SPIEGEL ONLINE Can't Believe It / SPIEGEL ONLINE kann es nicht fassen

(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)

Marc Pitzke of SPIEGEL ONLINE simply can't believe why Americans still favor Bush over Kerry:

Paradoxical phenomenon: Despite the debacle in Iraq and the embarrassing questions that George W. Bush and his vice-president Dick Cheney will have to face before the 9/11 Hearings today, the US President seems invulnerable at home. His popularity numbers are even climbing. (...) So far, at least, the growing count of war victims in Iraq and the equally growing criticism of President Bush from his political opponents has had an (opposite) effect: The voters are apparently still unimpressed; in most polls Bush has even risen slightly. (...)

What's going on here? Don't Americans watch TV? Don't they read newspapers? (...)

Buried in all of the criticism and crises of the last few weeks there is an immeasurable election bonus, at least initially. The President comes across as a strong man who, in the service of higher things, will also go over dead bodies. Literally. That obviously pulls. (...)

Such shallow cliches play well with many Americans. In an entertainment society where subtleties and
contradictions -- like those of the Middle East Crisis or Kerry's political complexity -- have no place,
empty swagger is king. See Donald Trump.

So, according to Pitzke, Americans don't understand subtleties and don't watch TV or read newspapers. And they prefer killers as Presidents. (Well, we know a thing or two in Germany about electing a killer as leader... Literally.)

If you ever were in need of a definition of anti-Americanism in the German media - you've got it right here. It's not anti-Bush or anti-neocon - it's anti-Americanism that feeds that constant barrage of criticism of American politics in the German media.

Thank you, SPIEGEL ONLINE, for letting us know your shallow cliches...

Update 1: This was a no-brainer: SPIEGEL's cover of next week.

Update 2: You may want to have a look at the cover of the new SPIEGEL...

(Hat tip Thomas)

(Translation by Erik. Erik's blog.)

Marc Pitzke von SPIEGEL ONLINE kann es einfach nicht fassen, warum die Amerikaner immer noch Bush gegenüber Kerry bevorzugen:

Paradoxes Phänomen: Trotz des Debakels im Irak und peinlicher Fragen, denen sich George W. Bush und sein Vize Dick Cheney heute vor dem 9/11-Ausschuss stellen müssen, scheint der US-Präsident daheim unangreifbar zu sein. Seine Popularitätswerte steigen sogar. (...)

Bisher jedenfalls hat die wachsende Zahl der Kriegsopfer im Irak und die ebenso wachsende Kritik der politischen Opposition an Präsident Bush einen eher gegenteiligen Effekt gehabt: Die Wähler zeigen sich weiter unbeeindruckt; in den meisten Umfragen hat Bush sogar leicht zugelegt. (...)

Was geht hier vor? Gucken die Amerikaner nicht fern? Lesen sie keine Zeitung?

In all der Kritik, all den Krisen der letzten Wochen steckt, vorerst zumindest, ein unschätzbarer Wahl-Bonus. Der Präsident kommt nämlich als starker Mann daher, der im Dienste einer höheren Sache zur Not auch über Leichen geht, buchstäblich. Das zieht offenbar. (...)

Süffige Klischees wie diese kommen bei vielen Amerikanern gut an. In einer Entertainment-Gesellschaft, in der Subtilitäten und Widersprüche - die Nahost-Krise etwa, oder Kerrys politische Komplexität - keinen Platz haben, ist der platte Sprücheklopper König, siehe Donald Trump.

Nach Pitzke verstehen die Amerikaner also keine Subtilitäten, schauen kein Fernsehen und lesen keine Zeitungen. Und sie bevorzugen Killer als Präsidenten. (Nun, was die Wahl eines Killers zum Führer betrifft, wissen wir in Deutschland gut Bescheid... Buchstäblich)

Wenn man auf der Suche nach einer Definition von Anti-Amerikanismus in den deutschen Medien ist - hier ist sie zu finden. Es geht nicht um Anti-Bush oder Anti-Neocon - es ist Anti-Amerikanismus, der die permanente Welle der Kritik an der amerikanischen Politik in den deutschen Medien nährt.

Vielen Dank, SPIEGEL ONLINE, für diese süffigen Klischees...

Nachtrag: Dazu brauchte man keine hellseherischen Fähigkeiten: Der Titel des SPIEGEL für die nächste Woche.

Comments

[Klink]

Von dem Artikel war ich auch nicht begeistert und wunderte mich schon, daß er noch nicht erwähnt wurde. ;-)

btw: SPIEGEL hat ein Interview mit Haim Saban über seine Pläne mit N24, Sat1, etc. Erwähnt Hamas-Berichterstattung, Fox-News, Axel Springer's journalistische Richtlinien - hat alles was für das Blog hier interessant ist, nachdem hier gerne mangelnde ausreichende Medien-Alternativen bemängelt werden.

Ein mögliches deutsches Fox-News...mein Vorschlag: Georg Gafron als unser Geraldo Rivera.

[SleepyInSeattle]

"Such shallow cliches play well with many Americans. In an entertainment society where subtleties and
contradictions -- like those of the Middle East Crisis or Kerry's political complexity -- have no place,
empty swagger is king. See Donald Trump."

LOL, "political complexity" is what they call that in Germany? Yeah it's complex when you don't know what Kerry believes even he tells you what he believes. Maybe the article writer is conveniently hiding what the real reasons are that Kerry isn't dominating Bush in the polls and it's not some American psychosis as implied by the author, it's that we actually hear what Kerry's about, even negative things about him - something that apparently would ruin the Saintly image Kerry is portrayed as in German media.

[SleepyInSeattle]

Oh, and next week's cover of Der Spiegel is definitely a classic.

Imagine if we had a popular weekly publication in the US that had an obsessive focus on demonizing Germany every issue. One, it wouldn't sell much. Two, Germans probably wouldn't find it as acceptable as Der Spiegel.

[joel]

You should send your readers to this link:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2leaf.htm

to see what Germans were telling Americans some years ago. The second link is especially nice.

The story hasn't changed, at all.

If it weren't for the US invasion of Germany in 1945, there likely wouldn't be a free press or democracy in Germany today.

Germans should reflect on not just what their parents and grandparents actually did, but what they planned on doing. What happened in Europe under the German boot was only a slight foretaste of what the Germans planned on doing. Hint: German long term plans had no room for something called "the Polish people."

Oh yes, I remember. It wasn't the Germans, it was the Nazis who did those awful things! Yes. That's who will get the blame. Well, that sounds as convincing as a plot twist in films like Psycho (banned in Germany at the time), but, a sorry excuse for an entire country.

I suspect there were those who weren't enthused about the prospects for German democracy in the post WWII. As usual, the cynics were right.

Joel

[Wes]

So Marc Pitzke is something of a dullard, he cannot or will not comprehend opposing subtleties and nuance, those that oppose his own unexamined and poorly examined presumptions.

[jap]

look, you are too nice. you use the phrase "anti-neocon." what you mean is anti-semetic. also anti-semetic is merely a euphemism coined by jew haters. it was deemed more palatable than judenhass. call it like it is. anti-americanism and jew hatred.
i know that neoconservatism has nothing to do with some purported jewish/zionist agenda. unfortunately the fascist left conflates this.
the gloves are off, in case you didn't notice. this is total war. call things what they are. the leftists/jedenhass, nazis have no shame.

[George Turner]

Such shallow cliches play well with many Americans. In an entertainment society where subtleties and contradictions -- like those of the Middle East Crisis or Kerry's political complexity -- have no place, empty swagger is king. See Donald Trump.

Too funny! I suppose used car salesmen are also "subtle" and "nuanced". Americans just aren't fooled by someone like Kerry, whose approach to an issue is too completely surround it on all sides and hope it gives up in utter bewilderment. That's not nuance. That's not having any center and just living shallowly, from one moment to the next, or just blowing in the wind. As they say down south, regarding such politicians. If it keeps circling the outhouse then it's probably a fly.

[Gabi]

Der Chefredakteur des in London erscheinenden Blatts "Al Quds Al Arabi", Abdel-Bari Atwan, sagte der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters, die USA hätten spätestens mit den Bildern ihren Kampf um die öffentliche Meinung im Irak verloren. "Die Befreier sind schlimmer als die Diktatoren", sagte er. Wenn 16 US-Soldaten Gefangene erniedrigen, dann ist das schlimmer als Folter? Nein, das kann nicht sein. 16 von ... (wieviele Soldaten sind/waren da?) haben großes Unrecht getan und gehören bestraft, sie haben Widerliches getan, für das ich keine Worte habe, aber von ihnen auf ALLE zuschließen, wo ist da die stets von arabischen Journalisten eingeforderte Fairness, von den Muslim-Terroristen auf den gesamten Islam zu schließen? Jetzt ist die gesamte USA auf der Anklagebank? Wie das? Es möge nie wieder passieren, aber es möge auch fair darüber geurteilt werden, daß dies wenige waren. Wenn nun Medien darüber berichten und die Gesamtheit der US-Soldaten anklagen und nicht differenzieren, dann machen sie genau das nicht, was sie für die Muslime einfordern: Wenn Terroristen im Namen des Islams Menschen bomben, dies nicht ALLEN Muslimen anzulasten. Gut, das ist richtig, aber bitte auch umgekehrt.

[dubya]

Marc Pitzke is SPIEGEL’s correspondent in NYC. Someday he writes an article on wallstreet issues (most of the time on corporate scandals, cuz that is selling better in Germany). The next day he writes on politics. IMO the whole idea of having an foreign correspondent is somewhat outdated. That may sound strange because having a guy in place far from the home of a newspaper/tv station and being able to report hands-on on the latest developments without time differences generally seems to be a nice idea. However, this type of “reporting” could easily done at home from good ol’ Germany. All his sources and information (newspapers etc.) are in today’s world accessible over the internet. That was not the case some 10-15 years ago. The only justification of a job of a foreign correspondent is that he/she should be able to put things in perspective, provide explanations for guys in Germany who may be able to read the NY Times (or other newspapers in English) but have not spend time in that foreign country (and thus do not have a deep understanding of its culture, history etc.) and to do your own stories (i.e. interview people etc.).

Marc Pitzke always comes across (leaving his strong anti-american bias aside) as if he just moved to the US and everything he comes across makes a strange impression on him. Everythink looks so different from his little German perspective. This may be the same feeling an average reader of his articles would have if he/she would make the trip over the atlantic. Yet, Pitzke is reporting (and thus living) in the US for quite some time. He just doesn’t get it. He just doesn’t connect with people…

Another issue is the fact that Pitzke is just not up to the job. Reporting on business issues and political issues is just too much for the guy. This does not work in a decent paper and it does not work for foreign correspondents. Journalists often think of mastering all the issues at hand. However, they rarely grasp ONE issue. Specializaton is the key in a complex (business) world and it should be the key to sophisticated reporting. However, the opposite is reality in today’s world of “foreign correspondents”…

Finally, there is the fine distinction between news reporting and comments. Pitzke’s article is a comment though it is not marked as such and not likely intended to be one. Pitzke surely thinks he is just reporting the “facts”. However, this is not only an issue for Pitzke’s articles. This problem goes deeper. It seems that many (if not all) articles in German newspapers on foreign issues (in particular articles on the US) at least have one sentence that crosses that strict line not to be crossed. TV reporting is not different. They even invented the word “Einschätzung” which nobody can define but which seems to be a mixture of reporting facts, throw in some of your opinion and try to guess what the future may bring.

[BTW’: German journalists are better able to respect the difference between news and comments when it comes to domestic (i.e. German issues). One explanation could be that bad journalism is likely to be heavier critized on domestic issues because opinions are pretty much split on many issues along party lines (SPD/Grüne vs. CDU/CSU/FDP). In contrast, the anti-american bias is shared by a strong majority and hardly one has the guts to critize an article and thus be outed as pro-american.]

To wrap up my point, no matter where you are standing on the issues (pro-Bush, Pro-Kerry etc.) everybody should be concerned that basic standards of fine journalism are not met in today’s journalist outlets in Germany. One (if not THE) reason is that many journalists in Germany have a anti-american, anti-israel bias. However, it would not be any better if tommorow it’s the other way around (pro-american, pro-israel bias). Bad journalism is bad journalism. I came across this blog and first thought that its main issue was to point out the failures of everyday German journalism that you are not able to find discussed elsewhere. However, most discussions concern the inherent anti-american bias in German journalism. Issues of substance are defintely more interesting than analyzing technicalities. However, it’s tough to change a guy like Pitzke. He will continue to believe what he already believes in. It’s not different for Ray, Gabi, or Klink etc… However, even Pitzke when confronted with his own article should be able to realize that it is just not up to the standard of decent journalism.

[Klink]

Niko:
And look who's quoted in the first answer of Saban - Mathias Doepfner! I guess this is a good occasion to explain to the readers who Doepfner is, don't you think, Klink?

Na, it was in German, and additionally I would trust in the power of learning! ;-) But had I written my commentary on Pritzke in English, I might have indeed given some additional infos to Americans on Pritzke.

Or the habit to print clear quotes, but then add an additional interpretation on beginning and end, like David did in the above article - I love it: One apparently wants make sure that everybody understands things _the right direction_, no? ;-) That is BTW where my Oberlehrer originated from - a reflection: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Dubya:
Finally, there is the fine distinction between news reporting and comments. Pitzke’s article is a comment though it is not marked as such and not likely intended to be one.

I agreed with a lot you wrote - but their "Von Marc Pitzke, New York" beneath the headline is imo SPIEGEL's subtle way of saying "possible vanity piece by journalist ahead". Their craziness on how to credit/label articles. Plain news-articles often have on SpOn no author or one on bottom - like print-newsarticles had out of principle no named author until a while back, despite an often usual heavy polemic slant. I am glad they at least changed that last thing finally.

[dubya]

Klink,

you are right in pointing out that Spiegel Online varies in labelling/crediting article. Often when they don’t label it at all, it’s jut a piece out of the newsprinter (i.e. dpa or some other news agency). Spiegel seems to put a name of the author on the top of an article if it is actually written by some Spiegel guy (as opposed to copy and paste from dpa – btw mostly without giving credit to dpa like newspapers usually do…). However, I’m not sure if putting a Spiegel author’s name on top of it means that a news/comment mixture (or as you nicely put it: a "vanity piece”) is following. They often like to point out the author’s base (New York or Moskau). My guess it that such info is supposed to mean that the author is able to provide inside information due to the author’s closeness to the action…

Anyway, my earlier post was not specifically targeted to the Spiegel practice in particular. It adressed foreign news reporting in German media outlets in general.

[Klink]

@dubya

There are IMO no 100% rules. I've seen articles with no name, but also could find absolutely no reference anywhere else. And SPIEGEL's polemic flagship-columnist Henryk Broder usually gets credited as well on top, but also not marked as a column, like Pitzke now. (And I always thought of the term "vanity piece" when reading Matthias Matussek's launige commentaries from Brazil *g*. I liked them though - but you have to be careful to keep things in perspective. I also would prefer a clearer labelling of "columnist" in SPIEGEL.)

Anyway, my earlier post was not specifically targeted to the Spiegel practice in particular. It adressed foreign news reporting in German media outlets in general.

Right. Which I thought was a valid point - our media often missing a clinical distance which for example the BBC attempts. Especially some of the TV-reporters.

[Sandy P.]

--Such shallow cliches play well with many Americans. In an entertainment society where subtleties and contradictions -- like those of the Middle East Crisis or Kerry's political complexity -- have no place, empty swagger is king. See Donald Trump.--

Separate the wheat from the chaff, 30 years of being on record. There's no political complexity. After all, don't you know who he is??

---

Off to Vegas for a week, have fun everyone!

--

Klink, smoking some good stuff again about the BBC, I see. There's a few blogs which cover the Beeb, like Biased BBC. And let me tell you, don't even need to read it, can just read/listen to the Beeb. I'm surprised after 80 years of attack against US we're still relatively liked. At the time, 140 million, now 110 mill radio listeners is a lot of damage. And the TV, should stick to Dr. Who.

They have a hissy against FoxNews. Whenever any outlet mentions FoxNews, it's mostly because they see the writing on the wall. A little cable station w/barely 3 million domestic viewers a day, maybe a million each hour, throws the world's media into a tizzy. You should start asking yourself why. All you have to do is google viewing stats, especially during sweeps. They are king of the 24-hour cable news channels, that's it. Even the 1st season of The Osbournes pulled in more viewers, 6 million. Free TV news pulls in about 25 million a night.

I only really like Brit Hume, but the snippets I do catch, they're taking on AQ/jihadis' media outlet, AJ. I love it. And they called Najaf the "so-called" holy city. LOVE IT! But do enjoy stirring the pot.

If you're ever in Vegas, make sure you see Cirque du Soleil's "O" at the Bellagio. Worth every penny, IMHO.

[Sandy P.]

OT and BRAVO either way!

"U.S. hostage Thomas Hamill is free three weeks after television pictures showed him being driven away by armed men following an attack on a convoy in Iraq, the U.S. military said Sunday.
"It looked like it was an escape," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference in Baghdad. He said a U.S. patrol found Hamill south of Tikrit, the home town of ousted President Saddam Hussein and a hotbed of anti-U.S. insurgents...."

Even better, he's ready to get back to work. Hope they give him a gun.

Via Instapundit.

[Tao Libra]

Euro-neo-socialist: Look, a WAR! BAD President Bush! See? SEE? WAR! BAD! Bush baaad!

American: The war was necessary. Bush is doing a fine job.

Euro-neo-socialist: [sputters] But… but… but… WAR! Baaad! BAD WAR! Bush bad! Bush baaad!

American: …

Euro-neo-socialist: [quieter] But… War bad… Bush bad! War! Baaad… bad Bush…

American: [yawns]

Euro-neo-socialist: [whimpers] …but… but War baaad… Bush bad…?

American: …

Euro-neo-socialist: [sobs] Waaah!

[Michael B]

Tao, that was great, and entirely apt as well; which is sad, so ya gotta laugh.