« Screech!!! | Main | German TV Media and the General Public Will Remain Staunchly Anti-American »


Which monopoly? The biggest newspaper in Germany recommended the election of George Bush. Don't you remember your own blog entries?

It's certainly not a symptom restricted to Germany. Seems like the whole of Europe has gone off the deep end, judging strictly from the press. The Brits were having a pity-party tantrum.

@ Torsten,

I think Bild's endorsement is one of the few positive things I read on George W. Bush in the past 4 years. That is why it was such big news. If you are trying to claim the German media is pro-Bush, you need to get off the crack-pipe my friend.

There is neither a horicontal nor a vertical monopoly in German media. Whats the point? No talk radio == monopoly?

Kann ich teilweise auch nicht so ganz nachvollziehen... (siehe z.B. der Kommentar von Torsten). Schließlich sind Stern und Spiegel nicht die einzigsten Blätter hier. (Ja, es gibt auch teilweise noch Bush-neutrale bzw. Bush-positive, man muß nur mal die Augen aufmachen) Zumal ich auch nicht so ganz weiß, wie ihr dieses Monopol brechen wollt (reiche Leute können Zeitungen aufkaufen, wie wäre es mit einer Spendenaktion ?). Oder einen Anti-Moore züchten ?
Ist das jetzt die große Aufklärungswelle im Augenblick des Triumphs ? Und was für Monopol soll dann an die Stelle des jetztigen treten ?
Was die Lücke zwischen unseren beiden Völker betrifft, so glaub ich kaum, das die sich spontan wieder ein bißchen schließen wird. Dazu sind Grundeinstellungen beider Nationen einfach zu unterschiedlich (wobei ich das Rumgejammere vieler Deutschen nicht mehr hören kann).

Ray D. If you were trying to read, you could understand what I claim. I repeat it for you: there is no media monopoly in Germany.

Think what a monopoly is. Then compare it to the German media market.

@ Torsten

There is a clear monopoly because there is no large and serious alternative to the leftist dominated media in Germany as there is in the USA. Germany has no talk-radio, no conservative news network, no large blog scene, and very few magazines or newspapers willing to present American Repulicans and George W. Bush in a fair light or thoroughly discuss the merits of their ideas and arguments.

The BILD endorsement was a surprise to most precisely because anything positive about George W. Bush is so incredibly rare. The fact that it is so unusual is the exact reason we posted it. BILD was harshly criticized by Mr. Zoerner and most of the German media. They weren't sure if it was a joke or something they should slam. Doesn't that tell you something right there about their mentality?

BILD is also not exactly a newspaper that all Germans take seriously as a source of hard news.

Ray D.: Think again what a monopoly is. Try to find a dictionary.

@ Torsten,

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition. If you want to label it "monopoly" or "widespread conformism" the fact remains the same. It is nearly impossible to find a source of information that portrays George W. Bush in an objective light and fully and fairly informs us on his political positions and ideals and motivations for doing what he has done.

The fact that BILD endorsed him and was virtually the first newspaper to say anything positive about Bush in 4 years doesn't change that fact.

Hmmm - Will it work the other way? Bush won because of Fox News and talk radio?

Good point Niko.

For every Bush positive article, I assure you we can find at least 10 Bush negative articles in the German media. Fair and balanced? Not a monopoly? Who are you trying to kid Torsten?

For that matter, the US MSM is also more negative than positive on Bush, but again, in the US you have talk radio, blogs and Fox News. You have a real, large, serious and viable alternative. You just don't have that in Germany.

@ Torsten,

You know, Fox News and Talk Radio didn't use forged documents to try to slam Bush now did they? They didn't want to drop a questionable missing explosives story on the President a night before the election did they? No...that was CBS my friend.

Thank goodness the USA has some strong and diverse voices in the media. Too bad Germany doesn't.

Torsten: You might want to dig out some economic textbooks rather than a dictionary. An important term there is the "concentration coefficient". A market, in which a single company has a high CC is called a "monopoly", even if minor players exist. One in which several large companies have an aggregated high CC is called an "oligopoly", which is similar to a monopoly in so far as competition is non-existent or reduced. Depending on how you define "media", it is therefore accurate to describe the german media as a monopoly if you view "left" as a monolithic unit, or an oligopoly if you take individual media outlets such as Pro7-Sat1, ARD, ZDF and Bertelsmann/RTL Group (take a guess what their combined market share is in TV ...). The outcome is the same, one way or the other.


Jody Biehl it is quite safe for you to come home. I suggest you seek mental health care. I also think you should quit being so self centered and thinking the world should revolve about you.

As for the Blogs future I commend you. I want to be a friend to europe and the UK but I can't if the media presents my counrty and I as evil. The BBC is on it's own massive anti US propaganda program.

apex: the TV market has high costs - in every country in the world there are only few players. The definition of an monopoly is somewhat different: When one player is so big that he does not have to react to competion he is an monopolist.

BTW: Did you know that Pro7/Sat1/Premiere/Kabel1/N24 is owned by a citizen of the United states? Did you know that the biggest german publishing house has contracts that bind every employee to support the friendship between Germany, the US an Israel?

Sock Puppet of Doom: An US court said, Microsoft had a monopoly. But times change - Microsoft has to compete now. A little bit.

@apex:...it is therefore accurate to describe the german media as a monopoly if you view "left" as a monolithic unit

and that's the mistake. when you label a group of media with one single expression ("left", which imo is total nonsense), it does not mean they form a monolithic block. also, i don't know which problem you have in defining the term "media". media are tv, radio, newspapers (there are quite a lot, many of which you would call "left", simplifying), magazines. local tv in bavaria is far from being "left" (meanwhile i can't help but laughing when i read the word here...) and you can receive them in other parts of the country as well, e.g. here in nrw.

i would admit there's a mainstream opinion, nothing more. no monopoly.

Did you know that Pro7/Sat1/Premiere/Kabel1/N24 is owned by a citizen of the United states? Did you know that the biggest german publishing house has contracts that bind every employee to support the friendship between Germany, the US an Israel?

And? None of that changes the fact that the media is biased against Bush. Just do what Niko said, go find us all the pro-Bush stuff in the German media and we will find you 10 examples of negative stuff for every one you find. If you want to ignore reality because Springer has a clause in its contracts that it ignores anyway that is your business. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

As for the owner(s) of media outlets, they often have remarkably little input or say as to what actually appears in the networks they own. Additionally, I don't know who the owner you mentioned is, but I seem to remember reading that he was anti-Bush. Perhaps someone can look into that for us.

OK, gebongt, ein wirkliches Monopol liegt hier natürlich nicht vor.

Wie wär's mit "freiwillige Gleichschaltung?" Vielleicht kein schlechter Begriff für einen schrillen Chor, der auffallend oft auf Begriffe wie "entartet" und "verhöhnen" zurückgreift, mit eindeutiger Vorliebe für die mundschäumend-keifende Tonlage...

@ maggie,

Of course there is no absolute monopoly enforced by some absolute power. But there is a monopoly in the sense that there is widespread conformity on Bush in the German media which approaches consensus. Of course there are exceptions as we saw with BILD, but they are remarkably rare and very surprising when they do occur.

I think the Microsoft comparison is good, you can still run a computer with other programs, but you just have to have Microsoft to be on the same page with most other people around you. Certainly there are a few alternatives to the German media's near consensus on Bush (like Medienkritik), but they are few and far between and not accessable to or known by most people.

So my point was that we need to build up more alternatives to the options that we have now in the German media which do tend to be very one-sided. We need a large and viable alternative media that we see in the US in the form of talk radio, blogs and Fox News. I think it is vital to democracy in Germany. There needs to be more checks and balances on the German media as it exists today.

@niko: concerted effort
concerted: abgestimmt, gemeinsam, vereinbart(!)

complete nonsense.

LOL, Haim saban has nothing to say - right. Like Richard Murdoch and Fox :-)

And you should ask employees of Axel Springer before you state, that their contracts are mandatory.

And no one in Germany can watch CNN, BBC or NBC.

Perhaps there is fantasy world called Germany?

And no one in Germany can watch CNN, BBC or NBC.

Did you read my article Torsten?

"But above all, the largest factor is that there is no real German-language alternative for information to the German media in Germany. People simply have no choice."

You finally got around to saying what I was thinking. "Progressives" think that if they say something, or say it often enough, that it is, therefore, a fact.
Torsten and the girls can simply post some of those numerous "positive" articles that prove the balance of the German media. Easy enough, right? And it will save us all going through their various undotted "i's" and uncrossed "t's" of "truth" as they struggle to sustain their preferred myth.


Ray D. Das falsche Verständnis von Monopol ist kein Charakterfehler - du siehst es ja ein.

Aber den deutschen Mediamarkt als "gleichgeschaltet" zu bezeichnen und damit mit dem 3. Reich gleichzusetzen ist erstens dumm und zweitens aus der untersten Schublade. Das hat nichts mehr mit Unkenntnis zu tun.

Übrigens: wo hat ein deutsches Medium Bush als "entartet" bezeichnet oder irgendwen sonst? Und was ist mit dem Wort"verhöhnen"?

at least the online version of "welt" had mixed comments, "bild" has been mentioned here several times. the problem with the old and new administration in the us is, that their way of thinking and acting is so different from ours, that this strong critical mainstream could evolve. the conclusion, that a wide-spread opinion must have a common or concerted origin, is bogus.

@niko:...Veranstaltungen in Politikwissenschaft, in denen urplötzlich jemand aufsteht, "Viva la revolucion!" ruft, und alle Studis einschl. DozentIn nicken zustimmend.

das ist ja ein toller trick! wann hat der zum letzten mal funktioniert? 1969? wie waer's mit einem wiederauffrischungsseminar?

Niko: you asked for facts. Hmmm - I have no facts to prove what is not true. Ray D. states now says that I am right, that there is no monopoly.

Perhaps you can give us some facts? Who controls the media and thoughts of the Germans? Give me a little hint.

And just another fact: how many newspypers have you bought in the last week?

@ Torsten

You are the only one comparing the German media to the Third Reich. That is not what I am saying. As a dictatorship, the Third Reich completely controlled the media from the top and obviously the content was completely different. Let's cut the absurd comparisons and stop trying to distract from the real arguments.

The fact is that there simply is a widespread negative conformity in the German media today when it comes to Bush. It is so widespread that I have chosen to call it a monopoly. Does that mean it is absolute and completely without exception: No. And certainly one can argue about the exact meaning of the word monopoly. But the fact remains that there is no doubt that the vast majority of the German media is one-sided and biased when it comes to reporting on George W. Bush.

The German media also lacks viable alternatives in the form of talk radio, blogs and a conservative network like Fox. This only makes the problem worse. We badly need more alternatives to what we have today in the Geman media. That was, is and will continue to be my point.

: http://www.message-online.de/arch4_01/41_meyn-erg.htm

As we Americans climb the mountain, we hear a rat squeaking far below. We stop abruptly and shout, "Tough luck, Pierre."

Ray D. Did you ever heard "gleichgeschaltet" in connection to a free and democratic country? (I think only the NPD calls the German media sometimes "gleichgeschaltet").

> The fact is that there simply is a widespread negative conformity in the
> German media today when it comes to Bush.

Have I said something else?

> It is so widespread that I have chosen to call it a monopoly.

Which was wrong - you stated that.

> But the fact remains that there is no doubt that the vast majority of the
> German media is one-sided and biased when it comes to reporting on George W. Bush.

It is also one-sided when it comes to Dieter Bohlen - so what? Give me an positive article about Bohlen and I show you 10 against Bohlen.

Niko: You should really learn to read.

"Doch Leitlinien für die Berichterstattung haben natürlich etwas mit publizistischen Inhalten und Positionierungen zu tun, zumal sie nicht nur als bloße Bekenntnisse abgefasst sind, sondern als juristische Verpflichtungen."

In short: Leitlinie is NOT mandatory, it is part of the contract.

*my support for the project*
the "Big" thing 'd be to find an investor/investors to publish for example a monthly magazine in german. understandable for the average german citizen and pro us, pro american values. I'd like to see henryk m broder as the editor in chief.

TED: call hin.

A bit of friendly advice. Look up the history of smartertimes.com which ended up becoming NYC's newest newspaper the NY Sun. If you're serious about providing alternatives, you're going to have to find a funding model, add staff, and come up with a model to actually make money. David's Medienkritik provides the kernel for a successful effort but until you provide a distribution mechanism for those who are not comfortable with computers, you'll never succeed in creating a broadly influential outlet in the next couple of decades.

It is so widespread that I have chosen to call it a monopoly.

Which was wrong - you stated that.

No. I didn't and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said you can debate the meaning of the word monopoly. But for the reasons I stated I feel that what we have in the German media today is a monopoly and that is what I have chosen to call it. Just as Microsoft is a monopoly despite the fact that there are a few small alternatives out there. The fact remains that there are no large, viable alternatives to challenge the dominant view.

niko...Oh, no, the story is fresh as ever. ..............yawn.

(1) The Bush administration is thinking and acting differently.
(2) Then a strong critical mainstream evolves in Germany.
(3) Finally, the strong critical mainstream just articulates what they think.

it's expressed in a simple way, neglecting the mutual interaction of politicians, journalism and readers/viewers, but to me it seems more reasonable than any conspiracy theory on synchronized (i mean 'gleichgeschaltet') media. i cannot comment on your transfer to us-media.

>apex: the TV market has high costs - in every country in the world there are only few players

Actually, that isn't the core of the problem. TV production itself is not terribly expensive. However, it is a regulated market, you have to have a license to transmit TV programs, and the number of available channels is finite for now. We have a combination of established players in this market, as well as a tedious licensing process, which is highly political in nature (older geezers might remember that when arte and Phoenix were launched, other channels were kicked out of the cable network to make room). All this effectively prevents new players from entering the market. As I said earlier, this is very similar to the situation with mobile phones, several big players, limited access to licenses, and a resulting oligopoly, with a resulting lack of competition.


Ich habe genug von diesem Mist:



Der Mann, der trotzdem gewann

George W. Bush hat die Mehrheit der Wähler hinter sich gebracht. Amerika ist eben konservativ

Von Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff


... Eine Weltsicht steht zur Abstimmung. Nirgends ist an diesem Wahltag Ausgelassenheit zu spüren, eher Stille und grimmige Entschlossenheit. Die Wahl als heiliger Akt: Manche Bürger stehen zwei, drei, gar vier Stunden an, in Florida bei dreißig Grad Hitze. Nachbarn bringen Drinks, damit niemand geht. So hoch war die Politisierung seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr. Keine Spur von der angeblich desinteressierten amerikanischen Gesellschaft.

Auf Fox, dem Sender des Hurrah-Konservatismus, ist nach Stunden der gedämpften Rede nun wieder der übliche Maschinengewehr-Ton zu hören.

Stellt sich die Frage: Warum haben die Amerikaner diesen Mann wiedergewählt? Einen Präsidenten, der den Terroristenführer Osama bin Laden nicht fing und dafür im Irak einen Krieg begann, dessen Gründe abhanden kamen. Der Amerika blamierte, als dort keine Massenvernichtungswaffen und auch keine Verbindung zur Terrororganisation al-Qaida gefunden wurden. Der die Menschenrechtsskandale von Guantánamo und Abu Ghraib zu verantworten hat und Amerika in die größte Image-Krise seiner Geschichte trieb. Warum also George Bush? Die Antwort hat drei Teile: die gefühlte Bedrohung, der schwache Gegner, das konservative Land.

Alles beginnt mit dem Terror-September 2001. Danach hat George Bush einer verwundeten Nation zwei Jahre lang Selbstgewissheit und Sicherheit gegeben. In einer Phase kollektiver Furcht vermittelte er der Bevölkerung das beruhigende Gefühl, als Protektor zwischen den Terroristen und jedem einzelnen Amerikaner zu stehen.

George Bush sollte diese Wende vollenden. Seine Chance bestand darin, das einigende Epochenereignis des Terrorangriffs zu nutzen, um eine ganze Ära zu prägen. Eine Art Sicherheitskonservatismus, so die damalige Vorhersage, würde der Rechten auf lange Sicht die Mehrheit im Lande sichern. Nach diesem Szenario sollte ein zunehmend strukturkonservatives Land einem populären Kriegspräsidenten zu einem Erdrutschsieg über einen unpopulären Demokraten verhelfen. Wer die Ausgangslage so betrachtet, wundert sich nicht über den Sieg von George Bush. Eher darüber, dass es Dienstagnacht so knapp wurde. Das Foto-Finish zeigt, dass Bush eine Chance verschenkt hat, wie sie in der Politik nur alle paar Generationen vorkommt. Er ist mit einem blauen Auge davongekommen. Immerhin ist sein Mandat unumstritten.

Die Bevölkerung weiß, wen sie gewählt hat und warum. Dass es knapp war, wird Bush – wie vor vier Jahren – nicht belasten. Allerdings ist sein politischer Spielraum viel kleiner. Die erste Amtszeit lastet wie eine Hypothek auf ihm. Außenpolitisch hat die Regierung Bush ihren Lernprozess schon hinter sich. Sie war einst angetreten, indem sie lästige Grundannahmen über Allianzen, Verträge, die internationale Gemeinschaft und sogar über das Recht zum Krieg verwarf. Vier Jahre später ist die oft verfluchte »Bush-Doktrin« ein verstaubtes Stück Papier. Ihre drei Grundannahmen – »Präemption«, »Regimewechsel« und »Mit uns oder mit den Terroristen« – sind widerlegt oder überholt. Weil im Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden wurden, ist »Präemption« diskreditiert. Weil der Irak-Krieg die Amerikaner überlastet, wird das Konzept des »Regimewechsels« zu einer Politik der klaren Worte und der verdeckten Finanzierung von Oppositionsgruppen. Und weil Amerika im Kampf gegen die Terroristen die Hilfe zweifelhafter Regime wie Pakistan oder Saudi-Arabien braucht, verstummt die manichäische Rhetorik. Schon seit einem Jahr kehrt langsam Realismus zurück nach Washington. Das bedeutet freilich nicht, dass Ideologen ihre Ideologien abstreifen. Jüngste Gerüchte besagen, Donald Rumsfeld wolle nun doch Verteidigungsminister bleiben. Der konservative Ex-Senator und gegenwärtige UN-Botschafter John Danforth werde womöglich den moderaten Colin Powell als Außenminister ablösen. Eine rechtsnationale Regierung würde damit noch weiter nach rechts rücken. Die alten Probleme bleiben ihr erhalten. Eine konfliktarme zweite Amtszeit verheißt das nicht.

Die Wahl verdankt George Bush seiner wertkonservativen Basis. Strenggläubige Christen sind zu den Wahlurnen gepilgert, weil sie Bush für einen der ihren halten. Nun ist Zahltag. »Die amerikanische Geschichte«, heißt es in The Right Nation, »war immer eine Abfolge moralischer Kreuzzüge: gegen Hexen, Trinker, gefallene Jungfrauen, illegale Einwanderer, Kommunisten.« Neben Terroristen gehörten für die religiöse Rechte die angeblich wertevergessenen Säkularisten Amerikas auf diese Liste. Sie sehen das Land in einem »kulturellen Bürgerkrieg«. Bush soll für sie eine Entscheidungsschlacht schlagen.

Die Chance dürfte sich bald ergeben. Denn Bush wird wahrscheinlich zwei, vielleicht sogar vier Richter des überalterten Obersten Gerichtshofes, des Supreme Court, ersetzen können. Die religiöse Rechte wird von ihm verlangen, dass er eiserne Konservative beruft. Bis zur Präsidentschaft Ronald Reagans (1981 bis 1989) waren die Richter meist liberal oder moderat. Seither arbeitet die Rechte erfolgreich daran, das Gericht in ihrem Sinne umzudrehen. Nun steht Bush davor, »Amerika auf Jahrzehnte fundamental zu verändern«, wie die New York Times fürchtet. Erster Kandidat für eine Berufung wäre der gegenwärtige Rechtsberater des Präsidenten, Alberto Gonzalez. Die berüchtigten »Folter-Memos« des Weißen Hauses, wonach man es mit den Genfer Konventionen nicht zu genau nehmen solle, stammen aus seiner Feder. Diese Ernennung zu verhindern wird den Demokraten schwer fallen, da Gonzalez der erste Latino beim höchsten Gericht wäre.

Strenggläubige Christen halten den Präsidenten für einen der Ihren

Mit einem gewendeten Gerichtshof erfüllte sich für die Rechte ein Traum. Denn so ließen sich endlich die verhassten Urteile zur Abtreibung revidieren. 1973 hatte der Supreme Court in der bahnbrechenden Entscheidung Roe vs. Wade das Recht auf Abtreibung bejaht – und in einem Akt richterlicher Rechtsschöpfung mit dem Persönlichkeitsrecht der Frau begründet. Vermutlich würde sich das Gericht nicht direkt des berühmten Falles Roe vs. Wade annehmen, sondern die Abtreibungsregelung zur Diskussion »an die Einzelstaaten zurückgeben«, wie Professor Cass Sunstein von der University of Chicago schreibt. Es wäre das Ende der bundesstaatlichen Abtreibungserlaubnis. Und zugleich der Beginn eines gewaltigen Proteststurmes.

Bill Clintons zweite Amtsperiode war geprägt von dem Versuch, mit großen Errungenschaften in die Geschichtsbücher einzugehen. Wenig spricht dafür, dass mit George Bush nun eine Regentschaft der Milde beginnen wird. Zu dramatisch die Lage im Irak, zu groß die neuen Herausforderungen in Iran und in Nordkorea, zu mächtig die Friktionen im Inneren. Die Demokraten, in der Niederlage zynisch, suchen das Gute im Schlechten. Sie retten sich in den Glauben, dass alles noch schlechter kommen müsse, bevor es besser werde. Der revolutionäre Konservatismus werde in einem Desaster enden und eine machtvolle Gegenbewegung erzeugen. »Danach wird Amerika den Kurs ändern«, schreibt James Galbraith von der University of Texas. »Die Demokratie und der gesunde Menschenverstand werden sich durchsetzen.« Es ist immer die Hoffnung, die texanische Linke leben lässt.

Ray D.: You posted this sentence: "OK, gebongt, ein wirkliches Monopol liegt hier natürlich nicht vor." This means:
"OK, you are right, of cource there is no real monopoly". Putting in your mouth? There is no monopoly - you just had some "feelings".

Niko: They are part of the contract - read the article that I have posted. ""Leitlinie" has not the meaning that anything is mandatory - why do you think that? When you do not agree to the "Leitlinien" you do not work there. And it is not illegal because of the German media law. Just google for "Tendenzbetriebe".

"OK, gebongt"
no, that was maggie...

@ Torsten,

Ray D.: You posted this sentence: "OK, gebongt, ein wirkliches Monopol liegt hier natürlich nicht vor."

That was Maggie...not me...

I stand by what I've said.


This is not the first time that the German people have en masse demonized another people through bias and lies. This is by no means a uniquely German susceptibility, but one would have thought that the German people would be alert by now not to indulge it, at least with such blind abandon.

Gabi schreibt:

"Ich habe genug von diesem Mist."

Dann sollte man es natürlich auch nicht lesen, schon gar nicht die Hamburger ZEIT. Ich empfehle den aktuellen "Economist" - sehr gelungenes Cover - "Now, unite us."


Nico: do you have any empirical data for what you mentioned above? would be quite interesting. and in fact you probably feel good since your candidate has won - but I will feel good again after next german election, when you probably start thinking about migration to hillary clintons cause germany is a too beautiful place for you.

official statistics:
19 per cent of the americans believe they'd be the richest per cent of citizen.
another 20 per cent think they could become part of the richest per cent during the next 10 years.

so don't bother about stupidity in germany, theres already enough elsewhere in the world. no need to debate.

Note from David: Could you please stop commenting under different names in this blog? I guess you want to create the impression of widespread opposition to our postings...

Niko and Ray D:

you cannot blame the German media for everything. Newspapers and TV-Channels are in competition with each other so they write and broadcast what people want to read. Answering the question whether the press was against Bush first or whether the people hated him and the press reacted is probably impossible. FoxChannel is not so successful cos it reports the truth all the time. It reports what people want to hear and it has found an open market on the right.

Also, this blog focuses too much on SPON, taz, zeit and Stern (all have an Anti-American bias and good on you for exposing it). You deny the fact that Bild, who endorsed Bush, is the most influential outlet (together with Der Spiegel) in Germany and the biggest newspaper in Europe. You should read the Frankfurter Allgemeine print edition, one of the best newspapers in Europe or newspapers from the Springer press. They would give you a lot less opportunity to complain about the biased German media. My local newspaper (Rheinische Post) is one of the most read newspapers in Germany... it was for the war in Iraq. I don't think there is media monopoly in Germany.

Finally let me just say that I have a met a lot of very clever, conservative people in the last year. Even they wanted Kerry to win and they are not just influenced by our 'media monopoly'. Maybe there actually is something about Bush that makes him unpopular in Germany (after all, Clinton was very popular here)

Sorry for this endless post but I find that you guys are not covering the whole of the German media and because you do that people who visit your blog do not get the full picture on the German press and therefore Germany

@ Phil,

Are you trying to say that there isn't an overwhelming bias against Bush in the German media? That is all I am trying to say. Again, I am not saying that there has never been an exception or that all German media are as bad as SPON or Stern. But the overall trend is very, very clear.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27