« SPIEGEL kopiert / SPIEGEL copied | Main | Recht auf Terrorismus / The Right to Terrorism »

Comments

I would like to also note that the media worldwide has lost its sense of responsibility. I support a free press but I want a fair and responsible press. It is despicable when the media takes a stance that tries to push their own particular agenda. When this happens, they are able to influence their readers or listeners or watchers of their television programs. For me, I use a wide variety of news sources and then try to figure out what the truth is. However, I am very tired of filtering through all the bullshit. With the help of people like David it is a little easier to filter through things. For more of what I have to say about the world and my experience in Germany, please feel free to read my blog at https://dividedwefall.blog-city.com/index.cfm. If we don't stand together, we will fall together.

N. Hale 2003

Ironic, isn't it, that we "dumb americans" can go on the internet find Pakistani news, arabian rants, and north korean rants, Iranian blogs, and every side of the argument, but the German papers seem to view Americans as monolithic ...

But most Germans are bilingual, and can read English...so why the cultural blindness? I mean, even in rural Oklahoma-- or in our Philippine home town-- students have internet access and discuss all points of view of political things... maybe the problem isn't in the newspapers editors, but in the German reader's lack of intellectual curiosity...

N. Klaric wrote: "I'd rather say most German intellectuals are not able to fully comprehend a small page of - say: the NY Times Op-Eds..."

I'm afraid I may be even worse than that. There is ample reason to be suspicious of German foreign correspondents' language skills.

Take, for example, the scandal last June over Paul Wolfowitz's misreported remarks, which originated with journalist Sophie Mühlmann of DIE WELT, was picked up by TAGESSPIEGEL, and then quickly made its way via the GUARDIAN into the world's media.

In that case, the inability of Frau Mühlmann to accurately comprehend Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz's remarks contributed to a perception of the Iraq campaign as being a "war for oil".

By the way, as soon as the GUARDIAN discovered the facts, it printed an apology to its readers. Neither WELT nor Frau Mühlmann apologized, the most they could bring themselves to do was to run a Pentagon statement as a letter to the editor. (Needless to say, my letter to WELT's editor was not published, but I didn't really expect otherwise...)

https://www.welt.de/data/2003/06/11/115265.html

https://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/iraqfactsheet.pdf
Answering Bush's big myth about Iraq

"Iraq is not issuing threats of attack
against the United States. It is only
the United States that threatens war.
There has been no evidence that
Iraq is capable of an attack on the
U.S., let alone possessing the intention
of carrying out such an attack." And so on.

The half of the US shares with Germany and Europe the opinion about the Iraqi war and Bush. So I think it is not only a problem of antiamericanism in Germany, Europe and all over the world. It has also or more to do with the politics of Bush. We don't find the answer for the German antiamericanism, when we forget that Clinton was and is very liked in Germany. And how welcome was Madeleine Albright with her criticism about the Iraqi war. What I never understood is that many demand for tolerance towards the Islamic religion but the same people damn Bush for being a Christian. That the Malaysian Premierminister praised Allah and so on was not mentioned in the German media. That seems to be not worth to mention. But when Bush talks about "missions", the media start to hound the "Gotteskrieger" in the USA.

Ray wrote:

"BTW...the majority is not always right..."

True, but the majority determines who governs. If Howard Dean should win the election next year (horrors!), U.S. policy will change.

President Bush looks fairly secure now, but the leftists in the media are steadily chiseling away at his public support.

I get not only NPR through AFN radio but also ABC News. NPR is the same it has always been, but it is disturbing how ABC has been shifting from robust support for the war on (Islamic) terror to an implied "bring the troops home" stance.

Oh, and about Sophie Mühlmann's CV: where N. Klaric sees evidence of qualifications, I see a typical upper-middle class university student who played at studying various Orchideenfächer for a while until someone, perhaps an uncle, landed her a job at a major newspaper.

I personally know a woman who studied Sinologie for long years, spending a year in Taiwan and actually finishing with a degree, but who was unable to conduct even a "small talk" conversation in Mandarin Chinese with a Chinese immigrant.

Rundum positive Berichterstattung über die deutschen Soldaten in Kundus. Warum sieht man den Einsatz der US-Soldaten so anders? Daß man Soldaten gerade in einem Gebiet einsetzt, in dem die Gefahr am geringsten ist, finde ich schon merkwürdig. Ich dachte immer, Soldaten setzt man da ein, wo sie am meisten gebraucht werden. Das wäre im Süden. Sind deutsche Soldaten vielleicht zu schlecht oder was steckt dahinter?


https://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/kommentar/195666/


Kommentar • Deutschlandfunk

26.10.2003
Ab nach Kundus
Oder: Experiment mit hohem Risiko
K.H. Gehm

Ab nach Kundus, Stufe zwei beim Nation-building in Afghanistan, der Bundestag hat es heute beschlossen. Mit satter Mehrheit - und etlichen Ja-Stimmen, die unter großen Bauchschmerzen zustande kamen. Unsere Freiheit am Hindukusch zu verteidigen, ist eben keine einfache Sache.

Das wissen alle, die dem Antrag der Bundesregierung auf Ausweitung des Afghanistan-Mandats der Bundeswehr zugestimmt haben. Einem Antrag, der vor drögestem Verwaltungsdeutsch nur so strotzt und für jene, die ihn auszuführen haben, in Ziel und Perspektive kaum verständlich ist. Und der zudem so kunstvoll ziseliert ist, dass dem Parlament das Risiko, von der Regierung schlicht ausgebremst zu werden, erst kurz vor Toresschluss bewusst ward.

Die Bundeswehr aber ist Parlamentsarmee und bleibt es auch - und deshalb wird der Verteidigungsminister künftig jeden noch so klitzekleinen Einsatz der Soldaten über Kabul und Kundus hinaus mitteilen und sich absegnen lassen müssen. Auch wenn es "nur" die Absicherung der Wahlen in Afghanistan betrifft.

In der Hauptsache aber wird es Aufgabe des Teams in Kundus sein, das Umfeld für die zivilen Wiederaufbauhelfer zu sichern und die regionalen Sicherheitskräfte zu unterstützen. Kurzum: es geht darum, mitzuhelfen, Verhältnisse zu schaffen, die einen Frieden dauerhaft ermöglichen.

Das heißt zusätzliche Verantwortung für die Bundesrepublik auf der Basis einer erweiterten ISAF-Resolution der Vereinten Nationen. Das heißt, den Einfluss der auf Kabul beschränkten Zentralregierung auszudehnen. Deutsche Helfer in Uniform statt Besatzer, wie der Verteidigungsminister nicht müde wird zu betonen. Und dabei doch einräumen muss, dass die Gefahr von Rückschlägen durchaus real ist angesichts einer unübersehbaren Stagnation.

Donald Rumsfelds kritische Bilanz im Antiterrorkampf, nicht weit entfernt vom Eingeständnis des Scheiterns, macht deutlich, wie gefährlich dieser Weg auch in Afghanistan werden kann.

Das weiß die Bundesregierung. Deshalb spricht sie von einem Experiment, Open-end-Charakter inbegriffen, das die jetzt in der afghanischen Provinz zu errichtenden ISAF-Inseln darstellen. Etwa in Kundus, dem boomenden Zentrum des Opiumanbaus, wo jährlich Milliarden verdient werden, und die so genannten Repräsentanten des öffentlichen Lebens, Warlords inklusive, kräftig mitverdienen. Und mittendrin deutsche Soldaten, ohne den Auftrag als Drogenfahnder und deshalb mit der Chance, nicht zur Zielscheibe von Milizen der Drogenbarone zu werden.

Das Risiko, in Afghanistan einen brauchbaren Friedenszustand zu verfehlen, ist erheblich. Der Verzicht aber auf den Versuch, nach dem Krieg auch den Frieden zu gewinnen, wäre ein politischer Offenbarungseid.



"The stupid President, the American's human-rights violations, the dysfunctional American democracy, the crass materialism of the Americans and the failure of the American media, a media often described in Germany with the word "Gleichschaltung" meaning the entire US media takes one uniform line (i.e. one uniform pro-Bush, pro-war line,) and is incapable of independent thought or action." Well, duh! Is there a problem here? This seems like straight-out factual reporting. I suppose that reporting reality is in itself a form of bias, so in that sense, yes, the German reporters are biased. And they have no access to people in high positions in the US government? Another plus, I would say.

This seems like straight-out factual reporting

Do you actually follow US media coverage, or are you simply talking bullshit?

At the moment the German court is finding out, that the terrorists from Hamburg/Germany were part of a great world wide terror network. In Bonn/Germany the Germans found out that there is a school in the middle of Germany with teachers and books and parents of students who are praying the Holy War financed by Saudi Arabia.

Is the German attitude a matter of disinformation? When do our journalists wake up? For what attack are they waiting? Has it to happen right away in their house that they feel concernment? Is 9/11 not enough? Too far away? Only Americans?

I don't see uncritical media in the USA. Even there are enough people who worry more about Bush than the terrorists. They talk about lies and no imminent threat and similar nonsense what is totally unimportant.

Yesterday there happened terrible attacks in Iraq. Much sorrow in the German media? Some. But there are many comments about the failure of Bush. That is sad.

Not only that her CV perfectly fits the intended effect of said article. Mhlmann does speak perfect English for sure, and definetly she was capable of grasping the sense of Wolfowitz explanations. But nowadays she can be sure that only a small fraction of their German readers is able to acquire the original transcript, and read it in plain English.

this is pure speculation. nowhere in the passage you quoted is there any evidence that she speaks english. she probably does, as almost anyone in germany who went to college, but you never know. to deduce from the little evidence you have that she DID grasp the sense of Wolfowitz' statement and purposely misquoted or misinterpreted it to push her own agenda is possible, even likely, but not necessarily what really happened.

thus, the way you operate here is more or less the same that you blame Mhlmann for: you take unsupported facts, add some of your own speculation ("she speaks english for sure") and mix it into a biased, somewhat self-fulfilling statement on a german news reporter and the german media at large.

and how does her CV "perfectly fit the intended effect of said article"? deducing that someone who is interested in West-Afrika and China is automatically anti-american is as single-minded as saying all americans are superficial.

Ist das wirklich eine Nachricht wert, was Herr Ustinow über Bush denkt? Auch die Zeit ist nicht mehr das, was sie mal war.

https://apollo.zeit.de/afp/afp_artikel.php?id=afp_031026084000.2b9gs08f&%20zeit_rubrik=NACHRICHTEN

Ustinov: Bush benimmt sich wie ein römischer Kaiser

Oscar-Preisträger übt scharfe Kritik an US-Präsident

All die, die jetzt "Vietnam" im Irak sehen, mögen einmal bedenken, was dieselben Journalisten Israel zumuten, wenn diese Selbstmordattentate in ihren Augen ein neues Vietnam darstellen. Und vor allem: Wie klein ist Israel gegen den Irak.

TN,

you quoted the wrong part. Let's take a look at the bottom of my quote:

"Immer wieder längere Aufenthalte in Hongkong, China und Mali, z.T. als Korrespondentin für die Deutsche Welle und die ARD. Schwerpunkte: China und Westafrika."

So please tell me, what more evidence do you need that she's perfectly adept in speaking and understanding English? According to your logic mankind never touched the moon because never was a human being seen flying.

David,

I have been studying German for a while and listen to Deutsche Welle and RBB(Rundfunk- Berlin- Brandenburg) almost every night. I have concluded that Die Deutschen wohnen in einem Wolkenkuckkucksheim. The distortions and errors are breathtaking.
Keep up your good work
RN

Hi Butterfly, that's what Hitler thought too. Look what happened to him.

Gibt es im Amerika den keine Form von Anit-Europa-Haltung?
Gibt es nicht auch zu viel Partiotismus?
Gibt es nicht immer eine Manipulation der Infomationsdarlegung in den Medien?
Hat man den nichts aus der langen (!) europäischen Geschichte gelernt, aus zwei Weltkriegen, dem Kalten Krieg und so vielem mehr? (Historisches Kalkühl!)
Medien sind immer manipuliert (alleine aus der Auswahl bedingt) und man findet immer einen entsprechenden Artikel, der gerade die eigene Meinung unterstützt, oder?
Und: Wer ist so naiv und getraut sich zu, alleine die altanivlose Erkenntnis für die richtige Weltordnung zu haben?
Bitte ein wenig mehr Konstruktivität! Auf allen Seiten! Danke fürs Lesen und den eventuellen Versuch dies zu verstehen!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31