This is an absolutely fascinating must-read that goes to the heart of the split between media elites and the rest of society. Much - if not all - of this work applies to media in both Europe and the United States. Much of this article also gives readers a broader contextual understanding of the fundamental anti-Americanism that plagues European media. (Hattip - Buckeye Abroad)
(By Ray Drake)
Davids Medienkritik interviewed by CBN and the BBC on Anti-Americanism and Blogs
Just last week, I had the pleasure to participate in an interview for journalist Dale Hurd of the Christian Broadcasting Network or CBN. Since then, Mr. Hurd has put together an outstanding two part report (see text version here) on anti-Americanism in European media that readers can view below. This is must-watch material for anyone interested in anti-Americanism in European media:
Part 1 (above)
Part 2 (above)
Money quote:
"Polls clearly show that Europeans have turned against America in increasing numbers. You can blame Iraq or George Bush. But it's also true that Europeans have been fed a steady diet of media distortions about America for years.
And if you repeat a distortion long enough, it can become reality.
If you got your news about the United States only from the European media, chances are good you wouldn't like the United States either. There are a lot of reasons for the anti-American coverage in the media here, but you can start with the journalists themselves. They're mostly liberal and they're on a mission.
America gets a journalistic thumping just about every day in Europe. It's a one-way media war that our government has shown little or no interest in fighting seriously, even though it has severely damaged America's image and influence."
Perhaps the most striking statement on German media was made by Andrei Markovits, who related that a German journalist openly admitted to him that the editors back home were pushing him to provide negative material - because it sells so well. That is something we have known for years - but his statement is just further evidence. Jeff Gedmin - who possesses his own category on this site - was stellar as always. (Hoya Saxa Jeff!) Karin Quade of the German blog anti-anti-Americanism pointed to the painful reality that it is difficult to avoid negative attitudes towards the US - even in everyday conversation. Richard Miniter, another accomplished blogger I have had the pleasure to meet, discusses his time with The Wall Street Journal in Brussels.
UPDATE: Dale Hurd has also posted extensive excerpts of his interview with Andrei Markovits on his blog along with links to his report. Markovits is focused and brilliant. Watch below and check out his book "Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America"...
Special thanks to Dale Hurd. Just appearing on a program with interviewees of such high caliber was a deep honor. I must, however, mention one complaint about the presentation: In his preliminary comments, Pat Robertson implied that "most" Europeans believed Americans walked around with M16s. Very different from my observation that (some) Germans asked me if all Americans walked around with M16s - (probably after watching Bowling for Columbine.) The fact that anyone would ask such a thing is more than enough to make a strong point - and there is no evidence and no need to claim that "most" Europeans believe it.
Additionally, as someone who considers himself "secular" - I am a skeptic of Mr. Robertson and the religious right in general. I am, however, deeply grateful to CBN for taking on this subject in a highly professional manner. It is also beyond argument that individuals of faith in the United States have been unfairly vilified and targeted in European media. To conclude, let's hope that the larger mainstream media picks up on the subject of anti-Americanism in foreign media as well. Considering the general political attitude of the American mainstream media, however, (one of sympathy and empathy for the America-bashers) it is relatively unlikely that this will happen.
For those interested in the BBC report featuring Davids Medienkritik: It is on the emergence of new media. I was interviewed about blogs last year. It is a good watch.
Endnote: Now to address my decision to use my full name. Although I initially used my full name on this site for several months in 2003 and 2004, I have used my first name and last initial for quite a while now. I did this primarily because, as a graduate student, I was looking into work in the media field and I thought that my work as a blogger might work against me - though I made no secret of my blogging at my university or around those I know. Now that I have my degree (a Masters from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service) and a job (not in the media field) - and considering the fact that I have twice appeared on major media in the past year - I see little point in obscuring my full name.
(By Ray Drake)
UPDATE: Another interesting piece on anti-Americanism entitled "Anti-Americanism feels like Racism". Wouldn't it be nice if media talked about this more than once in a blue moon? Wouldn't it also be nice if media admitted their own major role in fostering, encouraging and spreading anti-Americanism throughout Europe? Unfortunately - most of the follow-up comments by the BBC's overwhelmingly left-wing audience demonstrate that many on both sides of the pond are still in a deep state of denial about the problem or simply belong to the "blame-America-first" crowd. Excerpts from the article:
""But some people just fly off the handle without even talking to me - it's as if they had been waiting to run into an American all day to let their feelings out," she says.
To avoid confrontations she says she lowers her voice on the Underground and in pubs.
But in one incident an older man asked her directly if she was American.
"When I said yes he said: 'I just want you to know that I think you are the poorest people I have ever met in my life' - meaning we were low-life.
"I said I was sorry he felt that way, but that I disagreed."
The man started shouting obscenities at her group. The row developed into a brawl and Ms Cox suffered a black eye as she tried to pull two people apart.
"After that I cried for two days, then booked a flight back to the States. I felt so hated, I needed to be with people who loved me."
Some friends now advise her to tell people she is Canadian, to deflect potential abuse, an option she calls "sad"."
By the way: Why did the US Embassy in London REFUSE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY? Some of America's so-called "diplomats" are apparently so afraid to ever rock the boat that they won't stand up and discuss the pervasive hatred faced by Americans abroad. This sad and pathetic dereliction of duty by many at the State Department and elsewhere within the US government has gone much too far. How can those charged with public diplomacy at the London Embassy refuse to comment on this and still pick up their taxpayer supplied checks in good conscience? We know there are people within the US government who do see the problem - but they are far too few.
This piece on the BBC is another sign that more and more people are starting to "get it." A must read. Excerpts:
"The protests against nuclear weapons, for instance, concentrated on American weapons. The anti-war rallies were against American-led wars. The anti death penalty campaign focused on Texas.
A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. (...)
In the heart of Paris, there is the Avenue Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, the man who helped defeat Nazi Germany and liberate Parisian streets, is celebrated here. And the point many French people make is that they would celebrate George W Bush, too, if they agreed with him. The source of anti-Americanism is plain they say. As one interviewee told us: "It's the policies, Stupid."
Well up to a point: in Paris there is plenty of evidence to be found that anti-Americanism is way more than that, that's it's not simply reasonable opposition to the things America does.
The kind of anti-Americanism fostered by French intellectuals down the centuries revolves around intense dislike of what America is - not what it does."
A lot of this sounds remarkably like what we have been saying for the past three and a half years. Perhaps a wider segment of society is starting to open its eyes. Perhaps...
Endnote: A fascinating comment received today:
"It will take a lot more than a change in tone to rebuild the many burnt bridges between Europe and the US.
There's so much more than language at play here. Americans are extremely resentful of foreign efforts to undermine their rights as established and guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is an inept and transparent attempt to weaken and undermine the United States though bogus notions of 'International law'. Kyoto is a prime example - How on earth can such a proposal be taken seriously when China is exempt? Or UN declarations that individuals do not have right to defend themselves. And then that have the gall to call us stupid for rejecting such nonsense? Wow, Just wow.
It's actually quite amazing that the American people have been so tolerant of the relentless European assault on American core values. The attempt to establish government as supreme at the expense of individual liberty is especially grating (free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc) and the very negative portrayal of Americans who hold such rights and privileges dear does not go unnoticed. Europeans can do as they please, but when they try to impose their values on Americans, the line is crossed. They're forgetting most of us were escaping constraints, limits on opportunity, serfdom, and oppression when we left for the New World. And you want to re-impose that elitist crap on us? Hmmm. It doesn't compute. We really don't understand the European affinity for living under someone else's control - be it a king, dictator, or nanny state.
To achieve parity (or supremacy) Europe seems far more interested in tearing the United States down than pulling themselves up. This anti-Americanism issue much, much deeper than merely the tone of the discussion. It should start with bringing as halt to the European attempts to undo what America has achieved.Personally, I'd much rather have anti-Americanism out in the open and in plain view rather than lurking behind a superficial and disingenuous smile."
Oh yes. We know the disingenuous smiles and the phony exhortations by so many European America-bashers that they really and truly love the American friends and only want what's in their best interest. Then the same people turn around, and, in the company of the like-minded, shamelessly smear and stereotype an entire nation - blaming it for all the world's problems.
A bit off topic, but funny and worth reading nonetheless...damned Viking imperialists...Delaware - we feel your pain...
I'm on the mailing list of Naomi Regan, an American author who lives in Israel. I greatly appreciate her critical comments about the pro-Arab, anti-Israel reporting in the Western media.
Here's another gem. Her critique aimed at the BBC would be quite appropriate for the German media as well.
The Prince, The Swastika, and the BBC
By Naomi Ragen
I was watching BBC this morning. In horrified tones, the news people reported the incident of Prince Harry choosing to wear a Nazi officer's uniform, complete with swastika armband, to a fancy dress ball. How could such a thing happen? How stupid! huffed the BBC.
Well, well. After four years of sympathetic interviews with Hamas terrorists; one-sided reports on Israeli "atrocities" like the Jenin "massacre"; widespread and unrelenting coverage of demonstrations against Israel (...), the BBC is shocked.
A new, comprehensive poll of British opinion on foreign nations was just released by The Telegraph. The results: Israel is considered by Britons the #1 'least deserving of international respect,' the 'least beautiful country,' the country Britons would 'least like to take a holiday in,' and would 'least like to live in.'
I think we should excuse the confusion of Prince Harry. He's simply been watching too many BBC programs. So spare us the hypocrisy and the crocodile tears, will you?
BTW, Thursday's terrorist attack on the Kami crossing on the Israel-Gaza border gets the usual "cycle of violence" treatment in the German media (1, 2, 3). Abbas is even called a "moderate pragmatist". That leaves Sharon as the only villain in the conflict, at least for the German media.
(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)
It is interesting to compare the headlines of the reports on the poll in Irak by international media, compared to German media.
Poll: Year Later, Most Iraqis Happier Without Saddam
A Better Life
BBC:
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
Iraqis dont't show much faith in democracy
Many Iraqis want a "strong leader" - Poll one year after the war confirms distrust of US administration
Poll in Iraq - First a leader, later a democracy
Umfrage: Iraqis without a leader type
Talking of bias...
(Hat tip Dennis)
David Kelly hat eine solche Aussage nicht getroffen. Die Transkription des Interviews gibt überhaupt keinen Beleg für die Aussage, Kelly habe Blair widersprochen. Kelly nimmt zu der 45-Minuten-Frage gar nicht nicht Stellung:In einem ... BBC-Interview aus dem Oktober 2002 widerspricht (Hervorhebung durch uns) der Waffenexperte David Kelly jedoch der Behauptung von Premier Tony Blair, wonach der Irak in der Lage gewesen sei, binnen 45 Minuten Massenvernichtungswaffen einzusetzen.
In der Befragung durch die Hutton-Kommission (ebenfalls im Transkript der Panorama-Sendung aufgeführt) weist Kelly eindeutig die Behauptung zurück, die 45-Minuten-Behauptung in einem BBC-Interview aufgestellt zu haben. Was für ein phantasievoller Umgang der Süddeutschen Zeitung mit der Wahrheit - und dies von einer Zeitung, die noch die winzigste Ungenauigkeit in den Argumentationen Bushs oder Blairs unbarmherzig kritisiert! Immerhin: die Süddeutsche Zeitung ist nicht allein mit der feindseligen Einstellung gegenüber Blair. Der arabische Nachrichtensender Al Jazeera, antisemitisch und anti-amerikanisch, weiß zu berichten:INTERVIEWER Are they (Saddam’s weapons) an immediate threat? DAVID KELLY Yes, they are. Even if they’re not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks, and so yes, they’re a real threat.”
Die Süddeutsche Zeitung und Al Jazeera müssen sich beim Thema "Kampagnenjournalismus" von niemandem übertreffen lassen! Wenn am 28. Januar der Hutton-Bericht herauskommt, der mit Gewißheit schärfste Kritik am Verhalten der BBC üben wird, dürfen wir uns sicher wieder auf eine unvoreingenommene Berichterstattung deutscher und arabischer Elite-Medien freuen...The airing of a television documentary featuring the late weapons expert Dr David Kelly has dealt another blow to the Blair government. ... In the interview, the weapons expert stated that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within days or weeks, rather than the 45 minutes initially mentioned in the controversial government dossier.
(English translation at end of posting)
Britischer Experte von ABC-Waffen im Irak überzeugt
Der britische Waffenexperte David Kelly war laut einem BBC-Bericht davon überzeugt, dass Saddam Hussein im Besitz von Massenvernichtungswaffen war. ... Kelly (soll) gesagt haben (in einem BBC-Interview), von den vor Beginn des Irak-Kriegs Anfang 2003 in dem Land vermuteten Massenvernichtungswaffen gehe eine unmittelbare Gefahr aus ... Der Wissenschaftler (bezeichnete) Saddam ... als eine "akute Bedrohung".
Kelly diente den deutschen Medien monatelang als Kronzeuge gegen die "Lügen" der Neo-Konservativen sowie der Blair-Regierung. Besonders SPIEGEL ONLINE griff zu allen Instrumenten des Kampagnenjournalismus, um Verschwörungstheorien zu verbreiten. Wir haben die Methoden von SPIEGEL ONLINE in diesem Blog mehrfach kritisiert.
Wir erwarten nicht, daß SPIEGEL ONLINE in Zukunft noch irgendeine Aufmerksamkeit für Kelly übrig hat. "Wissenschaftler" bzw. "Experten" werden nur benötigt, wenn sie Bush kritisieren.
Übrigens ist es interessant, die Meldung der BBC anzuschauen:
In the interview Dr Kelly was asked whether there was an "immediate threat" from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
He replied: "Yes there is. Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat."
Im Grunde ist das Interview mit Kelly vernichtend - für Medien wie SPIEGEL ONLINE ebenso wie die BBC, die ja selbst eine bösartige Kampagne gegen Blair geführt hatte. Das Interview vernichtet die Glaubwürdigkeit von SPIEGEL ONLINE und der BBC - was davon überhaupt noch vorhanden war. Wir verfolgen das Thema weiter.
Continue reading "Wait a Minute - This Can't be True! / Moment - das kann doch nicht stimmen!" »
(English translation at end of post)
Bei der BBC gibt es nun einen Mitarbeiter, der die Sendungen des englischen (öffentlich-rechtlichen) Programms auf anti-israelische bzw. pro-arabische Verzerrungen hin überprüft.
"Die BBC bestritt, daß die neue Position mit einem Eingeständnis gleichzusetzen wäre, daß ihre Berichterstattung "falsch" sei, aber gab zu, daß der Sender sensibel auf Kritik reagiere."
Ich könnte mir gut vorstellen, daß wir in Deutschland viel Arbeit für jemanden hätten, der die anti-amerikanischen und anti-israelischen Verzerrungen von SPIEGEL, STERN, FAZ, ARD, ZDF, RTL, n-tv, usw., usw., usw., monieren würde.
Aber das ist nur ein Traum. Bei uns ist in Wirklichkeit alles in Ordnung.
English translation
The BBC has appointed a "Middle East policeman" to oversee its coverage of the region amid mounting allegations of anti-Israeli bias.
"The BBC denied that the appointment amounted to an admission that it had "got its coverage wrong" but conceded the corporation was sensitive to criticism."
I could easily imagine the need for someone in Germany to monitor the anti-American and anti-Israel bias of SPIEGEL, STERN, FAZ, ARD, ZDF, RTL, n-tv, etc., etc.
But that's only a dream. In reality, everything's perfect here.
Do Aug 14, 11:01:02 AM
Es ist stets aufschlußreich, Berichte in deutschen Medien mit denen in ausländischen zu vergleichen - zumal, wenn sie sich auf die gleichen Sachverhalte beziehen.
Beispiel: die Affäre um den englischen Wissenschaftler Kelly und die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Blair-Regierung während des Irak-Kriegs. FAZ und die Times berichten am 13.8. beide über die Sitzung der Hutton-Kommission ("Hutton Inquiry") am 12.8. Vernommen wurden u.a. die BBC-Journalisten Andrew Gilligan und Susan Watts. (vgl. auch Eintragungen in diesem Weblog am 20.7.03 und am 2.8.03)
Für FAZ-Korrespondent Bernhard Heimrich geben die Ergebnisse der Vernehmungen Hinweise auf fehlerhaftes Regierungshandeln. Die Überschrift des Heimrich-Beitrags sowie die Kapitel-Überschriften belegen die Tendenz:
"Irak-Dossier eine Woche vor Veröffentlichung verändert" - "Brisante Aufzeichnungen" (von Gilligan) - "Widersprüche in Regierungsdarstellung"
Heimrich zitiert Gilligan und Watts, Kelly habe geklagt, "die Regierung habe Geheimdienstmaterial „nachgebessert", um dem widerstrebenden Parlament und der Öffentlichkeit den Feldzug plausibler zu machen. Eine weitere BBC-Journalistin, die in einer Fernsehsendung ähnlich berichtet hatte, konnte nicht nur eigene Aufzeichnungen vorlegen, sondern auch Mitschnitte von Telefongesprächen mit Kelly. Beide Zeugen beharrten, Kelly sei beunruhigt gewesen über die Art und Weise, wie die Regierung die Hinweise des Geheimdienstes für ihre Öffentlichkeitsarbeit benutzt habe."
Die Äußerungen der BBC-Journalisten werden von Heimrich nicht hinterfragt; er hat keine Zweifel an ihrer Richtigkeit. Seine Widergabe der Stellungnahme der Blair-Regierung hingegen wird sofort mit Gegenargumenten versehen, die deren Glaubwürdigkeit in Frage stellen: "Die Regierung hat dem von Anfang an heftig widersprochen und dargelegt, sie habe das Dossier nicht „nachgewürzt", und der Geheimdienst stimme mit dem veröffentlichten Text vollständig überein. Dieser Standpunkt hatte freilich schon im Lauf der ersten Befragungen am Montag einen zweifachen Widerspruch erfahren. Nach der einleitenden Befragung eines früheren UN-Waffeninspekteurs, mit dem Kelly 1991 im Irak gearbeitet hatte, hatten leitende Beamte das Wort: Richard Hatfield, der Personalchef des Verteidigungsministeriums; Martin Howard, der stellvertretende Leiter der Geheimdienstabteilung des Ministeriums; Patrick Lamb, der stellvertretende Leiter der Abteilung des Außenministeriums, die sich mit der Nichtweiterverbreitung von Atomwaffen beschäftigt; und Julian Miller, ein leitender Beamter des Verbindungsstabes zum Geheimdienst im Kabinettsbüro. Dabei war nicht nur bestätigt worden, daß Kelly ein international anerkannter Fachmann auf seinem Gebiet war und die höchste Sicherheitsstufe des Geheimdienstes besaß. Sogar die amerikanische CIA habe seine Mitarbeit angefordert. Zutage kam auch, daß zwei weitere leitende Mitarbeiter des Geheimdienstes ähnlich beunruhigt waren wie Kelly und ihren
Widerwillen gegen die Behandlung des Materials durch die Regierung intern zu Protokoll gegeben hatten. Das widersprach der Version, die am Beginn der Affäre von der Regierung in Umlauf gebracht worden war: Kelly sei ein unwichtiger "mittlerer Beamter", der nicht gewußt haben könne, über was er rede."
Der gleiche Sachverhalt - die Tagung der Hutton-Kommission am 12.8. - erfährt in der Kommentierung der "Times" eine gänzlich andere Deutung. Die BBC wird scharf kritisiert, die Blair-Regierung nicht: "What Lord Hutton learnt yesterday, however, reinforces questions about the conduct of the BBC that the judge will doubtless wish to reflect upon.
David Kelly met Mr Gilligan at the journalist’s request and the two shared only an Appletise and a Coke at the Charing Cross Hotel. In other words, the exchange was a meeting to brief the journalist, not a convivial lunch at which information was exchanged. This makes it surprising that Mr Gilligan appeared not to have a notebook and recorded the meeting imperfectly on a PalmPilot. It is also unfortunate that he is now unable to locate the manuscript notes he made after the event.
The importance of this observation about unorthodox reporting practice is reinforced by the revelations made yesterday about the attitude of Mr Gilligan’s very capable editor at the Today programme, Kevin Marsh. The latter clearly has serious doubts both about Mr Gilligan’s general work and about the specific story at issue in the Hutton inquiry.
He believed the Today item was “marred by flawed reporting”, by “loose use of language”, and by “lack of judgment in some of his [Gilligan’s] phraseology”. He ascribed these mistakes to the reporter’s loose relationship with the programme’s management and proposed a raft of changes that suggest that Mr Marsh felt Mr Gilligan should be more closely supervised.
Mr Marsh’s reasonable doubts about Mr Gilligan and his report make the BBC’s decision to conduct a battle with the Government in defence of both of them highly questionable. The governors themselves shared at least part of the Today editor’s reservations. Lord Hutton and the BBC itself will surely be considering carefully whether it was wise to persist with this battle as a matter of supposed principle.
The BBC will doubtless have found some comfort in the evidence of Newsnight’s thoroughly professional Ms Watts. She confirms that Dr Kelly did indeed mention Alastair Campbell when talking of the way in which the “45-minute” claim had appeared in the Government’s intelligence dossier. Yet Ms Watt’s evidence is not as helpful to the BBC as it might hope. She chose to ignore the mentioning of Mr Campbell’s name because she had no reason to believe that Dr Kelly had enough access to be a reliable source for this information.
For this reason one other document may be regarded by Lord Hutton as extremely significant. It is an internal programme memo which may refer to the Kelly item and records that “Gilligan has v[ery] good story he hasn’t stood up yet”. This was dated a few days after the journalist’s meeting with Dr Kelly. At that time all involved appeared to know that Mr Gilligan’s source could not be used alone since it was not an adequate foundation for the allegation. There is no suggestion that he found any other corroboration of this single source. Yet the story was broadcast and even the element or two that Mr Gilligan now concedes were flawed had never been formally retracted.
At least Ms Watts provided evidence of the quality journalism the BBC Governors should rush to defend."
Quintessenz des Times-Kommentars: Der BBC-Journalist Gilligan praktizierte einen fragwürdigen Journalismus ("unorthodox reporting practice "); der Leiter der BBC-Redaktion, für die Gilligan seinen Bericht produzierte, distanziert sich von Gilligan; die BBC-Journalistin Watts mißtraute zentralen Äußerungen von Kelly und publizierte sie nicht; Gilligan hat sich nicht an den journalistischen Brauch gehalten, eine zweite Quelle zur Verifizierung der Kelly-Behauptungen zu suchen.
Fazit: die FAZ übernimmt kritiklos die Darstellung eines BBC-Journalisten, dessen Recherchepraktiken der renommierten "Times" - und sogar der BBC selbst - äußerst fragwürdig erscheinen. Wie es scheint, weiß Gilligan nur noch die FAZ hinter sich...
Sa Aug 02, 09:00:37 AM
In der Auseinandersetzung zwischen BBC und der Blair-Regierung (vgl. unser Blog vom 19., 20., 22.7.03) gibt es nun Nachrichten, die die BBC und ihren Reporter Andrew Gilligan in Schwierigkeiten bringen. Es ist eine Notiz von David Kelly aufgetaucht, die die Berichterstattung von Gilligan massiv in Zweifel zieht:
"His (Kelly's) letter said he could "only conclude one of three things" - Mr Gilligan had "considerably embellished" what he had been told, or had met other people who "truly were intimately associated" with the dossier, or had "assembled comments from both multiple direct and indirect sources"."
Kelly dementiert also, daß er als Quelle für den BBC-Bericht in Frage komme - das Gegenteil dessen, was die BBC behauptet.
Kommentar der "Financial Times": "If correct, this conclusion could prove very damaging for the BBC."
Von all' dem hat der SPIEGEL - nach Selbstauskunft ein "Synonym für investigativen Journalismus" - noch nichts bemerkt. Der SPIEGEL zirkuliert unverdrossen weiter die angebliche Kelly-Behauptung, von der dieser sich distanziert hatte: "So berichtete die BBC unter Berufung auf ihren Gewährsmann, dass Blairs Büro entgegen den Zweifeln von Experten darauf bestanden habe, zur Begründung des Irak-Kriegs darauf zu verweisen, dass der Irak innerhalb von 45 Minuten Massenvernichtungswaffen einsetzen könne."
Das beeindruckt mich an den angelsächsischen Medien (BBC ausgenommen): daß sie mitten in einer Kampagne gegen die Regierung auch einmal Tatsachen berichten, die gegen die zentrale These dieser Kampagne laufen. Aus Deutschland wäre derartiges nicht zu berichten. Da wird geholzt und gebolzt bis zum bitteren Ende oder bis eine andere Sau durch's Dorf getrieben wird - was immer zuerst kommt...
So Jul 20, 07:10:51 PM
Die Kampagne gegen Blair wird so schnell zusammenbrechen, wie sie aufgeblasen wurde. Tatsache ist: David Kelly war nach Aussagen der BBC die Quelle der Anschuldigung, die Blair-Regierung habe die Tatsachen gefälscht, als sie behauptete, der Irak könne innerhalb von 45 Minuten Massenvernichtungswaffen einsetzen. Damit ist auch klar, daß die BBC die Definition ihrer Quelle als "senior intelligence source" offensichtlich nicht mehr wird halten können, denn das war Kelly nicht - worauf Reuters hinweist. Kelly selbst hat - nach einem Bericht der New York Times - darauf hingewiesen, daß er sich in den Berichterstattungen der BBC nicht wieder erkannt hat: "I believe I am not the main source,'' Kelly told the committee Tuesday. "From the conversation I had, I don't see how (Gilligan) could make the authoritative statement he was making.''
Die BBC hat sich also die Kompetenz eines Experten zunutze gemacht - ohne dass dieser Experte die unterstellten Aussagen gemacht hat. Die BBC hat Anschuldigungen gegenüber Blair erhoben, für die sie - trotz gegenteiliger Behauptungen - nicht den behaupteten Zeugen hatte.
Konsequenzen für die Berichterstattung deutscher Medien? Warten wir's ab, mit unverzagtem Optimismus...
Übrigens: Sky News beschreibt den zeitlichen Ablauf der BBC-Affäre.
Mi Jun 11, 05:39:10 PM
Der versuchte Anschlag Israels auf die Hamas-Führer Abdel Aziz Rantisi torpediert nach Ansicht des SPIEGEL die Friedensbemühungen. Tatsache ist, daß Rantisi verantwortlich zeichnet für das Attentat auf die Hebräische Universität in Jerusalem, bei dem sieben Menschen starben. Er hat auch vor dem Irak-Krieg die Iraker dazu aufgerufen, als menschliche Bomben Amerikaner zu vernichten. Rantisi ist - nach den Worten eines israelischen Politikers - keine Zeitbombe, sondern eine Fabrik von Zeitbomben. Warum es dem Friedensprozess schadet, wenn ein überzeugter Anhänger von Attentaten auf Zivilisten angegriffen wird, ist nicht recht ersichtlich. Die Hamas hat immer deutlich gemacht, daß ein Frieden mit Israel nicht infrage komme. Welchem tieferem Sinn dient dann der Schutz dieser Terroristen?
Übrigens: wenn die Hamas Terror ausübt, berichtet der SPIEGEL darüber in kühlem Protokollstil: "Neues Blutvergießen in Nahost: In der Innenstadt Jerusalems explodierte ein voll besetzter Bus. Bei dem Selbstmordanschlag starben 16 Menschen." Der Bus explodierte halt, wie das Busse manchmal so machen. Und, ach ja, es war ein Selbstmordanschlag. Wenn Israel die Urheber des Terrors angreift, ist das für den SPIEGEL hingegen zugleich ein Angriff auf den Friedensprozess: "Die israelische Regierung tut offenbar alles, um den von US-Präsident George W. Bush forcierten Nahost-Friedensplan zu torpedieren."
| 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 |
Recent Comments