Michael Naumann: A German Journalist's Dialog of Arrogance

(By Ray D.)

If knocking down strawmen, inventing facts, or arrogantly bashing America were Olympic events, then Michael Naumann of Die Zeit would be a perennial gold medallist. For proof, one need look no further than Mr. Naumann's most recent article, "Amerikaner sind wir alle." The usual hate-America talking points are to be found in abundance: America is imperialist, Bush lied about Iraq, the chasm between rich and poor is growing (no mention of the 4.4% unemployment rate of course), America's debt is enormous (no mention that the deficit declined dramatically last month.)

The article also features a laundry list of virtually every crime that America has committed since World War II: First the evil interventions in Vietnam, Central America and Iran. Then there are those horrible evangelical Christians. But apparently, none of those historic sins are nearly as bad as George W. Bush. According to Naumann, Bush is singularly to blame for all of America's image problems in the world. (Of course nothing the German media has done could have anything to do with that). He also contends that elements of the Constitution, freedom of opinion and "the right to elections free of falsification" have been endangered over the past six years.

Then comes the strawman that European journalists never seem to get tired of knocking down. Naumann claims that Bush suffers from the illusion that military power is a means to political "hegemony". Excuse me for asking, but when did Bush ever articulate such a position? When has the administration ever claimed military power is the key to world domination and how do the current multilateral diplomatic efforts to address Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions mesh with that assessment?

The final proof that Mr. Naumann has little interest in reality getting in the way of his opinionated worldview is the following statement:

"The daily Atlantic life of earlier years could return - a dialog free of arrogance could take place on all those themes that George W. Bush doesn't give a damn about: Global environmental problems, disarmament, fighting hunger and the dying of millions of children in Africa."

Obviously, a dialog free of arrogance and condescension is hardly what Mr. Naumann is interested in. On the contrary. Mr. Naumann is interested in elevating his narrow worldview to the moral high ground. And while Mr. Naumann is entitled to his own extreme opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts. Whether his policies are correct or not, President Bush is clearly concerned with the issues listed above, whether the environment, global disarmament or starvation and dying children in Africa. In fact, the United States government spends significantly more than the German government to address the problems Mr. Naumann claims it doesn't give a damn about.

So let's explode Mr. Naumann's misrepresentations point by point.

Point one: Bush's America doesn't give a damn about starvation and dying children in Africa. Perhaps Mr. Naumann forgot about the $15 billion dollars in emergency funds the United States pledged in 2003 to fight AIDS in Africa or the billions ($3.4 billion this past fiscal year) in aid the US spends annually. Here are the facts:

(Source)

According to the US State Department, the sharp increase in overall aid to Africa visible in the first table was due to:

"A major increase in aid took place in FY2003 because of large quantities of food aid provided to Ethiopia and southern Sudan, as well as a boost in spending through the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund in response to the African HIV/AIDS pandemic."

This was a direct result of President Bush's approval of emergency funds for Africa in 2003.

Point two: The United States doesn't give a damn about disarmament. The facts tell a different story. The United States spends billions on non-proliferation and disarmament including:

• "FY 2005 Request for Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Department of Defense: $409 million (9.2% decrease from FY 2004 appropriation)
• FY 2005 Request for Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs: $1.35 billion (1.1% increase from FY 2004 appropriation)
• FY 2005 Request for State Department Nonproliferation Programs: $195 million (4% increase from FY 2004 estimate)"

The United States is also spending over a billion dollars annually to destroy its own chemical weapons stockpile:

• "The U.S. has devoted enormous resources to the effort to safely and expeditiously destroy its CW stocks, including over $1.5 billion in 2005, and a projected $32-34 billion over the lifetime of the project (for comparison – total 2005 budget for OPCW was $91.6 million)."

Point three: Bush doesn't give a damn about the environment. Like so many other German "journalists" too intellectually lazy to explain complex environmental policy differences, Mr. Naumann has confused the administration's refusal to sign Kyoto (something that will not change with Democrats in power) with refusal to give a damn about the environment. If the administration really didn't care about the environment, then why does it feature a two page posting on environmental achievements on the White House website? Government policies listed include:

• "A proclamation that will create the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. This national monument will enable nearly 140,000 square miles of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to receive our Nation's highest form of marine environmental protection.
• In May 2004, the Bush Administration finalized a rule that will dramatically reduce pollution from heavy-duty diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. This will prevent up to 12,000 premature deaths, 8,900 hospitalizations, 15,000 heart attacks, 6,000 children's asthma-related emergency room visits, 280,000 respiratory problems in children, and a million work days lost due to illness once the rule is fully implemented. Soot and NOx emissions will decrease by more than 90 percent by 2014, and the sulfur content of diesel fuel will be cut 99 percent by 2010."
• President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002. Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output.
• $4.1 Billion in Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy and Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Vehicles

As we demonstrate above, demolishing Mr. Naumann's obvious misrepresentations is not particularly difficult. One has to wonder how his editors at Die Zeit could have allowed such ludicrous falsehoods to appear in their publication (maybe because they play well with the anti-American audience?). Furthermore, it is an insult to Americans around the world who have worked countless hours to address these problems as members of the government or private organizations to claim that American leaders just don't give a damn when that is so obviously false. It is also an insult to each and every American taxpayer who has paid to fund these efforts.

Extremists like Mr. Naumann, who pompously claim they would like a return to transatlantic dialog, are not at all interested in conversation on anything but their own narrow, arrogant terms. Anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of total inhumanity and worthy only of demonization. Mr. Naumann is obviously prepared to lie and twist the truth as needed to smear those he hates. Whether we like it or not, George W. Bush will be gone in two years, but the damage done by "journalists" like Naumann to transatlantic relations will endure for years to come, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. Only when the German-American conversation begins to move beyond these extreme voices and the falsehoods they spew (still all too common in the German media) will we begin to see real improvement.

Comments

[PamM]

America leads the world with its charitable contributions (as Ray's chart indicates), and yet Naumann and his ilk continue to spew the myth that we're greedy and stingy. America's refusal to sign Kyoto is another reason to brand us as evil, yet the countries who have signed on have not only managed not to reduce their greenhouse emissions, but have actually increased them:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/13/europe/EU_FEA_GEN_Sweden_Carbon_Cutters_II.php

And why are not countries like India and China, both greatly increasing their fuel consumption, not criticized for their lack of participation in Kyoto? (Not that I am convinced of the dangers of the "global warming" phenomenon; there is research to the contrary that is conveniently ignored by the chattering classes.)

Straw men indeed. The only thing we don't give a damn about is the "good opinion" of the European elitists like Naumann who enjoy using America as its punching bag. It's a lot easier to demonize America than it is to look critically at the problems of one's own country. Problems like sky-high taxes, an unemployment rate hovering around 10% (http://www.destatis.de/indicators/e/arb210ae.htm), and an increasingly belligerent Muslim population that refuses to assimilate.

Germany went from being an overly aggressive country to one that is afraid of its own shadow. If blaming America can make Naumann and his friends feel better, then more power to them. Ludicrous falsehoods that pander to an anti-American audience? Was sonst?

[williamP]

Ray D. rocks! Great job!

[Jake]

http://www.sudanreeves.org/News-article-sid-7-mode-thread-order-0-thold-0.html

Maybe Herr Naumann would be interested in taking a look at the the above inked map and explain to us the UN votes of Austria, Sweden, France, Malaysia and China regarding genocide in Darfur. Does anyone suppose that the German media would actually have the guts to write a story about the collusion between European and Sundanese governments in allowing the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people so that oil flows freely to Europe and China? Thought not.

[beimami]

Let us count our blessings. As long as loopy Euro-goofs like Michael Naumann feel compelled to write vile screeds against America while simultaneously feeling secure enough to actually publish them, we can take comfort in the fact that America is still free enough enough to incite the rage of "wanna-be" tyrants, and strong enough to mock them.

So let Mr. Naumann vent like a stripper who didn't get a tip; America IS the Ideal.

[Mir]

Another excellent article. Thanks for your all your work.

The funny thing is that blogs like DMK are now often the only place where I read about such obvious anti-american articles in the German MSM - because I don't care what they write and say anymore. And I will most certainly not pay a single Euro for their crap.

[Mentar]

Ray, doesn't it worry you that - unlike during the beginning days of DMK which I've been frequenting - there's hardly even any debate left? That the same old people make the same old comments? That those few people who actually bother to politely disagree and try to make some counterpoints are shouted down by lynch mobs? That the Anti-German and Anti-European screeching here has become every bit as extreme as the Anti-American screeching this site promised to themazize?

I do agree that there's alot of Anti-Americanism in German MSM which can and should be addressed. But this highly emotional way of doing it hurts your goal, which was education, wasn't it? Instead what we're have had here, especially over the course of the last year, reeks of pandering of the extreme nationalist right.

Lately, I've only been sporadically visiting your pages, because the percentage of vitriol has simply exceeded any sane limit. I invite you to do some soul-seeking what your real goal is - showing the other side of the extreme, or rather trying to make a fair counterpoint to MSM reporting. The results of the American midterms might be a good opportunity to do so, for BOTH sides.

(And lo and behold - look at this for example: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,447760,00.html)

[williamP]

Re: Mentar's comments...

I must say, I can't see the connection here. Ray D. has just taken the time and effort to systematically address a particular case of anti-American bias -- with a careful, fact-filled rebuttal. These posts do not write themselves. I don't know how much time Ray spent composing this, but I for one am grateful for his work. It is a public service for both sides of the Atlantic.

[Gabi]

Great post, Ray and David! I am so disappointed that Germany has so many Naumänner. Where are the great thinkers?

[RayD]

@ Mentar,

That is interesting. SPIEGEL ONLINE writes an article (mildly) criticizing Bush bashing and the twisting of the truth for the first time in eons (after publishing dozens of covers at Der Spiegel smearing Bush and America over the past six years and after publishing dozens of articles that clearly twist and misrepresent the truth) and we are all supposed to take heart at that?

Furthermore, I really can't agree with your assessment of this site, although you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Calling us names and making wild accusations (lynch mobs?...extreme nationalist right?) without citing a single example is hardly convincing and is really just reflective of the vitriol you claim to oppose. As you can see in the posting above, we have listed numerous facts to counter the obvious mistruths propagated in German media and expressed our honest opinion on the matter. That is what this site is about and that is what this site will remain about until we see comprehensive change.

[RayD]

@ Mentar:

BTW: Doesn't Naumann's work bother you? It is being read by hundreds-of-thousands, if not millions of Germans. If you want vitriol, hatred, and a general lack of debate regarding the United States, just take a close look at the German media.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Thanks Ray for your time and effort. It is very appreciated.

As being probably part of the "lynch mob" that mentar is talking about, I would like to say a few things. I do this because people like mentar have no right to smear DMK as being a "lynch mob".

A few threads ago a very articulate German (I guess) commenter, Stagger Lee, blamed DMK for grossly exaggerating the anti-Americanism of the German media. Nothing new so far, this accusation has been made countless times by now.

However, the difference is that this time DMK had posted, thanks to RayD, a few points from interviews with German MSM journalists, on the subject of German MSM bias. None of those journalists are from obscure publications, all of them are from respectable MSM outlets. It doesn't get more mainstream than that. Those journalists, especially one of them, Eberhard Piltz from ZDF, were speaking about bias, "ideology", "intellectual arrogance", "socialist dreams", censorship and so on.

I asked Stagger to read the words of those MSM journalists before making accusations against MSM. He came back saying basically "what's so special?". I was quite surprised; I assumed he didn't have time to read it all so I asked him again to read what those journalists said, especially Eberhard Piltz. He came back the second time saying that there is nothing special in there; Stagger claimed that Eberhard Piltz is basically speaking about "sensationalism" in German MSM!

At that point I switched from the camp of the debaters to the camp of the "lynch mob". Stagger Lee was blatantly lying about what Eberhard Piltz said. He was simply lying! There is no way around that. Because he didn't like what those journalists were saying, this DMK commenter was being totally dishonest.

mentar, when you see something like this you give that person the benefit of the doubt the first time. After all, the Internet is an imperfect tool of communication. The second time around though, if the person is being even more dishonest, you say it as it is. I told Stagger that he is dishonest, that he is a liar. I will say this to every single person who will behave like Stagger Lee in the future.

Someone like Stagger is not worthy debating with, since his side of the debate is based on lies. Had Stagger acknowledged Piltz's words, the debate would have continued in a combative but polite way. I have full understanding for opposing opinions, I have absolutely no understanding for liers and deceivers.

[James W.]

@Mentar

Politely disagreeing is one thing--holding on to opinions and beliefs(biases and stereotypes?) that have repeatedly been shown to be based on half-truths and lies, is another. I believe in honest debate, as long as the debate is honest. Many, but not all, that come here to "politely" disagree have nothing more to offer than a litany of anti-Bush/anti-American talking points and slogans--and, at the same time, they are immune to any facts presented during the debate. These visitors to DMK are not interested in being educated. Well, this tends to end the debate, and politeness, quickly. On the other hand, I think it's clear that opinions expressed in comments section of this blog, are not necessarily a reflection of the opinions of the authors of this blog. Therefore, I don't understand why an intellectually honest visitor to this blog should shy away from a--sometimes--heated debate. I don't think packing the truth in soft, warm, fuzzy cottonballs brings us any further to accomplishing the goal of DMK. Just my view.

Thanks for the link. However, one paragraph stands out from the rest for me. It seems to be a caveat:

"Es liegt der Regierung von George W. Bush nicht allzu fern, die Fakten ein wenig zu beugen, um sie den eigenen Interessen anzupassen. Unter Bush wurden Klimaschutz-Berichte verändert, Informations-Webseiten zensiert und sogar der Uno-Sicherheitsrat mit Falschinformationen über angeblich im Irak lagernde Massenvernichtungswaffen getäuscht. Für die Gegner der derzeitigen US-Regierung ist es deshalb relativ einfach, mit neuen Anschuldigungen über weitere Mogeleien Gehör zu finden."

My attempt at a translation (I hope I have not changed the meaning of the paragraph):

It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the Administration of George W. Bush bends the facts a little in order to adapt them to its own interests. Under Bush, environmental protection reports have been altered, information websites have been censored, and the UN Security Council was deceived with false information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it is relatively easy for the opponents of the present US Administration to find new accusations about further misdeeds.

The beef of the article seems to be that it's not right to manipulate videos with the purpose of damaging the reputation of the Administration...BUT, the Administration is also to blame, because their own lies and manipulation of the facts have made the other side's propaganda more plausible. Well, that's just it! Those "lies and manipulations", perpetrated by the evil Bush administration, are offered by the author as hard facts. Are they? Are the accusations missing important context that might influence the opinion of the reader?

[Carl Spackler]

Dear Mr. Naumann,

The Center for Global Prosperity, from the Hudson Institute published its first Index of Global Philanthropy PDF formatted document in 2006, which contained updated numbers from those stated above. The total of US private giving, since Adelman’s previous report, had increased to a massive $71 billion for the year of 2004. Page 16 of their report breaks it down 2004 giving as follows:

* International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
* American NGOs: $9.7
* Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf

Yours,
Evil materialistic hegemon, Carl.

[James W.]

"Therefore, it is relatively easy for the opponents of the present US Administration to find new accusations about further misdeeds."

Hmm... instead of the word "find", would "create" or "invent" been a better translation?

[Mir]

@ Mentar

I can't see how this article could be called "emotional". What I read are opinions of the German MSM, confronted with facts. I know, the truth sometimes hurts some of my fellow Germans who think our media as neutral and superior and like to see its anti-American rantings as "facts". But maybe instead of questioning the sanity of this blog's authors you could give us a few examples where their statements would be wrong.

[beimami]

Mentar's is a typical ad hominem attack, accusing commenters of being intolerant because they react negatively to German media propaganda; thus, anyone who disagrees with him is unreasonable. Moreover, he is wrong to assert that this blog is one-sided; both sides have in fact been presented in this blog, but there simply isn't much positive about the U.S. at any level of the German media.

That said, he does have a minor point when it comes to "anti-Americanism", because that is not really the correct term. I spent twenty years in Germany and can't honestly remember a single occasion on which I felt maltreated or discriminated against simply because I was an American. True, I occasionally ran into people who felt compelled to rant to me about American policies, but they seldom cared to discuss the subject with me a second time (No, I was not rude, I just won the argument). While there has indeed long been some latent anti-Americanism throughout Europe, some of it serious and some of it rather comic (like a few academics I have known, who would eat at a greasy little Schnellimbiss, but wouldn't set a foot in "McDoodle's"), most Germans seem to like Americans and have no compunctions about vacationing or studying in America -- or about eating at McDonald's.

Much of what we see in the German media is a reaction to American sovereignty. Central Europeans have indicated some willingness to surrender much of their sovereignty to the EU and UN, both of which are heavily influenced by the Euro-Left. Yeah, the fine people in the UN offices in Geneva talk openly about a "world government" -- I have seen them doing it. This is why we have recently seen a few articles in the European press indicating that American-European relations may improve now that the Democrats have a little political power in Washington again; the Euro-Leftists believe correctly that Democrats are more likely to cede the rights of Americans to the EU and UN.

As long as Americans insist on running their own lives, the Leftists in Germany will continue to vent their frustrated totalitarian impulses in obscene articles, programs, lectures and documentaries denigrating America. I guess you could call that a kind of "anti-Americanism", but I believe it deserves a different name, though I don't know what.

[Jorg-AtlanticReview]

@ Mentar,

I won't comment about the comment section here.

Ray D's post is certainly much less emotional than many other posts. Besides, everything is substantiated. And Ray D is criticizing the editor of Die Zeit rather than just someone writing for SPON for the hundredth time.

I have criticized Medienkritik often, but I have recommended this post in my blog: Naumann: Bush "does not give a damn" about "the dying of millions of children in Africa".

[Jorg-AtlanticReview]

@ Mentar,

I won't comment about the comment section here.

Ray D's post is certainly much less emotional than many other posts. Besides, everything is substantiated. And Ray D is criticizing the editor of Die Zeit rather than just someone writing for SPON for the hundredth time.

I have criticized Medienkritik often, but I have recommended this post in my blog: Naumann: Bush "does not give a damn" about "the dying of millions of children in Africa".

[joe]

It would seem that Mentar does not enjoy the fruits of what he and his nation have been busy sowing these last 10 years.

Mr. Mentar this is commonly called “blowback”. Get use to it. Learn to embrace it and enjoy it just like you expect Americans too.

[unhinged]

America's debt "has been cut dramatically"?

When did that happen?? Did I miss something?

[RayD]

@ unhinged,

You are right. I should have written deficit and not debt. Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the correction.

Ray

[ulaikamor]

These people will only be happy on the day the US gives all of itself and as a result of it is sunk in poverty and misery. On that day they will be happy, because then the US will be in no position to serve as an example to all those nations that are still suffering today because of bad political ideologies!

[James W.]

A little OT:

Here we go. It was to be expected. Open season on Rumsfeld and others. One head will not satisfy the left.

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Read the whole thing:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

[Martina Zitterbart]

> You are right. I should have written deficit and not debt. Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the correction.

Naja, also so wie es jetzt dasteht hat man den Eindruck, dass Dir der Unterschied zwischen trade und budget deficit nicht ganz klar ist (Beide zusammen werden gerne als "double deficit" bezeichnet).

http://www.merkfund.com/merk-perspective/glossary/double-deficit.html

"While both of these deficits have implications on the Dollar, they have distinct sources and implications."

Die Gesamtverschuldung der öffentlichen Hand, von der Naumann spricht, hängt mit dem Haushaltsdefizit zusammen. Dein Link verweist auf einen Artikel über das Handelsdefizit.

[Cousin Dave]

@James W: I'd like to see David or Ray do a post about this, so I have a better understanding of what is going on. As I understand it, one of the "other officials" they seek to prosecute is the sitting U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. Putting aside for the moment the general immorality of this whole thing: Gonzalez holds the equivalent of a minister-level position in a European government. As such, if Germany were to attempt to actually prosecute this, it would seem to me that such would constitute an act of war against the U.S. Has Merkel had anything to say about this?

[Cousin Dave]

BTW, Ray and David: Your Day by Day link is broken.

[James W.]

Cousin Dave,
I haven't been able to find anything about it in the German media. The author of one German blog is asking why they have to hear about this from Time and not from the German media. Good question. You would think something this big would be all over. Strange indeed.

Here's a theory: The Dems, now feeling their oats, have turned down the help of their European counterparts. The German prosecutor was going to do the dirty work...if the Dems didn't make the expected gains in the election. IMO, the timing of all this is just a bit too convenient. You think the American left doesn't work together with its international brethren?

Or, perhaps Merkel has stepped in and put and end to it--not wishing to put any more strain on the trans-atlantic relationship. Why follow through? The Dems won...right?

[James W.]

Found it! But nothing about a position taken by Merkel. I'll keep looking.

In one case, they claim that Rumsfeld had direct influence on the "mishandling" of a prisoner. They say they can prove it. Yeah...sure.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/nachrichten/rumsfeld-karlsruhe/80566.asp