Davids Medienkritik

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Murder, Tobacco and Propaganda

(By Guest Author Helian)

Predictably, SPON didn’t let the opportunity of the 400^th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown settlement slip to launch one of its characteristically distorted propaganda broadsides. 

The title of this latest offering, “Battle over the Murder and Tobacco Settlement,” gives us a broad hint about the level of “balance” and “objectivity” we are to encounter in the rest of the piece.

The title certainly doesn’t deceive. SPON lays on the propaganda in generous dollops from beginning to end. With rare historical insight we are informed that:

“Today historians know exactly who they (the original settlers) were, and that knowledge is very revealing. A priest, but no farmers, along with carpenters, masons, smiths and doctors – not the occupations one would expect for a village intended to provide for itself. Plunder, robbery, exploitation. That must have been the idea from the beginning.”

Not really, SPON. The “idea from the beginning” is there in the historical record for anyone who cares to read it. The settlers hoped to acquire food by trading with the Indians. Unfortunately, they arrived at a time of unprecedented drought, and quickly found they would have to provide for themselves. The idea that they planned to rely on “plunder, robbery, and exploitation” is a propaganda fairy tale of the 21^st century rather than the reality of the 17^th. 

SPON informs us ominously that, “The settlers raised tobacco instead of wheat.” Evidently they never took the time to read the Surgeon General’s warnings. They imported black slaves to help in the fields, negligently failing to build a time machine so they could learn that a practice that had been accepted as normal for countless centuries would be perceived as an evil 200 years later, almost exclusively thanks to the efforts of white Europeans living mainly in England, the very country that sent out the first settlers to Jamestown.

Evidently the editors of SPON are wringing their hands lest, in the hoopla surrounding Jamestown’s 400^th anniversary, we forget that “Millenia before the first Europeans arrived there were already people on this continent, and they represented a highly developed civilization.” They needn’t worry. We hear the same highly embellished legends of the “original occupants,” of America every Thanksgiving and Columbus Day like clockwork. The fairy tales we hear and that are accorded the status of “history” in our children’s school books are much the same as the SPON version. The Indians were noble stewards of the environment who peaceably went about creating a high culture and devoting themselves to peerless works of art until they were rudely pushed aside and gratuitously massacred by the evil white Europeans. As one of SPON’s subtitles announces, the whole history of America was nothing but “Extermination, Genocide, and Cruelty.” A couple of the usual obligatory “Indian chiefs” are dragged in to bitch about the white man’s wretched treatment of their noble forefathers. SPON conveniently overlooks a few salient facts in its paeon to the “noble savages.”

In the first place, it was the Indians, not the settlers, who were the first to break the peace at Jamestown. In spite of the fact that the first settlement was built on an island not previously occupied by the Indians, it was violently attacked less than two weeks after the arrival of the first colonists. This was hardly the last time the Indians initiated hostilities. They mounted a surprise attack in 1622 that killed, without distinction, 347 men, women and children. In the process they destroyed a fledgling school that had been founded to teach both Indian and white students. They attacked again in 1644, butchering another 500. Apparently we are to believe that, because the colonists defended themselves, they are guilty of “extermination, genocide and cruelty.” 

It’s instructive to look at the reality of “Indian culture,” rather than the tarted up fairy tale version dished up by SPON. When whites arrived in the new world, they found the “peaceful native Americans” cheerfully butchering and torturing each other. The Spanish conquistadors found temples whose walls and floors were caked inches thick with the blood of sacrificial victims. Take a close look at those works of art SPON informs us of so breathlessly. Aztec and Mayan murals and carvings depict bloody sacrifices and ceremonies, and gruesome torture of the victims. North America was also a scene of mutual slaughter, torture, and periodic starvation. Far from being the “first occupants” the Indians encountered by the whites had often annihilated earlier occupants of their territories. Far from being a uniform type, there are marked genetic differences between the different waves of occupiers. Modern Indians, preferring comforting myths to historical truth, have fought to suppress research in this area. In one notorious incident, they tried to claim the “Kennewick man” remains as one of their own and literally bury the evidence that humans of a type unrelated to them had been earlier occupants of the land. In a word, SPON would have us swallow the racist notion that whites were “evil” because they did to the Indians precisely what the Indians were doing to each other. You see, they didn’t have the proper skin color.

When the whites arrived, the Indians began treating them exactly the same way they treated each other. Many of the earliest white occupants of Pennsylvania, not to mention its colonial governing bodies, were dominated by Quakers who refused to participate in war, even in self defense. The result was that hundreds of these unresisting settlers were butchered by the Indians, and robbed of all that they had, often by “noble savages” who came hundreds of miles to participate in the slaughter even though they had no claim to the land whatsoever. From this we can see quite clearly what would have happened if we had been “fair” to the poor, innocent Indians in the modern, “progressive” sense. The Indians typically smashed out the brains of white infants against the nearest trees because they made too much noise on the trail. Captured whites were horribly tortured with fire in ordeals that lasted whole days, as long as the terribly burned victims could be kept alive.

This is the reality of the “high culture” of the Indians that SPON would regale us with. With all due respect to Chief Bill Miles of the Pamunkeys and Chief Ken Adams of the Mattaponi, I don’t mourn the passage of this part of America’s history. If, however, they really think it is such a tragic loss to humanity, perhaps we can shut down their gambling casinos and recreate their societies in every detail in that portion of eastern Germany originally occupied by the Slavs. After all, surely the editors of SPON wouldn’t dare to be a party to the acts of “Extermination, Genocide, and Cruelty” that led to the current German occupation of these lands. What a fitting act of reparation, not to mention righting of historical wrongs perpetrated by Europeans, to reestablish the culture of SPON’s beloved Indians in all its original splendor right in the heart of Europe!

Notice the Difference?

For our bilingual readers: Check out this CNN piece. Then look at this SPIEGEL piece on the same topic. Notice the difference? Note that CNN offers context and qualification - where SPIEGEL makes not attempt at anything but black-white propaganda. SPIEGEL also sets up the article so as to discredit those calling on the media to report progress in Iraq (in this case General Michael Walsh) - or anything but the latest bombing for that matter. Just more evidence that SPIEGEL ONLINE is a profoundly biased media outlet.

Anyone willing to translate the SPIEGEL piece into English - please post that in the comments section and we will put up a side-by-side comparison later. (Posted by Ray)

Predictable Media Reaction to Virginia Tech Tragedy: Gun Control, Hate-America and Bush Bashing

UPDATE #3: SPIEGEL ONLINE is now acknowledging the angry reaction from the United States.  But they add this in an English translation:

"It didn't take long before bloggers began attacking and Matt Drudge's faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers began spamming our In-Boxes and conservative political blogs resumed their attacks on the "European left."

So now anyone who does not agree with SPIEGEL's view of the world is a brainwashed zombie follower of Matt Drudge's "faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers." Let's make one thing very clear: You don't have to be American or conservative or from a red-state to be deeply upset by the callous, politically motivated reaction from European media - particularly left-leaning European media just like SPIEGEL ONLINE. For example, our comments section reflects the vigorous, and, at times heated, debate on gun control. There is, however, no debate as to the shameless and irresponsible nature of media coverage throughout Europe.

The SPIEGEL ONLINE article actually catalogs the most outrageous articles (here is a link to the English version) and offers several letters to the editor from the United States. Will Europeans finally start to understand that their media has done enormous damage to transatlantic relations - in this case and for years on end? With people like Uwe Schmitt out there, however, we still have a long way to go - but one can always hope...

UPDATE: "Journalist" Uwe Schmitt, correspondent for Die Welt - concludes an article on the killings with the line: "America is reaping what it sows." Can't he even wait until the dead are buried? Guess he is too busy trying to prove that American leaders are liars to the brain-dead Hate America audience to care.

NOTE: Uwe Schmitt has "adjusted" his article and taken out the hateful last lines after massive complaint.

UPDATE #2: Like Schmitt, Tagesspiegel is exploiting the tragedy to bash Bush and score political points:

"Amok in America: Bush Brings No Happiness: Sadness and compassion once again overshadowed by the behavior of the US President, who reflexively expressed that everyone must continue to have the right to own a weapon. That's called loyalty to your principles in Texas." Commentary by Peter Becker (On top of the Tagesspiegel homepage)

Once again Tagesspiegel and other German media are reflexively exploiting a tragedy in America to peddle their pet issues like gun-control and Bush-bashing to a willing audience eager to degrade the United States at all costs. President Bush never said that everyone had the right to own a weapon - he simply defended his stance on gun control - but actually explaining the debate and Bush's actual stance on gun control is a little too nuanced for Germany's propaganda central.

As expected, before the victims are even buried, SPIEGEL ONLINE is already exploiting the Virginia Tech tragedy to attack President Bush and politicize the gun control issue in one of their online forums. They could care less about the American friends who just got blown away. This is all about their agenda and selling more copy. Don't be surprised if much of the German media follows suit. Sick but true...

The forum question asks if Bush is right to defend the American right to bear arms. One SPIEGEL commenter left this entry: "Why sharpen (the gun laws)? You can't take away the Normal American's favorite toys as long as the Big American struts around with atomic bombs and aircraft carriers."

Actually - the killer was South Korean. But hey, what difference do the facts make...

Not much sympathy there for the American friends and the parents of the deceased. Comments like this are quite common on SPIEGEL forums - humanity goes right out the window.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: America Willing to "Accept Nuclear Catastrophe" in Europe

(By Ray Drake)

Another brilliant, objective masterpiece at SPIEGEL ONLINE on the proposed stationing of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Author Markus Becker presents the views of two "experts" who claim that extending the shield is dangerous, counter-productive and evidence that the United States and the Bush administration are willing to callously accept a "nuclear catastrophe in Europe." The article in question states the following:

"Controversial Defense: Experts warn about Bush's Porous Missile Shield

By Markus Becker

Experts are protesting US plans to extend the missile shield in Europe. The system would dangerously shake the balance of atomic weapons in the world - the Bush government would even be willing to accept a nuclear catastrophe in Europe. (...)

"The Danger is Fiction"

"The danger from Iranian atomic missiles is fiction," says Juergen Altmann, a physicist from the University of Dortmund. At the moment it is not yet foreseeable when the Mullah-state might have missiles that could carry atomic warheads. Iran also is a long way from possessing atomic weapons themselves. And after developing a simple fission bomb of the Hiroshima type, it would take a number of additional years before Iran could develop a high-tech warhead small and light enough to transport on a missile.

Even if Iran did one day possess a functioning long-range nuclear weapon: "The Iranians would hardly be crazy enough to risk an open attack on the US or its allies with such a weapon," says Geoffrey Forden, who also took part in the Berlin conference.

What, then, does the US government have in mind? Forden, an expert on strategic weapons at the renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston, sees not only defensive purposes for a global missile defense: "In the future, the USA wants to be able to wage conventional wars against nuclear armed nations." (...)

Danger of an Atomic Explosion in Europe

From the point of view of the USA it would be the best scenario if the missile could be neutralized before ever getting close to America. The disadvantage: During a shoot-down during the three-minute Boost-Phase, the intercept rocket would only strike the missile's propulsion. In a fortunate case, debris would rain down on Europe. In an unfortunate case, the warhead would remain intact, and would, depending on the height and speed of the missile, continue to fly for thousands of kilometers. "If it had an altitude detonator as the Hiroshima bomb did, it could detonate somewhere over Europe," said Neuneck."

That proves it: According to this article, Americans are willing to stand by and watch Europeans get fried in an atomic fireball. They are willing to "accept" a nuclear holocaust in Europe - essentially as a side-effect to securing their own defense.

Above: The article in question is featured on the SPIEGEL ONLINE homepage under the "Science" section.

Stop: Think about that for a moment. Think about what readers (who actually believe that they are reading a reliable media source) must be thinking about the United States when they read the opening paragraph. ... Can you imagine the feelings of hatred and resentment that this breeds?

Not surprisingly, this ugly polemic systematically ignores the opinions of experts with a different view of the missile defense shield. The one dissenting voice presented - that of General Klaus Naumann - is dismissed at length by the so-called "experts." Further, the article is clearly intended to raise fear levels about a potential arms race while downplaying the threat posed by Iran. Whether the defensive shield is truly aimed at Russia or bound to start a new arms race is debatable - but the article offers little debate or balance. Further, there is no debate on the highly questionable assertion that the "danger (from Iran) is fiction."

What is not debatable, however, is the unashamed anti-Americanism that flows from the outrageous claim that the Bush administration would be willing to accept (as a mere side-effect) a nuclear catastrophe in Europe. This formulation is nothing more than the usual Hate-America screed that we have come to expect from SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Let us conclude with this: We have experienced and documented this brand of Hate-America "journalism" day-for-day for the past four years now. And yet, some people still have the nerve to tell us that America's bad image is all America's fault and that the European "friends" are just trying to offer constructive criticism. As one of my favorite professors is so fond of saying: Bullshit.

ENDNOTE: Message to Mr. Claus Christian Malzahn - When you read your own publication's articles - is it any wonder that Germans fear America more than Iran? Put another way: Please don't preach to us about the dangers of anti-Americanism before you clean up your own act at SPIEGEL ONLINE. Better yet - tell our bosses at SPIEGEL ONLINE they can "take this job and shove it." You are far too honest and professional a journalist to work for such frauds Mr. Malzahn.

To contact SPIEGEL ONLINE regarding this piece, click here. Let's make a wild prediction: They probably won't publish Becker's work on their English Site. 

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Breathtaking Article on Anti-Americanism by C.C. Malzahn

(By Ray Drake)

UPDATE: THE ENGLISH VERSION IS UP. This is an absolute must-read.   

As we have mentioned before, every great once in a while - either Henryk Broder or Claus Christian Malzahn are allowed to post a token article on SPIEGEL ONLINE that goes against the usual anti-American grain of the magazine. The latest installment by Claus Christian Malzahn, entitled Böse Amis, arme Mullahs, is absolutely ground breaking and a must read. It is stunning in its honesty and directness - harshly criticizing the results of a survey revealing that 48% of Germans believe that the US is more dangerous than Iran - with only 31% believing the opposite. Yet, as we detail below, it omits a key element.

UPDATE #2: Katja Gloger - not exactly an unbiased bystander - also chimes in with concern at Stern over the poll results showing far more Germans see America as a threat than Iran. This has been a truly stunning week.

MAJOR PROBLEM: Neither Malzahn nor Gloger address the key role German media, particularly SPIEGEL and Stern, have played in drastically raising the level of anti-Americanism in Germany over the past several years. In that sense they and their colleagues remain - (Thomas Kleine Brockhoff comes to mind) - in a deep "state of denial." Introspection and self-criticism are painful - but to ignore the horrific malpractice and anti-Americanism in German media over the past several years is, in a sense, to play the audience for fools.

We love your article Claus Christian: But if you want to be completely honest - how about mentioning your own publication's major role in promoting German anti-Americanism?

Simply put: Although we welcome the discussion of anti-Americanism, it is disingenuous for journalists working for SPIEGEL and Stern to preach about the problem of anti-Americanism and point the finger of guilt at others without a large and hefty dose of self-criticism. Until that honest self-criticism comes - little will change in German media. Mr. Malzahn correctly notes that: "Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics." He fails to mention that it also the highly profitable wonder drug of German media - as the covers above graphically illustrate.

Token articles like these will continue to pop-up like ephemeral mushrooms whenever polls reveal the most disturbing symptoms of the Hate-America disease that has infected so many. In fact, a very similar round of token articles appeared in 2003 when polls revealed that 31% of Germans under 30 believed that the US government could have been behind the September 11 attacks. Then as now, German media wringed their hands in embarrassment and fired off a few critical articles denouncing the most extreme manifestations of Hate-America. SPIEGEL even dedicated a cover to the problem - but nothing fundamentally changed - and the German media was soon back to business as usual.

Endnote: We do have to give Mr. Malzahn some credit: He has consistently written against anti-Americanism in Germany. In his article, he even criticizes the beliefs held by many SPIEGEL ONLINE readers. Unfortunately, he does not take the painful and necessary step of criticizing his own publication. It is hard to criticize yourself, your colleagues and your entire field - no question. But, in this case, the problem will never truly be addressed or go away until someone in the field openly admits that the problem exists - as Eberhard Piltz and others did in private interviews. Finally: We have been documenting and debating the problem of anti-Americanism in German society and media for four years now - why has it taken German media so long to awaken to this problem?

Endnote #2: If you understand German - and truly want to test your sanity - check out the Hate-America comments written in the SPIEGEL ONLINE Forum on the Malzahn article. Every Hate-America opinion, conspiracy theory, resentment and one-sided, profoundly biased rant under the sun has legs on this forum.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Another Interview Rip-Off

One of our commenters points out the following:

"Check out the classic SPON bait and switch in this interview with economist Jagdish Bhagwati. In the blurb after the headline, which SPON usually reserves for the heavy propaganda, we read, "Im SPIEGEL-ONLINE-Interview wünscht er sich von der Administration mehr Mut zur Autonomie... und ein Ende der schleichenden Amerikanisierung." ("In an interview with SPIEGEL-ONLINE he expresses the wish that the (European) Administration would show it is serious about... putting a stop to creeping Americanization.") "Creeping Americanization" is usually a code phrase for the introduction of "U.S. social conditions" as they are represented in the alternate reality of SPON propaganda. But wait! Bhagwati doesn't quite mention "creeping Americanization" in the usual SPON sense. Let's have a look at the actual interview:

Bhagwati:  ... Die einzige echte Kritik, die ich an der EU habe, ist dass sie in gewisser Weise zu amerikanisch geworden ist.
SPIEGEL ONLINE:  Wie das?
Bhagwati: Sie will anderen Ländern zu oft ihre Sichtweisen aufzwingen. Beim Europäischen Parlament gibt es die Neigung, anderen Staaten zu sagen: Klar wollen wir Handel mit Euch, aber Ihr müsst das und das und jenes dafür erfüllen. Ihr braucht Öko-Etiketten oder wir belegen Euch mit Zöllen. Wenn Ihr im Indischen Ozean fischt, bitte nur mit bestimmten Netzen, damit keine Schildkröten darin verenden - denn dann gibt es Sanktionen. Das ist eine Art von Neokolonialismus. Beruhigt Euch! Es geht hier um arme Länder, die ihren Weg zu demokratischen Werten und einer funktionierenden Wirtschaft suchen. Sie werden schon selbst darauf kommen, was richtig ist. Sie wollen jedenfalls nicht von der EU herumgeschubst werden, auch wenn sie noch so gute Absichten hat.

Translation:
Bhagwati:  The one real criticism I can level at the EU is that, in some ways, it has become too American.
SPIEGEL ONLINE:  (Perking up their ears) In what way?
Bhagwati: It wants to force its point of view on other countries. One often sees a tendency in the European parliament to say to other countries, sure, we want to trade with you, but only if you fulfil this, that, and the other condition. You need European certification, or we'll impose fines on you. When you fish in the Indian Ocean, please, only with certain kinds of nets, so you don't kill any turtles by mistake - otherwise we'll have to impose sanctions. That's a form of neo-colonialism. Calm yourselves! We're talking about countries that are trying to feel their way towards democratic values and a functioning economy here. They will eventually do what's right on their own. In any case, they don't want to be pushed around by the EU, no matter how good their intentions are.

Voila! "Creeping Americanization" has suddenly been redefined to mean an "American" insistence that other countries not rape the environment in the process of acquiring goods they sell to us. Since this is the form of "creeping Americanization" SPON must have been referring to in its propaganda banner, does this mean the editors want the EU to stop trying to force Kyoto down our throats? Just asking."

Indeed. The assertion that Bhagwati comes out against "creeping Americanization" in the interview is nothing more than bogus interpretation intended to please and attract the Hate-America audience. In fact, Bhagwati is talking about trade practices - not about the social phenomena associated in Europe with "Americanization."

UPDATE: A commenter writes:

"I always laugh when I hear Europeans talk about Americanization. How about the centuries of Europeanization of the planet that have left an indelible mark on the entire globe? European intellectuals seem very comortable exporting European culture and ideas but then balk when someone else exports their culture and ideas to their shores."

The "Americanization" fear-mongering in Germany and elsewhere certainly is ridiculous. In many cases it is the result of cultural arrogance and condescension on the part of many Europeans for what they view as inferior or superficial American "(non)-culture" and "way-of-life."

By the way: Who is holding a gun to anyone's head in Germany forcing them to eat at McDonalds, buy blue jeans, or listen to hip-hop? These are all free and voluntary choices made by European consumers - who then turn around and cynically blame Americans for "forcing" their culture onto others - as they busily export European culture to every corner of the globe. The McDonalds that have sprouted up around Germany like so many mushrooms are not there because anyone in America forced fast food on Germans - they are there because Germans can't stuff Big-Macs and french fries into their faces fast enough. That is the plain truth - enough with the reflexive blame-America crap.

Another reader recently emailed us the following:

Did either of you see the HR1 Stadgespräch "Raus aus Afghanistan?" on TV yesterday? It was about whether Germany should pull out the Tornado fighter planes. The guest opposing the planes was a (former?) officer pilot (Jürgen Rose, Oberstleutnant ) who .. and this was shocking ... spewed cliché'd anti-Americanism in a manner that was unbelievable! He was like a paranoid, delusional, and, frankly, crazed man. But the biggest shock for me was that the VAST majority of the audience was enthusiastically applauding him when he REPEATEDLY said things like: hypocritical imperialist völkerrechtwidrige USA. Of course, no word from him about how the Taliban attacked the US first, and that the US doesn't kidnap civilians and cut their heads off, like recently happened to the poor driver of an Italian reporter.

How stupid do the Germans have to be to not be able to differentiate: Iraq invasion = questionably wrong, Afghanistan invasion = couldn't be more obviously right!

I can't tell you how depressing this was for me. To see how many Germans are thankless, ignorant, and thinking only of their own (temporary) peace. I am disgusted!"

Unfortunately, we can't find an online link to the actual discussion he is referring to - but this does not surprise us at all. After all, a majority of Germans want their troops out of Afghanistan. In other words - the oft repeated mantra that Germans are only against Iraq is nonsense. So much for the German commitment to the war on terror. Perhaps we can find our German troops a more safe development project with the Girl Scouts a little closer to home.. (Posted by Ray Drake)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: More Biased Iraq Coverage

(By Ray Drake)

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, Iraqis are terribly desperate, fearful of the future and itching to get rid of foreign troops - yet the most evil and stubborn man in the world, George W. Bush, simply won't listen and doesn't care. Not surprisingly - the picture presented to German readers is one-sided and highly simplistic - yet wrapped in a guise of legitimate journalism. Below is the homepage from yesterday:

"Poll: Iraqis Increasingly Desperate - Bush Asks for Patience

The poll results are devastating: Three-quarters of Iraqis barely trust they can walk the streets, increasingly few look hopefully to the future. Four years after the start of the Iraq war around 80 percent want to get rid of foreign troops, but US President Bush won't yield.

TV Documentary from Iraq: "I regret the fall of the Saddam Statue"
Anniversary of the Iraq War: Bush warns of dangers of troop withdrawal"

SPIEGEL ONLINE goes on to mention that 40% of Iraqis primarily blame President Bush (9%) or the USA (31%) for the violence and lack of security. That is true, but the publication failed to mention the following facts from the very same poll in its piece:

• Only 35% of all Iraqis and only 36% of Baghdad residents want US troops to leave now. 65% want US troops to stay with conditions. This stands in stark contrast to the impression given by SPON.
• When "asked whether their lives were overall better or worse than before the invasion, 43 percent said better, 36 percent worse and the rest about the same."
• "Despite their pessimism, 47 percent of Iraqis still said it was somewhat or absolutely right for the U.S.-led forces to invade Iraq. But again respondents were divided on sectarian grounds, with 70 percent of Shi'ites in favour and only two percent of Sunni Arabs expressing any support for the war."
• "Most Iraqis accuse other countries in the region of meddling in their affairs and fomenting violence. Among those surveyed, 71% say Iran is actively encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq, 66% say Syria encourages violence, and 56% say the same of Saudi Arabia."
• (Source)

Further, SPIEGEL ONLINE writes that "only 42% of Iraqis still believe that their children will have a better life." They fail to mention that fewer Iraqis - 37% - felt their children would have it worse - and the remaining 21% said it would be about the same. To see the complete poll results unfiltered by SPIEGEL ONLINE, click here.

The SPIEGEL article also fails to report the following findings from another poll of 5,000 Iraqis conducted by Opinion Research Business, a British market research company:

• Only 27 percent of Iraqis believe their country is in a civil war.
• 49% of those questioned preferred living under the current government to living under Saddam Hussein. Only 26% said things had been better with Saddam. (How does that fit to the headline above that certain Iraqis regret pulling down the Saddam statue?) 

Obviously, the polling data is complex, sharply divided along sectarian lines and, at times, contradictory. There is no doubt that fewer Iraqis are optimistic now than in 2005. Most are affected by violence in some way and the majority are distrustful of foreign troops. This reflects the highly violent situation on the ground and real mistakes made over the years by the Bush administration and its partners.

However, when we look honestly at all of the polling data, it quickly becomes apparent that the reporting from SPIEGEL ONLINE is black-and-white, biased and highly selective. The publication cherry-picks and blends the facts it needs to fit the pessimistic, anti-American template that it has created for itself and its readers. Facts that contradict or complicate that template are left by the wayside, ignored or discarded.

This has become a troubling pattern: In its zeal to please the readers and adhere to an ideological line, SPIEGEL ONLINE and other German media chronically ignore key facts and fail to tell the entire story. They apparently think the entire truth would would upset readers already conditioned in their views through consistent exposure to only those facts that reaffirm pre-existing world views. In the process, reality becomes warped and news consumers find themselves unable to discuss Iraq with anyone who does not have exclusively negative views of the situation.

Endnote: Perhaps SPIEGEL ONLINE ought to cover this for the German readership. On the other hand, the fact that they are finally questioning the fraud that is and was the Lancet study is a breath of fresh air.

UPDATE: Looking at our comments, and looking around the German media, much of the recent Iraq coverage has much the same tone.

American Thinker: "Germany's Anti-American Neurosis"

Today James Lewis of "American Thinker" published a bare-knuckled account of German media that is harsh and takes no prisoners. Excerpts:

"Germany's Anti-American Neurosis

A neurotic obsession is like a bone stuck in your throat. You can't swallow it and you can't spit it out. That is how the German media are hooked on America. It doesn't look quite sane. For Americans, the best web guide to the German media is davids medienkritik. (David's media critique).

What you find out on this passionately written site, devoted to fighting anti-American hatred, is that something very weird is going on between the Lowlands and Poland. Something neurotic, in tens of millions of minds. And while we know that you can't always generalize from media madness to ordinary people, we also know that the media swing a huge weight of influence. So when the German Organs of Propaganda go weird and hateful, get ready to worry. Really.

The examples of obsessive anti-Americanism are all over big German news magazines like Spiegel and Stern. For instance,

1. The Statue of Liberty with a death's head instead of the Romantic goddess of liberty.

2. A close-up of the American flag covered with "BLUT FÜR ÖL".

3. George Bush in front of a giant black cross, "A MISSION FROM GOD."

4. A horrible Abu Ghraib figure in black garb, headlined "THE TORTURERS OF BAGHDAD."

5. A sadistic-looking Rambo muscle man on the cover, emblazoned "OPERATION RAMBO --- The  Secret Troops of the USA."

This is the mainstream press in Germany. In other words, what the American Leftist nutroots make up as paranoid fantasies becomes the dominant narrative in Germany. And their endless refrain is that American soldiers are no better than Nazis.

This is more than just steam-out-of-the-ears dislike of the United States. I mean, if you don't like France or Bosnia, why not ignore those places? Just take your vacations in Hawaii. Judging by Davids medienkritik, the Germans just can't let go of us in their collective minds. They are hooked on anti-Americanism, and they can't turn it off. They can't just stop buying Der Spiegel, with its repetetive anti-American slander campaigns. It's the bone in their throats. 

The European media go for the really nutso tales. The most recent headlines shout out that there's a whole new "trend" in America: Apparently our teens are going out at night to kill homeless people. It used to be Elvis and hip-hop, and now it's murdering street people for fun. How's that for nuts? It's like being stalked by some obsessional maniac because your shoes squeak too loud.

That's another oddity. There are things to criticize about every country in the world. Nobody in the United States is completely satisfied, and Americans always look for ways to improve ourselves, to solve problems and make progress. Nobody is happy with our crime rate, but we are always trying to fix it (with considerable success). That's rational.

The German neurosis isn't like that. They're not saying, "we like this about America, but we don't like that." They just keep pushing outrageous slanders that have no basis in reality, and then get übermad about us as moral defectives; the next week they come back and repeat the process. Then they do it again.  And again. They can't swallow their anti-American fishbone, and they can't spit it out. (...)"

Wow. The unsettling part of reading this is that it is that it is difficult to say whether Mr. Lewis is being too general or not about Germans in this piece. It would be nice to say he is being to general - but is he? We know that not all Germans are like this, but it is hard to say that what he has written is entirely untrue - much of it rings of harsh, unpleasant truth. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

This comments section is going to be absolutely fascinating... (Article posted by Ray)

UPDATE: Author James Lewis has posted this direct response to our comments on his article. Click here. He graciously admits his translation errors and has now corrected them in the original. We disagree with him on Schroeder - we doubt that Gmaelin's comments were somehow "arranged" in advance or that Schroeder made such a comparison, which Mr. Lewis seems to imply. With all due respect, that sounds like a baseless theory. As Mr. Lewis politely suggests, we will have to agree to disagree on that. In our opinion, the ex-Justice Minister spontaneously uttered her true thoughts out loud in the midst of an intense campaign - which is bad enough.

Otherwise, Mr. Lewis' article provides an interesting starting point for a necessary conversation - he expresses provocative and interesting thoughts that need to be addressed - his "bone stuck in the throat" analogy is particularly noteworthy - we thank him for his prompt response and open willingness to take responsibility for errors and look forward to more interesting comments...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Violence Against Homeless a "Trendsport" in the USA

(By Ray Drake)

SPIEGEL ONLINE has returned to its old modus operandi. It goes something like this: First, find an extreme and unusual act of grotesque violence or some other extreme form of social deviancy related to the United States. Second, extrapolate the incident onto the entire nation. Earlier cases include: The New York power outage. SPIEGEL reacted with a sensational cover accompanied by articles insisting that the United States was a faltering superpower with a third rate power grid. Then there was Abu Ghraib, which SPIEGEL exploited two years after the fact to proclaim the the incident was "America's Shame" and represented "torture in the name of freedom." The magazine also labeled US troops "mercenaries" and "torturers." And let's not forget that story on unemployment in Kannapolis, North Carolina (where unemployment is actually dramatically lower than in most of Germany) used to paint the United States as a land of predatory capitalism and heartless Social Darwinism.

The latest installment is an article entitled: 'Brutal "Trendsport" in the USA: Teenagers Hunt the Homeless'. That's right folks: According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, it's the latest hip trend sweeping the United States. Young people can't get enough of this new sport: Everywhere you look, homeless people are being mercilessly beaten by roving bands of drunk and high teenagers. The bodies are piling up left and right and the hospitals are overflowing. Right.

To prove that brutalizing homeless people is in fact a new "Trendsport" in America, SPIEGEL ONLINE notes that, according to National Coalition of the Homeless, there were 122 attacks, 20 of them fatal, against homeless individuals last year in a nation of 300 million. This is presented as more evidence that America is the home of a brutal, heartless capitalism where rich, dope-smoking teenagers prey on the downtrodden and oppressed underclass.   

But wait. If we are going to follow that logic and those standards, then beating and killing the homeless has long been a "Trendsport" in Germany as well. Take these examples:

• Tageszeitung reported on January 17, 2007 that a 45 year old homeless man was attacked by two young men in Hannover (reportedly the second such attack in the new year alone in Hannover!) The man sustained injuries to the face and ribs.
• In December 2006, a homeless man was beaten down in the Prenzlauer Berg section of Berlin by a 23 year old who filmed the incident.
• In 2003, eight German youth, aged 12 to 19, beat a homeless man to death in a forest near Neulussheim, Germany.

Johann Babies, a German homeless man beaten to death in 2003 by German youth aged 12 to 19.

• In 2001, five men beat a 61 year-old homeless man to death in Brandenburg and in 2000 a 45 year-old homeless man was beaten to death by three Skinheads in Greifswald.
• In 2000, two drunken Skinheads beat a homeless man to death in Schleswig.

These cases listed above took ten minutes to Google. There are undoubtedly further recent examples of beatings and murders of German homeless. Suffice it to say that such attacks represent neither a trend nor a sport in either Germany or the USA. They are the senseless acts of deranged individuals that in no way reflect on the larger state of either nation. Unfortunately, SPIEGEL ONLINE has again chosen to vilify the United States in the most crude manner by implying that these incidents reflect the society at large. Nowhere does the publication bother to mention that the American people spend unprecedented amounts of time and money (through both the public and private sectors) to help the homeless at home and abroad.

Frankly put: The "Trendsport" article is both an ugly smear of the United States and an unabashed example of trashy German media hypocrisy of the worst sort. Here again, German media have demonstrated that it is far more convenient and comfortable to vilify World-Scapegoat-America than it is to look in the mirror at the many social, economic and political problems that plague Germans in their own backyard. The only surprise about this piece? That they didn't find a way to blame it all on Bush.

Endnote: If their is any "Trendsport" to speak of in all of this, it is the tireless anti-Americanism that has grown to disease-like proportions in German media including SPIEGEL ONLINE and among the consumers of this form of media. The fact that SPIEGEL has published so many articles and covers like this is a clear indicator that Hate-America is an all too popular "Trendsport" in Germany.

UPDATE: It is relatively difficult to find statistics on violence against the homeless in Germany. According to the Berliner Tenants' Association website, at least 20 homeless people were murdered in Germany in 2000. That's the same number of fatalities reported by SPIEGEL to have occurred in the US in 2006. If anyone can locate official government statistics on this for Germany, please point them out in our comments section.

UPDATE #2: Several commenters correctly point to another trend at SPIEGEL ONLINE: Like so much of their recent "reporting" on the United States, this article is little more than a regurgitated translation of English-language media excerpts that fit the magazine's ideological bill. In this specific case, it was a CNN report.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Senate Republicans use "Tricks" to Block Resolution

(By Ray Drake)

Those tricky Republicans. It's a good thing we have the German media to uncover their tricks. Recently, SPIEGEL ONLINE caught them red-handed in the tricky jar. The online magazine discovered that Republican blockage of the non-binding Iraq resolution in the Senate was extremely tricky. And, oh, by the way: President Bush is "under growing pressure" for the five-billionth time since he took office. It doesn't seem to matter what the situation is - if we follow the German media - Bush is perpetually under "massive and growing pressure."

Now back to the "tricks" of those oh-so-tricky Senate Republicans. SPIEGEL ONLINE writes:

"Tricks in the Senate

The news put further pressure on George W. Bush. The front against his Iraq policy is growing. Yesterday, the Republicans did, in fact, hinder a resolution in the US Senate against Bush's Iraq policy and the deployment of further troops. However only barely and with tricks: 60 Senators had to vote yes in order to break off the week-long debate over Bush's Iraq plans and over that critical resolution that decides for a change of course that already passed the House of Representatives on Friday. But in the end it did not suffice. 56 Senators voted yes, 34 no.

"Filibuster" is what this game is called in the US Senate, with which the minority can put the brakes on the majority."

Interesting. When the Republicans ran Congress and minority Democrats repeatedly employed the same tactic, it was never described as deceit or trickery by SPIEGEL ONLINE. When Democrats blocked the nomination of John Bolton, it was described by SPON as a "power struggle" between determined, stubborn Democrats and a "Schlappe" or defeat for Bush.

SPIEGEL ONLINE's very different handling of the identical legislative phenomenon openly exposes the pervasive bias that plagues the publication, making it difficult if not impossible for its readers to end up as anything but misinformed.

Bottom line: The "nuanced" world of SPIEGEL "journalism" is often starkly black and white: Democrats = Good;  Republicans = Evil Tricky. Put another way: You are either left-of-center or you are against us.

Endnote: This past Sunday, ZDF heute Journal explained that the Democrats "could not get the two-thirds" majority they needed to end debate. Hmmmm. Let me get my calculator out... 60/100 = 2/3?? Either the "Amerika-Experten" at ZDF can't do basic division or they simply don't know what they are talking about.

This Week's Spiegel Cover: Punish the Rich Little Blond Girl

(By Ray Drake)

Der Spiegel Slams Germany's True Enemy: The Wealthy

This week's SPIEGEL cover exploits a favorite set of issues that never fail to resonate with the readers: Class warfare - punishing success - Neidkultur. The only thing missing is a swarm of capitalist locusts and maybe Bush doing a Hitler salute:

Der Spiegel: "Inheritance Instead of Work: Of the Unconscionable Luck of Getting Rich with Tax Breaks"

The cover makes it seem as if the the few wealthy German heirs who still don't have their money on a fast train to Switzerland or Luxembourg somehow pose a grave threat to society. A wealthy little girl is shown sitting on the grave of her benefactor as gold coins rain from the sky and fall into her nightgown. Talk about beating petty German class jealousies to death. The word "pathetic" comes to mind...

Let us make one suggestion: Instead of pursuing its obvious obsession with punishing wealth and success, perhaps SPIEGEL should explore a true menace to the fabric of German society: The chronic dependence of much of the general population on welfare benefits and entitlements and the spiral of high taxes and shadow economies that inherently follow.

A better headline would have read: Welfare Not Work: Germany's Unconscionable Bureaucrat Class and the Dependent Society. Here's a proposed edit: 

Fire half the bureaucrats now and the other half later, slash the outrageous spa benefits, lower taxes and stop blaming everything on the wealthy and "society" for a change. I know - I know - most Germans will never go along with this. They seem to prefer elegant decay to real progress. You can always dream I guess. In the meantime, we can keep blaming Bush and America and the rich for all the world's problems if we don't feel good about ourselves.

Changing the subject...: On January 11, 2007, SPIEGEL ONLINE published an article entitled, "New Iraq Strategy: Republicans Refuse to Follow Bush." In fact, a more accurate headline would have included the word "Few" before the word "Republicans." But in a world where reporting on the United States revolves around kicking Bush while he is down, reality can quickly blur into wishful thinking. Chuck Hagel, long a maverick Senator, suddenly came to represent "Republicans." By contrast, the forty-plus Republican Senators who do not share his views were barely mentioned.

For SPIEGEL ONLINE and the Democrats, reality has begun to sink in. Supporters of a resolution to oppose the proposed surge could not even muster fifty (let alone sixty) votes. So much for the political "earthquake." The vote emphatically demonstrates that the vast majority of Republicans do not support Hagel nor do they support resolutions to condemn the surge or cut off funding. To its credit, SPIEGEL ONLINE has acknowledged the facts.

German Media's Anti-Americanism Sinks to New Lows

Not that it comes as a surprise. It's just a logical forward step in the German media driven hate campaign against the U.S.:

"Munich to US: Don't Send Your CIA Thugs out to Europe's Streets" is the headline of SPIEGEL ONLINE, taken from Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ). Both media outlets have a long history of anti-American polemic "reporting".

The headline and the accompanying articles in SPON and SZ refer to 13 arrest warrants issued by Munich prosecutors against CIA agents in the case of the alleged abduction of Khaled Al-Masri. We have frequently quoted in our blog the investigation of John Rosenthal into the questionable activities and connections of Al-Masri. (Historians know: it's not the first time the U.S. secret intelligence service meddled into German affairs...)

Al-Masri reaches almost a saint status in the German media's reporting (with very few exceptions) - after all, he is considered a victim of the evil American empire and it's stromtroopers. Oops, mistyped: should of course read "thugs".

You may throw up now...

Additional commentary from Ray: The most appalling aspect of this is that the holier-than-thou European governments issuing these arrest warrants almost certainly knew of and collaborated with the CIA's covert action program of rendition from the very beginning. Furthermore, the German government has known about the Masri situation since at least 2004 and chose to remain silent until now. These warrants are little more than cynical moral grandstanding to win points with the electorate from a government that has repeatedly demonstrated that supporting human rights and confronting real "thugs" in places like Iran and Sudan take a backseat to German trade interests.

As usual, the German media would rather focus on bashing the United States. After all, they wouldn't want to dig too deeply into the dark dealings of their ideological allies in the former Social Democrat-led Schroeder government. Once again: Germany good. America bad.

Henryk Broder: "Hurra, wir kapitulieren!" Part 2

(By Ray Drake)

Not long ago, I posted about a recent meeting with Henryk Broder at a book signing for his new work, "Hurra, wir kapitulieren!".

Well, now you can read a few excerpts from his book in English, perhaps the first worthwhile text published at SPIEGEL ONLINE International since its founding.

Click here to read "Hurra, wir kapitulieren!"

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

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Germany Good - America Bad

(By Ray Drake)

In the dastardly world of criminals, fanatical terrorists and child pornographers have a special place reserved in hell. That is why it was particularly encouraging to read this week that German authorities had won a major victory against child pornographers. How did they do it? SPIEGEL ONLINE author Jens Todt describes it this way:

"Child Pornography on the Internet: Investigators check all German credit cards for the first time

Spectacular strike against child pornography on the Internet: Investigators from Sachsen-Anhalt had hundreds of residences and businesses searched on federal territory. According to information from SPIEGEL ONLINE, all credit cards in Germany were checked over in advance: more than 22 million."

The article goes on to detail how the efforts of the investigators have resulted in the identification of 322 suspects. In a follow-up article, Todt attributes the strike's success to the "one time cooperation between the investigators and 14 banks." He details how investigators have continued to track suspects around the globe to as far away as the Philippines.

This was undoubtedly a successful strike against a particularly disturbing group of criminals. But there is another reason we point this out. Note that the investigators ran a check on all 22 million credit card holders in Germany. You would think that such an action would raise serious questions at SPIEGEL ONLINE as to whether the authorities were violating privacy laws or civil liberties or even spying on unsuspecting Germans. In the first article, those questions are simply not addressed. Instead, the author describes the action only as a "spectacular strike against child pornography." In the second piece, Todt quotes authorities to reassure readers that the credit cards were only looked at for specific data sets that fulfilled certain characteristics. Sachsen-Anhalt's officer for the protection of private data is quoted as saying that the action was not about checking the activities of all German credit card holders but about finding a small circle of suspects. Sachsen-Anhalt's Justice Minister Angela Kolb is quoted as saying that the action will have a "preventative effect." Little, if any, skepticism is expressed over the action in terms of privacy rights, spying or civil liberties. The overall tone is reassuring and positive.

OK. So why are we making a big deal out of this? Well, let's take a look at the tone of SPIEGEL ONLINE's reporting from just this past summer when it was discovered that the US government was using financial data from international banks to track and detain violent terrorists:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE - June 23, 2006 - By Tim Hoefinghoff
Account data spied upon worldwide: Banks remain silent, consumer advocates alarmed
The CIA, with the help of the transactions-firm Swift looked through information in thousands of accounts worldwide. German bank customers are probably also affected. But the banks remain doggedly silent on the controversial anti-terror action of the USA. Consumer advocates speak of a scandal."

"SPIEGEL ONLINE - July 18, 2006
Sensitive bank data - US intelligence service continues surveillance
When it became known that the intelligence services of the US government had been monitoring the transactions of bank customers since the attacks on the World Trade Center, the outcry was great. The massive criticism has apparently not made an impression on the investigators."

"SPIEGEL ONLINE - July 11, 2006
European Economy: Fear of US Industrial Espionage
Among fear is growing among European firms that the USA is engaging more intensively in industrial espionage. In their anti-terror campaign, US intelligence agencies would collect much confidential data from firms and could use it for unfair competitive advantage."

Here's the bottom line: When German authorities go through millions of credit card accounts to get at child pornographers, it is a spectacular and successful strike against criminals (and it really is). When American authorities go through thousands of accounts in a targeted search for terrorists, it is spying, scandalous and threatening, even though the program helped authorities successfully track and capture terrorists including Hambali, Al-Qaeda's top man in southeast Asia and one of the world's most dangerous terrorists.

Somehow the journalistic standards (if one can speak of such a thing at SPIEGEL ONLINE) that apply to domestic German affairs are quite different from those applied to coverage of the United States. Put another way: Germany good - America bad.

Endnote: Special thanks to R.S.