Davids Medienkritik

Belittling and Diminishing America's Role

(By Ray Drake)

Our good friend DL recently reminded us of the slow but creeping removal of all things American from German history. He related how surprised he was to see almost no mention of America's role in the Cold War and reunification in an exhibit at the Reichstag in Berlin.

Well, unfortunately, DL shouldn't be surprised. Although it is true that the United States was the indispensable nation for German democracy during and after the Second World War, this sort of slow airbrushing and denial of history is clearly taking its steady course in today's Germany. We need look no further than the Berlin city government's forcible removal of the privately funded Checkpoint Charlie monument. These manifestations of historic denial are hardly surprising in a Germany overrun by anti-American media and politics over the past three years, yet they are profoundly disappointing and disturbing nonetheless.

But despite its slow death, the history of America's sacrifice clearly remains an irritating thorn in the side of many a German media elite. After all, it is exceptionally difficult to forget that the United States took the Fascist murder state that was Germany and turned it into a flourishing democracy and then protected it for decades until the nation united with its depressed Communist half. The result is that many Germans are still fighting with the historic legacy to regain their own claim to the moral high ground and a sense of historic legitimacy. The erasure of America's role in German history goes hand-in-hand with that struggle.

So when your average left-wing German journalist sees an event like the 2000 election or the Iraq war, he or she doesn't care much for the facts or details. There is but one word necessary and appropriate to describe the problems and challenges facing America: DEBACLE! And if that doesn't suffice, there are four additional words that sum everything else up: It's all Bush's fault!

Why? Because for the German left-wing elite in media and politics, belittling and diminishing America as a moral force in the world is part and parcel of re-establishing German moral authority. And so they hammer away day-in and day-out. They are particularly zealous in their defense of the bloated big-state socialism that has come to define Germany, a way of life they see threatened to the core by the success of the American model.

Jeff Gedmin: Perverse German Reactions to Katrina

One of the most troubling aspects of Germany's reaction to the Katrina tragedy is just how widespread the outbursts of Schadenfreude and the ridiculous blame diatribes have been. It seemed to begin with Germany's lunatic-fringe Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin, who blamed disasters like Katrina on America's George W. Bush's environmental policy and rejection of Kyoto. Shortly thereafter, "Stern" magazine, "Die Zeit" and Chancellor Schroeder chimed in and blamed America's lack of big-state Socialism for the extent of the disaster. Yet others were simply happy to see America take a hit.

Thankfully, there was someone sane in the midst of all the finger-pointing and conspiracy-spinning to record it all. That someone is Jeffrey Gedmin, and his article on the perverse German reactions to Katrina is undoubtedly the most comprehensive and informative piece written on the subject. Mr. Gedmin has kindly granted Davids Medienkritik permission to print his work in the English original.

"Save Your Comments

By Jeffrey Gedmin

A friend of mine, born and raised in the south, a supporter of George W. Bush, has told me several times how disturbed she is by New Orleans. She finds it shocking that the U.S. government responded so slowly, and above all, left the most vulnerable, mostly poor African-Americans, to fend for themselves. Follow the U.S. commentary and you'll know that America is at the beginning of an agonizing debate, likely to last longer than the time it will take to rebuild New Orleans.

You can learn a bit about this in the German commentary about Hurricane Katrina. But that's not all. What an orgy it has been! It started with environment minister Jürgen Trittin's low blow about "climate polluter headquarters" USA. Things like Katrina will not happen, opined Professor Trittin, if only Americans would protect the environment. The Chancellor quickly joined the pack, of course. He says if only the Americans had a bigger state they could have been spared their misery. Henryk Broder found a gem, an American-hating lady from Chemnitz, who wrote to a large daily about Katrina. Her view: "A religious person could get the impresson that this is the wrath of God." My favorite, though, is the one from a fellow from Berlin-Zehlendorf, who wrote to the Berliner Morgenpost about the "war criminals" in the US government who "could care less about the deaths of blacks or foreigners." For a more sophisticated formulation of this thesis, see the front page editorial this week from Stephan-Andreas Casdorff in the Tagesspiegel who did his readers the favour of inserting himself into the brain of the U.S. President. What did Mr. Casdorff discover? That the heartless George Walker Bush would rather attend a business dinner in San Diego or play guitar on his ranch than care for fellow Americans in their hour of need.

Still, the "Armin Meiwes prize for Katrina commentary." names in honor of the "Cannibal of Rotenburg," goes to the salivating fellow from the taz who admits to feelings of "joy" over all the death and destruction. Philipp Mausshardt says he is happy that Katrina hit the United States.

A few quick points to all of this. First, I am pretty sure God did not order Katrina to punish the United States. Second, I am certain the United States needs a more serious debate about global warming. So does Germany. According to the United Nations, since the 1940s "the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased." Scientists are also divided, incidentally, on the cause of recent violent hurricanes. Third, a note to the outgoing Chancellor. Yes, we all love Vater Staat, but if bigger government were the answer to natural distasters, then how come your buddies in Paris did not fare better in preventing the deaths of 15.000 during the heat wave that hit France a couple years ago? Fourth, the next time the storm of a century ravages an area half the size of Germany within 24 hours, and this by the way after repeated false alarms, I have no doubt that the editors of the Tagesspiegel will roll out their master plan for a faster, more effecient, more comprehensive and more humane response than the monster Bush.

Finally, we Americans are indeed shocked and embarrassed by what has happened. There will be investigations, commissions, conferences, documentaries and books examining what should have been done differently by local, state and federal authorities. A new debate about race and poverty in America has also begun. Among the recriminations, there is introspection. Does anyone else want to get a kick in while we are on the ground?"

Indeed. But let us be clear on another point: Not all Germans share the sentiments described above. We would like to believe that most Germans do not and that those with perverse reactions are a minority. But we can also not ignore the fact that most Germans have been less than enthusiastic about helping Americans in their time of need. We would like to report the very opposite. After all, both David and I are German citizens, (David is a full German and I am dual US-German), and we would like to report that Germany has generously supported the hurricane victims. But the opposite is true. Most Germans simply assume that America is rich and doesn't need the help and yet others obviously view America with disdain and have simply chosen not to help.

The German government has sent some aid, and President Bush has thanked Chancellor Schroeder for the assistance, but apparently there is a customs issue with a portion of it that the German media is blaming on the US. This is curious indeed considering the fact that German private industry has absolutely no problem exporting things into the United States. So why the holdup?

Anyway, Jeff's article is necessary to raise awareness on the ugly side of German society, politics and media. And in that we are fully on his side. Keep up the good work Jeff!

The Wrong Side of the Tide

An interesting article in Germany's weekly "Die Zeit" by Josef Joffe. Excerpt:

The red-green coalition has landed “on the wrong side of the tide” of democracy (to paraphrase Müntefering). Recently, autocrats like Putin, Hu, and the Gulf State potentates have become Germany’s best friends. When Kiev blossomed orange, Fischer fell to stuttering. When millions of people in Beirut and Taiwan take to the streets, the government wants to weigh the merits of the case first. Anger at the emerging American power in Iraq received faint applause after 60 percent of eligible voters went to the polls despite the threat of

Chechnya and the German Left's Silent Hypocrisy

(By Ray D.)

Day for day in the German media, the United States is mercilessly criticized over abuses and alleged abuses that have occurred at Abu Ghraib and other military prisons. This open and harsh criticism continues to be regularly voiced despite the US government's highly visible efforts to punish those guilty of abuse while aggressively stepping-up military training programs to prevent future occurrences of abuse.

But when it comes to Chechnya, where up to 5,000 people have simply disappeared in a brutal Russian war that has claimed thousands of victims, there is no widespread outcry or criticism in the German media. When compared to the amount of reporting done on Iraq, the level of reporting on Chechnya is negligible. The bloody conflict in Chechnya has also barely been mentioned by Europe's leading politicians of late and has never been cause enough for the so-called "peace movement" to pound the pavement in mass protest. After all, Vladimir Putin is seen as a valuable partner by Germany's leaders and welcomed with open arms on state visits. And mentioning the quagmire in the Caucuses or engaging in anti-war protests would only upset Gerhard Schroeder's brilliant Ostpolitik and his chummy Männerfreundschaft with Putin. Never mind the thousands of faceless victims in Chechnya...

So is it any surprise that more Germans trust Vladimir Putin than George Bush?

A recent poll by Infratest published in Die Welt revealed:

"The Russian President enjoys great trust especially in the east of the republic, so the result of the representative poll. While the national average is 29% for Putin and 24% for Bush, Putin gets 37% alone in eastern Germany (Bush 16%). To compare: In western Germany Bush has 27% and Putin 26%."

The results can be better understood in the context of an interesting article written by Adrian Pohr for  Die Zeit entitled 'The "Missing" Chechnyans'. Here, now, is an exclusive translation of the article for our Medienkritik readers:

The “Missing” Chechnyans

"Human Rights Watch speaks of up to 5,000 cases in which Chechnyan people have been abducted. In the Chechnya question the Europeans have, to this point, made themselves noticed primarily through their silence.

Relations with Russia mean a lot to Europe. Unpleasant topics are better left out, like the disappearing freedom of the press, the centralization of power in Vladimir Putin’s hands or the Chechnya question. While US President George W. Bush was latently criticizing the Russian understanding of democracy during his meeting with Putin at the end of February, his colleagues from France, Spain and Germany remained rather silent during their four-way meeting last Friday. Neither Jacques Chirac and Jose Louis Rodriguez Zapatero nor Gerhard Schroeder even uttered the word Chechnya—and there have certainly been developments worth criticizing of late.

For example the killing of rebel leader Aslan Mashadov. Russian troops murdered the moderate Chechnyan; the photos of the dead man were released afterwards for a general display of the corpse. From Moscow one could register celebration in light of the blow struck against terrorism. The fact that the last Chechnyan leader willing to negotiate was executed has been realized by the European media, but not by their national leaders. Today the human rights organization Human Rights Watch released a report that forces up further unpleasant questions about the Russian Chechnya policy and harshly criticizes the accompanying European silence.

The report is the result of a comprehensive examination of the human rights organization on the abduction of people in Chechnya. According to the data from Human Rights Watch, between 3,000 to 5,000 Chechnyans have become victims of abductions, which gives Russia the infamous distinction of being the worldwide leader in forced abductions. The human rights organization found it remarkable that the EU has for the first time not introduced a Chechnya resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission: Looking away while human rights violations are taking place is without scruple.

While Putin is claiming to the international community that the situation in Chechnya is normalizing, abductions are taking place with the full knowledge of the Russian government according to the report. The government has admitted in an official statistic that at least 2,090 people have disappeared since the beginning of the Chechnyan conflict. However, according to the vivid reports in the report from Human Rights Watch the missing do not simply dissolve into thin air, but are instead brutally ripped from their families through the force of arms, as relatives recounted.

And the perpetrators of the kidnappings were identified by the human rights organization: In the overwhelming majority of the cases the perpetrators were without a doubt agents of the government, either federal troops or (pro-Russian) Chechnyan security forces. And this also explains the low rate of resolved kidnappings, which is a noteworthy zero percent: None of the 1,814 criminal investigations have led to conviction of the perpetrators according to information from a Chechnyan official.

The missing are divided by Human Rights Watch into three categories: Most are men between the ages of eighteen and forty who the government officials believed had connections with the rebels. Secondly many women have been kidnapped lately – a trend that can be traced back to the recent participation of female Chechnyan underground fighters in terrorist attacks in Russia. A minority has thirdly been abducted because of their (familial) relation to rebels, probably to press information out of them about their unpopular relatives or to put them under pressure. And so Human Rights Watch complains about the possible (and in many cases, in their view, probable) torture of those abducted.

Human Rights Watch has called on the United Nations to actively take on these human rights violations. Because the Russian government does not feel obligated to pursue the perpetrators. And that contributes to the ongoing cycle of abuse summed up the human rights organization. In the view of experts the Kremlin does not give direct orders to kidnap. But according to Roland Goetz, director of the research group Russia at the Foundation for Science and Politics in Berlin, Moscow allows its armed forces in Chechnya large freedom. The abductions are at least not stopped on the part of the Kremlin, which is a form of approval, says Goetz.

The perpetrators have two differing motivations to kidnap people according to him. On the one hand they want to demonstrate their dominance. On the other, the kidnapping of Chechnyans is also an excellent source of money. For the kidnapped or the corpses of the kidnapped the perpetrators demanded ransom. Good business was especially possible with the dead; according to the beliefs of most Chechnyans, the souls of the dead first find their peace when buried."

So where is the daily media outrage on Chechnya? Where is the anger at all of the widespread, systematic torture carried out by Russian troops and condoned by the Russian government? How could it be that virtually none of the cases of kidnappings have been legally resolved? Where is the German left in all of this? Why the outrage over Iraq and the deafening silence on Chechnya? Why the double-standard?

Why is virtually no one asking whether those abducted in Chechnya are receiving proper treatment and being tried in a fair and legal manner before a court of law? Are they receiving proper medical care and visits from the Red Cross? Are their international human rights being upheld? Are both male and female prisoners free from sexual abuse and humiliation? Where is the so-called "peace movement" when Vladimir Putin visits Germany? Why aren't they out beating their drums and waving their rainbow flags by the thousands?

Oh yeah, one final note: The results of the poll on who Germans trust is truly revealing. However, it would be even more revealing to see the results of a poll that asked Germans where they would prefer to live if forced to decide between Russia and the USA. As Markus Wolf, East Germany's notorious Stasi spymaster and the mastermind of the organization's counter-espionage department noted when the CIA attempted to recruit him at the end of the Cold War with offers of money and resettlement in California: "Life in Siberia isn't too bad either."

UPDATE: Here is a flattering first for Davids Medienkritik: A fellow blogger liked this article so much he translated the entire piece into Hungarian. Thank you Vilmos!

"Die Zeit" Gets Ridiculous

This has got to be the most ridiculous development in the Giuliana Sgrena case: Today (March 7) Germany's "Die Zeit" journalist Jochen Bittner sent a fax to the US army in Baghdad, requesting anwers to a battery of questions.

Excerpt:

Giuliana Sgrena has been a regular contributor to our newspaper. She has been reporting for us from Iraq for nearly three years. DIE ZEIT is a major German newsweekly and we we going to come with the report on the shooting in our forthcoming edition.

Your view on the incident would therefore be highly appreciated. (...)

- How many checkpoints had the vehicle passed through before?

- For how long had the soldiers been in Iraq?

- How old are they?

- Is it correct that those very soldiers had been attacked at their
checkpoint a couple of days before?

- If this is correct, what did exactly happen in this prior incident?

- If this is correct, why did the soldiers have to maintain their duty
at the checkpoint?

(I left out some of the questions)

As we are producing our edition tomorrow I would need an answer tomorrow around mid day German time at the latest.
If you could arrange for an interview with an army representative, this would also be welcome.

Thank you very much,
best regards,
Jochen Bittner

Well, the US army responded quickly, albeit not in a fashion "Die Zeit" would appreciate:

"Sir,
The incident is under investigation. As additional details are
available, they will be released.

SSG Dees"

Can you believe this - the US army not responding stande pede to a request from a major German newsweekly? WE NEED TO KNOW RIGHT AWAY THE BIRTH DATES OF THE US SOLDIERS AT THE SCENE!!!

I mean, what have we come to? What's next - President Bush refusing to react to a request by SPIEGEL within 24 hours?

Giuliana Sgrena Knew of the Dangers

The Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena is a regular contributor to the German weekly "Die Zeit". Her "Iraq Diary" carries a pessimistic, anti-American tone. She manages to practically exclusively talk to like-minded Iraqis, who are full of criticism of the invasion, of the Americans, of everything that goes wrong in contemporary Iraq. Not much reporting on mass slaughterings under Saddam, though.

In this "Die Zeit" piece from October 10, 2004 she stressed that travelling in Baghdad better be a secret affair:

How to safeguard yourself, unless you want to trust your fate to weapons? You have to live by certain rules: always on the move and not to be detected, almost like a conspirator; always change your daily programme; change the route you drive; change meetings; if possible avoid to get stuck in a traffic jam. Foremost, never tell anybody, where you go. ... Try to avoid military convoys. A wrong move, and the machine gun shooter, sitting on a tank, shoots indiscriminantly... (emphasis added)

Given her preference for secrecy about travel plans it is a fair guess that Sgrena didn't want the US military to be informed ahead of her cross city trip to Baghdad airport.

And Sgrena was well aware of the dangers of approaching military installations in Baghdad. In her article she describes the death of a taxi driver who was killed by machine gun shots coming from a tank.

Raheem passed the US-Basis Island. ... He probably made a wrong move.

Given her familiarity with the dangers of the situation it is beyond me why she didn't caution the driver of her car to stop or slow down to crawling speed at the military checkpoint. Most likely no shooting would have occured, and nobody would have been killed.

But then again, no conspiracy theories could have been floated...

Update 1: Sgrena's German colleagues at the newsweekly "Die Zeit" have just decided to get ridiculous.

Update 2:

Source: daybyday, cartoon March 8, 2005

The Auschwitz-Abu Ghraib Connection

On a day where the 1,5 million victims of the Nazi terror in the Auschwitz concentration camp are remembered, some German left-wing media stress the connection to - Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, where on November 9, 2003, (see update 2) former employees of Saddam Hussein had the misfortunes of being mistreated by a few U.S. guards.

TAZ:
The torture scandal of the US army in Abu Ghraib shows that sadism has a place in civilized nations, while Guantánamo Bay proves that the principle of the concentration camp, namely to provide a nationalized, radically lawless space, is being declared a respectable instrument in the "war against terrorism". If they had had a choice, most prisoners of a concentration camp would have opted for something like the cages of Guantánamo Bay, where you at least had a chance to survive. But this doesn't change the fact that the KZ (concentration camp) principle today is upheld with pride by the leading nation of the civilized world.

And the weekly "Die Zeit" prints an article by one Francine Prose, an American novelist (who protested against the election of George W. Bush still in January 2005, which tells you something about her post-election psychological condition). Prose, too, holds it necessary to compare Auschwitz to "Guantanamo" and "Abu Ghraib".

How things have changed. In the post-war past in Germany, the Right wanted to minimize the atrocities committed in the concentration camps in the name of Germany. Now the Left - in their never ending desire to smear the current U.S. administration - minimizes the image of the holocaust by comparing the years-long gassing of millions of jews in Nazi Germany to the mistreatment of a limited number of Iraqis on just one day or on a couple of days. And this comparison (1, 2) has already become something of a tradition in the German media.

You may throw up now...

Update 1: I think it is appropriate to put the taz quote into a pictorial context...

taz: "If they had had a choice, most prisoners of a concentration camp would have opted for something like the cages of Guantánamo Bay, where you at least had a chance to survive. But this doesn't change the fact that the KZ (concentration camp) principle today is upheld with pride by the leading nation of the civilized world."
Hmm... "most people". Some of course would have preferred to stay with Dr. Josef Mengele in Auschwitz. Just in case they needed to see a doctor...

Update 2: Checking a trustworthy source it seems that the infamous November day at Abu Ghraib was the 8th, not the 9th.

A Breath of Fresh Air

(By Ray Drake)

Apparently not all German media outlets could ignore the obvious irony in the indignation expressed by politicians and union bosses at the news that thousands of US troops will be pulled out of Germany. "Die Zeit" recently published an excellent article by Richard Herzinger on the topic entitled "Ami don't go." Here is a translated excerpt:

"Ach, look, how the Americans have again suddenly become so dear and precious to the Germans when it hits them in the wallet. The announced withdrawal of large numbers of US troops stationed in Germany has unleashed consternation at the threatening loss of jobs and accusations that the Americans want to get themselves out of their “Nato responsibility.” Nanu? Since when is it a part of the responsibility of Nato and the US Army to maintain jobs in Germany? Just a year and a half ago the majority of Germans were certain the USA and its President represented a greater danger to world peace than Saddam Hussein, and the US armed forces were considered fearsome executors of the sinister US plans for world domination. Now, however, German politicians and union people, who marched at the very front of the peace demonstrations, are pouting and grimacing like children who feel they have been left in the lurch by Daddy because the number one warmonger wants to deny us the trusted presence of our uniformed American friends."

Indeed. The contradictions are inescapable. One day US troops are warmongers engaged in blood-for-oil world domination, the next they are trusted neighbors and friends providing badly needed jobs in the community. It all depends on what is politically and financially expedient for German politicians, media outlets and union bosses at any given moment...nothing more and nothing less.

NOTE: For those of you who missed them, our recent articles "But What About My Job, Mr. Warmonger, Sir?…" and "Bush Does... WHAT????" are must reads on this very topic.

Cycle of Ignorance / Spirale der Ignoranz

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

The German weekly ZEIT has started a discussion thread on the war in Iraq. This is the introduction:

The cycle of violence in Iraq is spinning out of control. According to US-Army privat Lynndie England, now famous for her role in the "torture" of Iraqi prisoners, she and other soldiers were following the orders of high-ranking Army officers. And now this: Al-Qaida terrorists have brutally beheaded an American who went to Iraq to help with the reconstruction of the country. Where is this war leading and what can be done to stabilize Iraq?

"Cycle of violence" - the great moral equalizer of the German media! So, let's see what equals what...

Pic 1: American Lynndie England in a horrifying, typical American display of brutal American torture

Pic 2: Members of a resistance group doing their faith-based beheading routine

It seems to me that the mental coordinates of the ZEIT journalists need some readjustment.

BTW: Links to the video of the beheading of Nick Berg can be found here.

(Translation by Mike)

Kelly Affair: It's Not About WMD, It's About Biased Journalism / Kelly-Affäre: Es geht nicht um Massenvernichtungswaffen, es geht um voreingenommenen Journalismus

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

Andrew Gowers, editor of the Financial Times, has written a brilliant commentary on the true lessons of the BBC scandal and the report of Lord Hutton: "The BBC's failings are a warning to all journalists". (Article in FT of January 31, 2004, p. 7 - paid content)

...the true message of the Hutton report is that this was a story about journalism, not about the deliberate embellishment of a government dossier on Iraqi WMD, against the wishes of the intelligence services. ...

No one - certainly not Lord Hutton - is suggesting that journalism must now retreat from questioning and investigating those in authority. On the contrary: such activites are more needed than ever. But they will have to be done better and - like government officials - we have a duty not to "sex up" what we claim to have found.

Let this dreadful misadventure, then, serve as a wake-up call for journalists.

It should remind us the reflexive media mistrust of every government action or pronouncement ... is corroding British democracy and eroding trust in the media themselves. ... When we make mistakes - as everyone does - the BBC's experience should teach us to correct rather than to defend blindly.

That is the only way to start restoring confidence in the broadcast media, newspapers and the thousands of conscientious journalists who work in them.

Jürgen Krönig in the German weekly ZEIT draws similar conclusions:

It would wrong to reduce the oroblem to a single reporter and an unsatisfactorily investigated and essentially false report.  Andrew Gilligan is not a rare bird that accidentally landed in BBC's cage.  He embodies a new journalistic culture that has infected the BBC and which increasingly colors its journalistic output and which stands in sharp contrast to the work ethic that was the foundation of the worldwide reputation of this broadcaster.  Soberly dissociated journalism that is guided by the ethos of objectivity and impartiality no longer dominates at the BBC.  The sensational story, the exciting scoop, more often than not, count more than a differentiated analysis.  Even BBC reporters succumb to the temptation to make news, instead of reporting the news correctly.  They want to be players on the field of politics, instead of just having to explain the game. (Translation by Holger)

One must admit that British journalism at least has elements of critical self-inspection. Nothing of the kind can be found in the German media system. It's simply unimaginable in Germany to have a government appointed commission investigating biased reporting at ARD or ZDF (whose status is most similar to that of the BBC). Criticizing journalists is simply "verboten" in Germany. As a politician you cross that line at your own risk...

Update: Tanker made me aware of this excellent article by Martin Kettle in the Guardian:

Having read the Hutton report and most of what has been written about it, I have reached the following, strictly non-judicial, conclusions: first, that the episode illuminates a wider crisis in British journalism than the turmoil at the BBC; second, that too many journalists are in denial about this wider crisis; third, that journalists need to be at the forefront of trying to rectify it; and, fourth, that this will almost certainly not happen.

The reporting of Lord Hutton's conclusions and of the reactions to them has been meticulous. The same cannot be said of large tracts of the commentary and editorialising - nor of much of the equally kneejerk newspaper correspondence. Much of this comment has been sullied by scorn, prejudice and petulance. The more you read it, the more you get the sense that the modern journalist is prone to behaving like a child throwing its rattle out of the pram because it has not got what it wanted.