-up on. (Further - this is our blog and one of the perks is that we can go off-topic whenever we want.)

Here is the bottom line: American troops have hunted down and slaughtered violent Islamic fanatics by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan to the point that they are literally bleeding the Islamo-fascist movement to death and running them out of Iraq on a rail - yet ABC News' website has a feature story on how American troops - who have taken minuscule casualties by comparison - are hunted and ambushed...

Is it me or are these people desperately clinging to their biased anti-war modus operandi to the bitter end?

Endnote: MilBlogger BlackFive has a related piece.

Eine deutsche Bush-Kritikerin: Nina Hagen

Man kann sich seine Freunde nicht aussuchen. Seinen Wohnsitz schon - eine Homestory zeigte kürzlich Nina Hagen zu Hause in Los Angeles. Wie kann sie freiwillig in einem Land leben, das von solchen Unmenschen regiert wird? Andererseits gibt es wahrscheinlich wenige zivilisierte Nationen, in denen man trotz offensichtlicher psychischer Probleme vom Staat so angenehm unbehelligt bleibt wie in den USA. Hier ihr legendärer Auftritt bei Sandra Maischberger (die immerhin als eine der Top-3-TV-Journalistinnen des Landes gilt):

Note to readers: The post above and video above (from David Harnasch) document a hillarious on-air meltdown by actress Nina Hagen - (who maintains a residence in Los Angeles) - during a "serious" television talk show with host Sandra Maischberger. The topic was "UFO's, extra-terrestrials and angels - are we alone in the universe?" Hagen goes completely postal to the point that another guest feels compelled to leave - upon which she derides him as an "evil alien." She rants about George W. Bush's plans to settle Mars and the moon and considers it all part of some dubious conspiracy. David Harnasch and I were wondering exactly what substance Ms. Hagen was on during the show. Watch and decide for yourself...

Welt Online: "America Built the Wall - Kohl is from the East"

Many Young Berliners Ignorant of Totalitarian Past...

Welt Online published a fascinating and frightening article on the attitudes of Berlin's youth towards the communist dictatorship that was East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most telling are results of a poll of 15-17 year old students, documented in the article and translated here:

• "The DDR (GDR - East Germany) was not a dictatorship - the people just had to conform like anywhere else." 24.6% of all students agreed with this statement, 21.1% in West-Berlin and 28.1% in East-Berlin. 54.1% of all students rejected the statement, 60.5% from West-Berlin and 48.6% in East-Berlin. The remainder (21.3% total, 18.4% in West-Berlin and 23.2% in East-Berlin) selected "neutral".
  

  

• "The Stasi (Ministry for State Security of the DDR) was an intelligence agency, just like any other state would have." 31.1% of all students agreed with this statement, 24.4% in West-Berlin and 38.8% in East-Berlin. 49.6% of all students rejected the statement, 56.2% in West-Berlin and 44.7% in East-Berlin. The remainder (19.3% of all students, 19.5% in West-Berlin and 16.5% in East-Berlin) selected "neutral".



• "I find it good that in the DDR the state took care of all citizens, even though, as a result, individual citizens had less freedom."  26.4% of all students agreed, 17.2% from West-Berlin and 36.3% from East-Berlin. 44.5% of all students rejected the statement, 55% from West-Berlin and 32.9% from East-Berlin . The remainder (29.1% of all students, 27.8% from West-Berlin and 30.8% from East-Berlin) selected "neutral".
• "The command economy in the DDR was not better or worse than the market economy in West Germany, just different." 20.1% of all students agreed with this statement, 13.9% from West-Berlin and 26.7% from East-Berlin. 43.9% rejected this statement, 51.5% from West-Berlin and 36.3% from East-Berlin. The remainder (36% of all students, 34.6% in West-Berlin and 37% in East-Berlin) selected "neutral".
• "When was the Berlin Wall built?" 57.6% answered correctly with 1961, 42.4% gave an incorrect answer and named years between 1945 and 1968. There were few East-West differences here.
• "The Berlin Wall was built by...?" 13.6% of all Berlin students (12.4% West and 14.3% East) answered that it was the Allies, 1.9% (1.6% West and 2.2% East) said it was the USA, 46% answered the Soviet Union (47.2% West and 44.8% East), 4.5% said it was West Germany (3.9% West and 5.3% East) and only 34.9% answered correctly with the DDR (34.9% West and 33.4% East).
• Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl was identified with the DDR by 13.5% of all students (10.1% West and 16.2% East). 81.6% of all students identified him with West Germany (84.9% West and 80.5% East).
• DDR Head of State Erich Honecker was identified with West Germany by 8.2% of the students (10.1% West and 6.1% East).

Most unsettling are the positive or neutral responses by a majority of East-Berlin students polled (and sizable minorities of West-Berlin students) to the propositions that the DDR was not a dictatorship and that the Stasi was just an intelligence agency like any other. This represents a dangerous ignorance of one's own national history as well as a frightening willingness to condone or overlook the crimes of the former East German regime.

Unfortunately, this willingness to overlook the misdeeds of dictators is something that I have experienced firsthand with young Germans. When I asked a young woman protesting the Iraq war and chanting anti-American slogans whether the crimes of Saddam Hussein bothered her - she replied: "Saddam Hussein - what has he ever done to anyone?" Needless to say - her attitudes are closely shared by many young Germans with similar political persuasions.

Considering Germany's foreign policy, it is not difficult to conclude that such attitudes - (combined with Germany's reflexive historic pacifism and hyper-sensitivity to casualties) - strongly influence German reactions and responses to the threats posed by present day totalitarians. We have grown accustomed to the common refrain: Downplay the threat posed by the world's most vicious regimes and avoid military engagement at any cost.

Note to readers: Special thanks to Karin Quade for bringing this to our attention. Be sure to check out her blog and posting on this. She currently has an interesting piece on how Gerhard Schroeder continues to serve as an apologist for and appeaser of absolutists - this time in China.

Also, our creative pause is at an end. As I said earlier - "I'll be back" and now I am - refreshed and stronger than ever - with David Harnasch to back me up. Thank you for your patience and welcome back.

On the Lighter Side: Pimped-out Trabis

This gives new meaning to "east meets west"...

Wow...loved the icicle-mobile at the end.

Note to readers: Our creative pause is nearly at an end. Expect new postings within a week.

Why I Didn't Join the State Department...

Though I once considered a career as a diplomat a noble one, I never seriously considered joining the State Department. Here is one reason why. Foreign Service people complaining about service in Iraq as a "potential death sentence" and wondering aloud to the media who will take care of their children should they die.

Just a message to our State Department complainees: Every American Soldier and Marine sent to Iraq has far greater and more legitimate cause to ask him or herself the same questions - yet they don't cry and complain to the media. They do their duty quietly and proudly. When you sign up for the Foreign Service, you know that you can be sent anywhere to serve your nation and you don't whine about it and embarrass your nation in the process.

John Rosenthal: "America is Somehow to Blame: German Public Television on 9/11"

Here an article by John Rosenthal who delves into our earlier discussion of ZDF's handling of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Excerpt:

"Last Sept. 11, German state-owned television ZDF marked the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by broadcasting a prime-time documentary titled "September 11, 2001: What Really Happened." By enticingly implying a discrepancy between what the film itself repeatedly terms the "official version" of 9/11 and the reality of the events, the mere title of the film already provides obvious grist for the mill of what might best be called "alternative" 9/11 conspiracy-theorizing: "alternative" because in the legal sense of the term, the 9/11 attacks were in fact the product of a conspiracy. On the ZDF Web page promoting the documentary, this effect is then underscored by a subtitle portentously announcing that "ZDF Investigations Reinforce Accusations against Authorities." The "authorities" in question are, of course, more specifically American authorities. As is well known, for "alternative" 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it is the latter -- and not Osama Bin Laden and the 19 identified hijackers -- that are supposed "really" to have been "behind" the attacks: often -- though the German broadcaster tastefully avoids this linkage -- in further connivance with the Israeli secret service Mossad.

When, however, (...) the German media-watch blog Medienkritik called attention to ZDF's seeming pandering to the most disreputable extremes of the 9/11 "truth" movement, his remarks quickly drew irate reactions from some German-speaking defenders of ZDF. The counter-critics argued that while the ZDF documentary did indeed give a platform to some well-known alternative "conspiracy theorists," it in fact served to "debunk" their theories. On the most generous assessment, ZDF had even pulled off a sort of pedagogical coup de force: in effect, fooling the most benighted sections of the German public into watching the documentary by way of its salacious conspiracy-mongering title and promotional material -- only in order then to set them straight about the erroneousness of the alternative "theories." (For the original post and discussion on Medienkritik, see here.)

And, indeed, the ZDF documentary does not exactly endorse the hypothesis that 9/11 was the product of a U.S. government conspiracy. It does not, however, reject it out of hand either. While it concludes that most of the variants of the government conspiracy "theory" are perhaps wrong -- or "unproven," as the narrator puts it, in the conspicuously noncommittal final word with which the documentary concludes -- what is so remarkable about the ZDF documentary is precisely that it treats them throughout as eminently reasonable and hence worthy of serious debate. It thereby, in effect, serves to render them, as one says in German, salonfähig: i.e. acceptable in polite company."

Read the whole thing.