Davids Medienkritik

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.

High-Powered Austrian Rifles Found in Iraq

Just another reason for the Americans to thank the European "friends" in the Austrian government. High-powered 50 caliber rifles sold to Iran "to fight drug smugglers" by the Austrian firm Steyr-Mannlicher are now killing US troops in Iraq, and the Austrian government expressly approved the sale in 2005 despite U.S. protests, describing the deal as "unimpeachable":

Report: Austrian rifles supplied to Iran have found their way to Iraqi insurgents

LONDON: Sophisticated rifles supplied to Iran by an Austrian arms company in 2006 are finding their way into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, a British newspaper reported Tuesday.

American troops have recovered more than 100 "Steyr .50 HS" rifles in Iraq, part of an Austrian consignment of 800 such weapons delivered to Iran over American protests that they could be given to insurgents, the Daily Telegraph reported.

The Austrian government approved the sale of the rifles, made by precision weapons maker Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, after it concluded in 2004 that they would be used to fight narcotics smugglers. (source)

Just more evidence of the non-violent superiority of the European way-of-life. Trade anything to anyone. Who cares if they are genocidal thugs or out to build a nuke or wipe Israel off the map? Who cares if they use the rifles to kill Americans? This keeps Austria's unemployment down. Don't you just love pacifism?

The Austrian "statesmen" most responsible for approving the deal. From left to right: Former Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, Interior Minister Guenther Platter, Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, Ex-Interior Minister Ernst Strasser.

By the way: Where's Michael Moore when you need him? Here's a documentary idea: Take the family members of the American soldiers killed by Austrian rifles in Iraq and confront former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel and ask him how any sane human being could have approved shipping hundreds of these killing machines to Iran. Were the measly profits involved worth the potential damage to US-Austrian relations? More here...

Endnote: We strongly suggest our American readers contact the press office at the Austrian Embassy with their thoughts and opinions on this:

Embassy Telephone: 1-202-895-6700 (listen to the recording and then press 1 and then press 4 for the press department - you may be asked to record your message)
Embassy E-mail: austroinfo@austria.org

The members of the then Schuessel cabinet most responsible for approving the sale can be reached here:

Ex-Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel: wolfgang.schuessel@parlament.gv.at

Austrian Interior Minister Günther Platter (Defense Minister at the time of the deal): matthias.wechner@bmi.gv.at

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik: kabbm@bmaa.gv.at

Ex-Austrian Interior Minister Ernst Strasser: Click here to send an email.

You can also contact the firm that produced and sold the rifles to Iran. Apparently, Steyr-Mannlicher boss Wolfgang Fuerlinger has gone on the record as saying that Iran is "a market of the future" and that "more is coming" in the way of business with Iran for his firm:

Email: office@steyr-mannlicher.com
Phone: +43 (0) 7252 896 0
Fax: +43 (0) 7252 896 53

STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH & Co KG
Postfach 1000
Ramingtal 46
4442 Kleinraming | Austria

Normally we ask our readers to keep their comments civil and respectful. In this case, we understand if that is difficult...

FAZ's Dishonest Smear Targets Malkin - Bloggers

(By Ray Drake)

Nina Rehfeld's Attempted Hit Job - Or How it Backfired

A small German blog recently chronicled a particularly suspect article authored by correspondent Nina Rehfeld for the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - one of Germany's most respected daily papers). The piece, entitled "Debacle for the Online Sniper" can only be described as a hit job gone terribly wrong. The "online sniper" in question is none other than journalist and top blogger Michelle Malkin:

FAZ Caption: "Converted Blogger: Michelle Malkin"

The FAZ piece reads as follows (our translation - this is the entire article):

"Blogs
Debacle for the Online Sniper
By Nina Rehfeld, Phoenix

A few days ago a witch hunt called out by conservative bloggers in the United States against the news agency AP came to an end. The starting point for the hysteria was an AP report according to which six Iraqi Sunnis were doused with gasoline by Shiites in front of a mosque and burned alive as Iraqi soldiers looked on. As a source, AP named a Baghdad police captain by the name of Jamil Hussein, but the American military and Iraqi Ministry of Interior denied for a long time that there was a policeman by that name. No one else could confirm the report, yet the story went around the world.

In Internet forums doubts were quickly raised about the authenticity of the AP story and the reliability of sources in Iraq in general. But what should have been a debate about the pitfalls of reporting from war zones turned into a vanity fair. Led by the prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, the AP story was presented as proof that the "liberal mainstream media" were intentionally distorting the situation in Iraq to turn people against the Bush government: "MSM credibility, R.I.P.," wrote Malkin.

The Outcry is Silenced

The talk quickly turned to "AP scandal"; All AP reporting on Iraq was brought into question. Liberal websites like Media Matters struck back at the "warbloggers." And because the mainstream media in America leaves the field of reporting on the background details to the bloggers, they were able to smash journalistic porcelain undisturbed. In the meantime, AP stuck with the story that its reporters had spoken with Jamil Hussein.

A few days ago the Iraqi Ministry of Interior confirmed the existence of Jamil Hussein and announced that he may be subject to a fine - because he spoke to journalists. The outcry is silenced. Michelle Malkin accepted a challenge to visit Iraq from CNN news boss Eason Jordan where she has meekly reported on danger, violence and corruption, but also on signs of hope in Iraq that the mainstream media is allegedly happy to overlook. Nobody is talking about the policeman Jamil Hussein anymore."

Memo to FAZ: The Outcry is Not Silenced

Rehfeld would be right if the only aspect of the AP story brought into question by bloggers was the existence of source Jamil Hussein. In reality, there are two elements of the original AP story that remain controversial: The first, Mr. Hussein's reported claim that four mosques were "destroyed" in sectarian violence, has been proven demonstrably false. The second, that six Iraqi Sunnis were burned alive as Iraqi soldiers looked on, remains uncorroborated and has been disputed by other sources. Bloggers continue to discuss both - Ms. Rehfeld completely fails to acknowledge the controversy surrounding either.

In other words, this is neither a witch hunt nor is it "case closed" as Ms. Rehfeld clearly implies. In fact, the bloggers' skepticism over the original AP piece has proven to be largely justified. Unfortunately, those inconvenient details are conspicuously omitted by FAZ.

Because Rehfeld and her FAZ editors are clearly aware of Michelle Malkin's blog (see caption above), it is hard to believe that they simply overlooked the two contested elements of the original AP story. This appears to be yet another case of a major German media outlet omitting and twisting facts to vilify those (conservatives - bloggers - Americans) it perceives as political enemies. The arrogant, frothing-at-the-mouth tone of the piece is, taken by itself, a clear sign of journalism gone bad. Beyond that, it is difficult to conclude that Rehfeld is anything more than a cynical liar. Her work is particularly disturbing because it is directed at a German audience that, with a language barrier and lack of alternative sources, will likely never know to what extent it has been defrauded and misled.

This much is clear: To avoid future "witch hunts" and journalistic "debacles", FAZ would be well advised to drop Ms. Rehfeld and her particularly destructive brand of character assassination. Instead of cutting Michelle Malkin down to size, Rehfeld has succeeded only in shooting herself and her publication's reputation in the foot.

(Hattip: Joerg)

Neue Strategie, alte Reaktionen

(By Paul13)

Wem die oberflächliche Berichterstattung deutscher Massenmedien, die Bush's Rede zur neuen Irakstrategie im wesentlichen als Truppenverstärkung darzustellen versuchen, etwas seltsam vorkommt, kann sich glücklicherweise an kompetenterer Stelle über ein paar hierzulande - natürlich rein "zufällig" - übergangene, aber weit wichtigere Punkte des amerikanischen Strategiewechsels informieren. Weit entfernt davon, nur Schadensbegrenzung zu betreiben, scheint Bush nämlich wieder in die Offensive gehen zu wollen und den Kampf endlich - wie schon seit Jahren von neokonservativer Seite angemahnt, von den Realpolitikern aber immer wieder ausgebremst - auch auf die ausländischen

Post Execution Media Reaction: The Death Penalty - Really a Wedge Issue?

(By Ray D.)

Majorities in USA and Europe Favor Saddam Execution

The recent results of a poll conducted by Novatris/Harris for the French daily Le Monde on the death penalty shocked the editors and writers at Germany's left-leaning SPIEGEL ONLINE. When asked whether they favored the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, a majority of respondents in Germany, France and Spain responded in the affirmative. Here the results by country:

Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:

USA: 82%
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%

Clearly, there is a gap between the United States and the European nations polled. On the other hand, the western Europeans polled demonstrated that there is majority support for the death penalty in particular cases. In other words, the gap that exists across the Atlantic is not at all the clear-cut, "black-white" divide that some in media make it out to be.

Die Zeit: "The Europeans condemn the use of the death penalty" / Do they? The poll numbers above contradict that assumption.

Frankfurter Allgemeine: "President Bush praised the execution, from Europe came sharp criticism." / A tempting -and in the media oft used- opportunity to again pit "Europe" against Bush. A more intellectually honest headline would have pointed out that the majority of the criticism coming from "Europe" has emanated from a tiny media-political elite. The rest of society is evenly divided.

ZDF Heute Online: "Bush Welcomes Saddam's Execution - Criticism from Europe: Divided Reactions to Death Penalty: US President George W. Bush greeted the execution of Saddam Hussein as a milestone on the way to a democratic Iraq. In contrast, criticism came from European countries and human rights organizations - they reject the death penalty as a matter of principle." / ZDF is clearly attempting to create an "us versus them" - "Europe versus Bush and America" wedge issue out of the death penalty. This piece also totally ignores the opinions of the average German.

Deutsche Welle: "Europe condemns death penalty" / But what about the more than half the population in Germany and other European nations that does not condemn it in Saddam's case? Do they simply not matter? Do they somehow not exist for certain media-political elites? Why are their views systematically ignored?

Sueddeutsche published a piece entitled: "Worldwide Sharp Criticism of the Execution." The piece goes nation by nation and lists criticisms as if they represented the view of the entire country. It does not mention poll results that indicate majorities in many of the same countries actually favored Saddam's execution.

Other media outlets, including Financial Times Deutschland and even SPIEGEL ONLINE have actually treated the death penalty question as a debate instead of falsely claiming that an imaginary, monolithic "Europe" has "sharply criticized" Saddam's execution. Another major theme in most of the Western media is that Saddam's execution does not help Iraq - in other words, more of the usual pessimism.

Additionally, there has long been a heated debate on the death penalty in the United States. Several U.S. states do not legally permit executions or do not make (wide) use of them. From the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s, executions came to a near standstill in the United States, in part because of legal challenges which culminated in the Supreme Court's 1972 Furman vs. Georgia decision. Recently, a botched execution in Florida led Republican Governor Jeb Bush to suspend the death penalty as a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium halting executions in that state. 

Put another way: There is a lively debate on the death penalty on both sides of the Atlantic, with significant numbers and powerful factions on either side. Unfortunately, many in the German media have made death penalty out to be a divisive, "good versus evil" wedge issue. This stems in part from the transatlantic legal contrast: Most European nations have banned the death penalty while it remains legal in much of the United States.

The desire in influential segments of German media and society to reduce the death penalty to the level of a transatlantic wedge issue is also deeply rooted in another key factor: Ideology. The far-left in Germany is a political force to be reckoned with. Its representatives dominate wide swaths of the media, academia and certain political parties including the SPD, Greens and the PDS. Not only do representatives of the far-left reject the death penalty in all cases (putting them at odds with many ordinary Germans), they also oppose American-style free-market capitalism, smaller, less restrictive government, and the projection of American power in the world. This movement consists largely of an assortment of 68-radicals (including ex-Maoists, Leninists, RAF sympathizers, and your run-of-the mill Socialist demonstrators); ex-eastern-bloc-Communists; young people radicalized through academia, media and far-left political parties and movements; and out-and-out America-haters. Quite honestly, these folks would have rejected the execution of Hitler and Eichmann just as they reject the execution of Saddam. Ironically, they see the issue as a "black-and-white" - "with us or against us" issue. (Sound familiar?)

Nonetheless the death penalty remains contentious. Conservatives, libertarians and European Liberale, who traditionally favor a less powerful, less intrusive government, must ask themselves if they trust the state to determine who should live and who should die. Furthermore, they must consider whether the death penalty in the United States has become so legally contentious (filled with endless appeals, challenges and expenses) that it is practically (if not also ethically) questionable?

These are the debates that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic should be having with one another and not against one another, as many on the far-left would have it. The real "wedge", in this and many other cases, is not a transatlantic one. The real "wedge" is and has long been firmly lodged between the Angry left and the rest of society.

As the poll numbers above demonstrate, the peoples of the United States and Europe are not nearly as far apart on the death penalty as some would have us believe. Sadly, in a media culture that thrives on creating new controversies and divisions and exacerbating old ones (whether real or imagined) you might never know it.

UPDATE: Watch the full Saddam execution here:

A quick and painless death for a tyrant responsible for the murder and torture of so many.

UPDATE #2: Another poll conducted for the far-left publication stern confirms that significantly more Germans support the death penalty for Saddam than oppose it. The results of that poll:

In favor of executing Saddam: 50%
Against executing Saddam: 39%
Don't know: 11%

Stern graphic: "No Mercy for Saddam: Should the death penalty be enforced against Saddam Hussein?"

Stern may be a populist, trashy, anti-American media outlet, but they sure can put together a good graphic!

Execution of Saddam Hussein

A short note on reactions in the German media: The execution of Saddam Hussein is reported mostly in a matter-of-fact style, with frequent mention of his horrible crimes.

Of course, most commentors in a tribute to political correctness underline the rejection of capital punishment in Germany.

You don't say...

From the country of moral superiority:

Linde investigated over alleged bribery in UN Iraq aid programme - report

Linde AG (one of Germany's largest companies) is being investigated over bribery allegations linked to the UN Oil-for-Food programme in Iraq, the weekly Focus reported in a prerelease of its upcoming edition, citing Munich's head prosecuting attorney Anton Winkler.  (...)

According to a UN report, Linde was one of more than 2,000 firms around the world alleged to have made illicit payments to Saddam Hussein's government to profit from the aid programme, the magazine said. It also said that 63 German companies were allegedly involved and that currently up to 36 preliminary proceedings against executives of those mostly smaller firms are pending.

63 German companies? There was little discussion in the German media about bribery charges against German companies doing business in Iraq during Saddam's reign. There were so many other interesting topics to cover...

The Iraqschadenfreudegruppe

German politicians (and, needless to say, the German media) are jubilant about the Baker report's recommendations:

Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator on relations with the U.S., said on n-tv television that: "We should be happy that there is a course correction in the United States."

"If we as Europeans and as Germans can help diplomatically, then we should," he said. "We are also ready to help with reconstruction in Iraq, if the security situation permits." (...)

Wolfgang Gerhardt, the foreign policy expert for Germany's opposition Free Democrats, said in the Bild newspaper that the report "shows an awareness of reality ... and insight is the first step to improving things."

Former Defense Secretary Peter Struck, now parliamentary leader for the Social Democrats in parliament, said that "the U.S. succumbed to a great mistake in judgment: they wanted to be liberators but were perceive as occupiers. They will get out of this dilemma only with great difficulty."

To which the WSJ's James Taranto had this to say:

The Iraqschadenfreudegruppe

It would be unrealistic to expect the Germans to pull their weight in international relations, used as they are to freeloading off American strength. But why in the world would they be pleased at the prospect of American retreat from Iraq? The same AP dispatch notes reaction to the ISG report from the Arab world:

Mustafa Bakri, an outspoken critic of the U.S. and editor of the Egyptian tabloid Al-Osboa, told a state-run television show that the report indicated "the end of America."

Bakri, who supports Syrian President Bashar Assad and the former regime of Saddam Hussein, urged Arab countries to "capture the moment as America now is in its weakest period."

The Iraq Study Group's report was the top headline in many Arab newspapers on Thursday, including the Egyptian opposition daily Al-Wafd, which declared: "Bush confesses defeat in Iraq." . . .

Others warned that insurgents and countries including Iran were taking advantage of Bush's failures and the spiraling violence, and their influence would increase if the U.S. leaves.

"Al-Qaida must smell victory, but its a negative victory that comes from the defeat of America in Iraq," said Abdel Moneim Said, head of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic studies in Cairo.

Do the Germans agree with these Arab assessments? And if so, do they think they and their fellow Europeans can somehow escape any consequences if America flees Iraq before the job is done?

Dumb question. The Arabs love Germany ever since AH, for obvious reasons. Following America's defeat, Germany will inherit Iraq's oil from the U.S. and will - again - be able to provide German nuclear technology to Iran.

Let's call it the German dream...

Baker-Kommission: Generalabrechnung mit Bushs Irak-Strategie

(By Paul13)

Irre! Der SPIEGEL kriegt sich ja gar nicht mehr ein vor lauter Freude über die Entmachtung der NeoCons. Da muß sich ganz schön was aufgestaut haben in all den Jahren. Anders ist nicht zu erklären, daß er die Siegesmeldungen jetzt schon im Stundentakt heraushaut. Und eine besser als die andere. Da will man gerade anfangen, sich angemessen über Marc Pitzke ärgern, da kommt schon Gerhard Spörl und schafft es tatsächlich, ihn noch zu toppen, was im Falle von Pitzke ja nun wirklich kein leichtes Unterfangen ist. Da muß ich jetzt doch mal eingreifen, so geht das ja nicht weiter. Nicht daß die Realpolitiker am Ende einen Herzkasper kriegen, bevor sie noch ihr segensreiches Wirken beginnen können.

Vorbei ist es mit den amerikanischen Alleingängen und den bilateralen Diktaten. Geht es nach der Kommission - und es wird nach ihr gehen, kaum Zweifel -, dann findet eine internationale Konferenz über die Lage im Nahen Osten statt. Das schließt Gespräche Amerikas mit zwei Ländern ein, die nicht zum kommoden Umgang gehören: Syrien und Iran.

Da lacht der SPIEGEL. Denn eine Welt, in welcher Despoten wie Assad und Chameini ein Mitspracherecht haben, ist natürlich weit besser als eine Welt, in der ihnen selbiges verwehrt wird. Der Gedanke, daß westliche Demokratien die Geschicke der Welt dominieren, ist schließlich die

SPIEGEL ONLINE's Return to Vassalage

(By Ray Drake)

One of SPIEGEL ONLINE's favorite hobbies used to be smearing Tony Blair as a mind-numbed "vassal" of the United States. Blair was repeatedly lambasted as a poodle, lapdog or underling of the Bush administration...even as then Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was signing billion dollar pipeline deals with Russia, ignoring atrocities in Chechnya and openly praising Vladimir Putin as a "spotless democrat." Since Angela Merkel took office, the "vassal" rhetoric seems to have subsided...or so we thought.

The "vassal" rhetoric is back and this time the perpetrator is Amerika-Korrespondent Gerhard Spoerl. In his most recent article, entitled "Bye, Bye Blockheads" Spoerl celebrates what he describes as the downfall of America's neo-conservative movement. He writes:

"John Bolton was among the subservient ones, the vassals who were increasingly congregating around strong figures like Rumsfeld. Douglas Feith was another one. But does anyone remember him? He was allowed to bully intelligence officials who had the audacity to voice an opinion on weapons of mass destruction that diverged from that of the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Cheney. Bolton ended up as the Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations. Yet another irony of fate: Bolton, the blockhead and America First type, as UN ambassador. As a diplomat. And now he has resigned. Finally."

Bolton as a diplomat! How terrible. Damned blockhead. Why couldn't he be more of a gentlemen like German diplomats? Take his German counterpart at the United Nations, Dr. Guenter Pleuger: When confronted (by me) with a magazine cover depicting Americans as parasitic blood-suckers at a talk held earlier this year at Georgetown University, he refused to condemn or so much as distance himself from the caricature. In fact, Dr. Pleuger looked right at the cover as I showed it to an audience of listeners and declared that anti-Americanism is "not a problem" in German media. Then of course there was the other German diplomat in New York who compared human rights in the United States to human rights in North Korea.

Interestingly enough, after deriding Bolton as a "vassal" and "blockhead," Spoerl cannot list a single example of what Bolton did wrong while serving at the United Nations. Apparently, engaging in petty name-calling is enough to engage the SPIEGEL audience.

The article also features another oft-used smear tactic common at SPIEGEL ONLINE:

• The "smear photo": A photo or photo caption that makes the subject look ridiculous, stupid, ugly, aggressive, silly or presents them in a generally unflattering manner. See this gallery of photos that accompanied the Spoerl article: Perle and Kristol are quite obvious examples. The "smear photo" technique has been quite common through much of German media for years now.

The photo gallery also includes Richard Armitage as one of the eight key neo-cons in America. Yet anyone who knows Armitage knows that he cannot stand Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith and other "neo-cons" or conservative "hawks" in the Bush administration who he views as having betrayed Colin Powell, his former superior in the State Department. To label him a "neo-con" at this point is questionable at best.

And like so many other members of the Far Left, Spoerl looks down his nose at his political opponents by claiming that they were fools to believe that Iraqis would welcome Americans in 2003. It has become a given fact for many on the far-left that no Iraqis welcomed the Americans. Unfortunately, reality contradicts this all-too common revisionism. Many Iraqis clearly did welcome the Americans and these videos (and many more like them) prove it:

As we have mentioned before: Gerhard Spoerl and others like him are the true vassals. They are vassals to a special 1968-brand ideology of anti-American Schadenfreude that their sick readers simply can't seem to get enough of. They will twist facts and reality to fit their worldview and have demonstrated their willingness to do so time and again. They are intellectually stuck in the Vietnam-era and see everything through the prism of defeat for America, its military and its President. Right now, they are crowing and thumping their chests in self-satisfaction. What happens to the people of Iraq and what happened to the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after a US withdrawal is something they could truly care less about. If a few million people have to die for them to be right and maintain a firm footing on the moral high ground - then so be it.

And let us close by asking this: How often have you seen people like Gerhard Spoerl lifting so much as a finger to make the world a better place? All they can do is criticize and tear others apart because deep down they are so pathetic, miserable and inadequate. They would rather ridicule and wallow in their own cynicism than spend a moment formulating constructive, measured criticism in an attempt to find a better way forward. 

But hey, don't let the innuendo bother you. After all, the good folks at SPIEGEL are just trying to please their million readers.