« How Do You Spell "L-I-E"? | Main | Which is Worse? »

Comments

Ray D. wrote: "Could it be that Gerhard Schroeder and his Socialist-Green coalition know that they may, again, have to rely on anti-American media and voters to put them into office come election time, as they did in 2002?

You be the judge..."

Indeed I believe this is going on here. With what else should Schröder run the next election campaign? The economy is in disharey, we have a new record number of people out of work and there is no improvement in sight. The things Schröder would have to do to improve the economy are beyond of what his party could ever enact if they are not to loose their self-identity as "Social-Democrats". The things which would have to be done might even be beyond the willingness of the Union, too. And even the German people themselves don't yet understand the things that need to be done. So, truly, the whole thing here is a mess.

I believe the preparation for the next election has already begun: In case there is not a US-led war again, he will have more difficulties portraying himself as the savior of Germany this time. But, since Anti-Americanism runs popular and guarantees support, he must find another ground connected. Ha! There it is: The threat which "Global Capitalism" poses on the German economy! As perputrated by the US in the leading role! And with the "Grand EU" (this means Germany and France of course) being the good guys and saviors of the "small man" as opposed to evil, big companies, possibly conspirating with evil governments such as that of the US, who fight wars in general to expand their evil system (this last idea will not be spoken out loudly, mind you, but everyone will understand). The preparation of the peoples' mind for this propaganda has already begun and taken on quite vivid forms recently.
This one has excellent chances to run, since every other party fighting this runs risk to be portrayed as traitor against the superior EU vision (again, this means Germany and France, mind you) while possibly even kissing the US' butt.

I guarantee that this is what the next election campaign of the SPD/Green coalition will run on. Kunststück, it's not like it would be difficult to see for anyone watching the news here.

Papst Benedikt XVI. appelliert an Verantwortung der Medien

Rom (dpa) - Der neue Papst Benedikt XVI. hat bei einem Treffen mit mehreren tausend Journalisten an die Verantwortung der Medien appelliert. Nur mit einer verantwortlichen Haltung könnten die Medien einen positiven Beitrag in der Gesellschaft leisten, sagte Joseph Ratzinger im Vatikan. Kurz zuvor hatten die Vertreter der internationale Medien den deutschen Papst mit langem Beifall begrüßt. Er hielt seine kurze Ansprache in vier Sprachen: auf Italienisch, Englisch, Französisch und Deutsch.
---------------


What a Pope!!!

Well, Gabi, the problem here is though what you consider "responsible conduct" of the media. Or better: What the MEDIA themselves consider to be responsible behaviour, and we all know that to them it means preaching their drivel to the "stupid masses" who have no clue. So, they can understand this as encouragement to go on with or even stack up on their bullshit.

@ niko k.:

The "continues" graph suggests permanent surveys, but in fact the survey points are only quarterly - the graph is just connecting the dots.

now take a calculator and add up the indices of the survey points of the first half of the graph, and then do the same for the second half.

You shoulf reach circa 0,5 as sum of the first half, and -18 for the second half. A very clear downwards trend, I would say ...

@ Niko,

The trend is even more clear when you consider the amount of data being looked at, i.e. literally thousands of reports.

As if I needed any evidence...
All I have to do is turn on the TV for 5 minutes or open a newspaper / magazine. Anti-Americanism in German media is all but obvious. I have to try very hard not to see it.

It certainly seems to me that Goebbels trained his apprentices well.
Of course, some of them seem to have immigrated to the US also. :)

The dissidents in the old Soviet Union used a 'strategy of legality'. What they did was attempt to hold the commies to their own Constitution and laws.

Last night on Fox News, I saw a woman use the journalists own code of ethics to criticize their actual activities. I can't remember who she was or what the issue was, but I think this is a brilliant strategy to use against the biased media in all countries.

Here's the link to the Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics and some outtakes:

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.


Mathias Döpfner (from the influential German Springer conglomerate) is on Medientenor's board. So what can we expect? There is no info on how the study was conducted! I simply don't believe it's authoritative and done in earnest. The graph is indeed ridiculous. And who is Schatz, by the way?

Hey All!
anti-americanism aint just in the news over here. I was watching one of the more popular comedy shows last night on RTL. It´s called "Genial Deneben". It´s a panel of comics who have to guess what a particular thing is or what the background to a story is. Kind of a "What´s my line?" format.For example they once asked the Panel why did thousands of women move to Wilmington N.C. over a weeks time back in the middle 40´s. and the answer was "Because Dupont was givng out free pairs of Nylons which they just invented to all female residents of Wilmington". Anyways you get my drift. And anytime a question about America comes up, one of the only 2 permanent panel members, Berhard Höecker, makes it clear on how stupid and evil Americans are and how much he hates them. and this isn´t just some comic trying to be clever. He won´t make a joke about Bush. He says something about how stupid and rotten Americans are. I´m sure some of the German resident contributers have seen this show and can verify what I´m saying. Even my wife who thinks I have paranoid delusions about anti-Americanism in the German media even said "you´r right, he realy does hate Americans." And these comments don´t bring any big laughs even. But he still makes them every time America comes up. And I guess the station and producers don´t have any problem with his hate spewing while it is a constant fixture of the show. How sad.

Doug (from Nürnberng and not the other Doug)

There are as many stupid and rotten Americans out there as there are Germans. While Germans love the easy US bash Americans are no better. They just bash whoever comes in their way.

@ Wolfowitz:

Riight...because one of the board members works for the Springer publishing house, the entire study is invalid. The old guilt by association smear is alive and well among the minions of the Angry Left I see. If you can't argue against the facts, try to discredit the study. That's funny, because left-wing publications like SPIEGEL ONLINE have quoted Medien Tenor as a source more than once.

Like they say, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger, right Wolfowitz?

---Ray D.

@ Ray
Just so you know: I'm not a "minion of the Angry Left" and I never will be. Neither will I be a minion of the Angry Right. And I will refrain from calling you such in return.

I still think that this study as published on the Mediatenor website remains unconvincing. I accuse myself of being a bit polemic but as a matter of fact I don't like Döpfner's haircut...

Anyhow, why don't they publish the criteria as to which the evaluated the material? My point being: The analysis of media contents is a tricky thing and we should not believe a short text and a big graph only because they underline what we are thinking on the rise of critical views on the US in Germany. Take it easy,Ray!

--Wolf

Anti-Americanism is really hard to define. And even harder to measure. I would say that its simply impossible to put it in a statistic. The point of Anti-Americanism is that it is - in most cases - a hidden code. An example: When Schröder defended his decision to lift the Embargo against China, he pointed out that other countries than China also have capital punishment. Was this Anti-Americanism? He simply stated a fact. But for an audience that it used to cite capital punishment as part of a set of reproaches against America, as part of a certain picture of an evil America, the meaning is clear - America is no better than China.
Another point is, for the media: what is reported and what not? Where are the priorities?
The problem for every study is that Anti-Americanism is, in Germany, a taboo, at least for the mainstream. So what has evolved over time is a certain code.
Therefore I'm very doubtful about the value of this study. You cannot measure Anti-Americanism. You have to argue in each single case.
I myself am convinced that there is a strong Anti-Americanism in German media. Much more than in the average population. German Anti-Americanism is especially strong in the "Bildungsbürgertum", because with Americanization this class has lost a lot of it traditional authorithy and social standing. Most journalists come from this class, and share their ressentments.
To sum up, my point is twofold: Yes, there is a strong Anti-Americanism in the media, and no, you cannot measure it easily.

America's "Irresponsible" President
Is the ““Chief Culprit of this War””

You must not take constructive criticism as an attack on America itself, I am often told. We have nothing against the American people, you see, it’’s only their leaders and the latters’’ policies we disapprove of. Oh, I understand. I understand totally. Thanks for clearing that up.
Thus, recently, one of Europe’’s foreign ministers denounced America’’s president as the ““chief culprit of this war”” and went on to bemoan the ““American people”” for having been betrayed by such an irresponsible leader.

““I don’’t see much future for the Americans”” added the head of state of the aforementioned minister.

It’’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …… My feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance. …… How can one expect a State like that to hold together —— a country where everything is built on the dollar.

Evoking America’’s ““historically unique and shameless ill treatment of truth and of right”” in words which could have originated as much in the mouths of anti-globalization militants and of other pacifists marching against Washington as in those of the ambassadors in the hallowed halls of the United Nations, he added that the ““so-called”” president was ““guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law””and that first, he incites war, then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack ……

A threatening opposition was gathering over the head of this man. He guessed that the only salvation or him lay in diverting public attention from home to foreign policy …… Thus began the increasing efforts of the American President to create conflict …… For years this man harboured one desire —— that a conflict should break out somewhere in the world.
[The fact is that one country] has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way fills us all …… I think, all …… decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction.
---


http://www.eriksvane.com/culprit.htm

@ Wolf aka Wolfowitz:

You write:

"Just so you know: I'm not a "minion of the Angry Left" and I never will be. Neither will I be a minion of the Angry Right. And I will refrain from calling you such in return.

How big of you.

"I still think that this study as published on the Mediatenor website remains unconvincing. I accuse myself of being a bit polemic but as a matter of fact I don't like Döpfner's haircut...

Anyhow, why don't they publish the criteria as to which the evaluated the material?"

Amazing. It only takes you three sentences to completely contradict yourself "Wolf". First you claim the study is "unconvincing", yet, in the very next breath you admit that you have never seen the criteria by which the study's administrators "evaluated the material."

So if you don't even know how the study was done, how can you declare it "unconvincing" Wolf? Explain that one...

I think your comments are ABSOLUTELY politically motivated my friend. You've got what we call a knee-jerk reaction against what we write on this site. In German you'd call that Besserwisserei. The only problem is you don't know what you are really talking about.

---Ray D.

@ Ray

Mr. Angry Minion of the Right, call me Besserwisser, call me whatever you want. I don't care.

You want me to explain? Here you go!

It is not that hard to understand: I claim that this so-called "major study" is unconvincing due to the fact that we know nothing about the evaluation of the material. If Spiegel cites Mediatenor occasionally: fine! That does not solve the problem.

I don't trust polls where I can't see the question asked. I don't trust media content analysts who do not tell you how they processed their raw material. I don't trust a big graph with a lot of zig-zags.

A good journalist is somebody who reveals as much as possible. That is true for pollster or media content analysts likewise.

--wolf

The mainstream media in Germany is anti-american, there is no doubt about that , however pure news broadcasts like the "ARD Tagesschau" ( 8 pm), are remarkable neutral in their reporting.
Once the news broadcasts include a commentary by a journalist like the "ARD Tagesthemen "(10 :30 pm) they can't hide their anti american tendencies. Same for the "ZDF Heute" (7 pm) and the " ZDF Heute Journal" ( 21:45 pm).
The political magzines, special reports and talk shows also create a very negative picture of America. The exception are those programs produced by the conservative BR, which is the bavarian part of the ARD.

"I don't trust polls where I can't see the question asked. I don't trust media content analysts who do not tell you how they processed their raw material. I don't trust a big graph with a lot of zig-zags."

I love it when they come up with that stuff while at the same time sucking on the MSM' tits like it was gospel.

@ Christian

I disagree - ALL of ARD and ZDF newscasts are biased indeed.
You are forgetting something: just because they refrain from flat-out America-bashing doesn't mean they're neutral. Concealing vital information and news (that support the view they don't like) and often failing to report the other side of the story (coincidentally always the american or israeli one) is just as bad as intentionally distorting reports to make America look bad.

@ wolfowitz:

"It is not that hard to understand: I claim that this so-called "major study" is unconvincing due to the fact that we know nothing about the evaluation of the material."

That does not mean the study is unconvincing wolfowitz, it simply means you are uninformed about the study. That is an important distinction.

What I clearly understand is that you insist on being "unconvinced" as opposed to informing yourself because the study reveals something that you are obviously uncomfortable with politically.

It is not difficult at all to go to Medien Tenor's website and read in great detail how they carry out their studies.

They are not talking about reporting only on negative events. They are talking about the tone of the reporting as well. I have looked at other research done by Medien Tenor and the level of negativity towards the US is much higher than "1.01" times the positive in Germany and other European nations.

I admit that this graph and summary are limiting. So far, I haven't been able to gain access to the full report and the complete data sets. Medien Tenor has not yet made them public for this specific study to my knowledge. I have seen larger reports on Europe as a whole that contain some of the data the report is talking about, so I know that the negative versus positive ratio is pronounced. The summary provided is obviously based on solid evidence gathered in the large sampling of reports (over 14,000) over the three years.

As soon as MT publishes more detailed charts and a full version of the report, we will have them for you.

---Ray D.

It seems to me that negative stories will always predominate in any country's media. Just because there are many negative stories about America doesn't disturb me per se as long as they are truthful. What I find really disturbing about the German media is that certain "personalities" choose to openly vilify another country or citizens thereof. What disturbs me about Germans is that they are at best silent about such vilifications and at worst supportive of them.

It's a european mentality to hate: jews, kulaks, walloons, neighboring cities, countries, etc. Anti-americanism is nothing more than the twin of anti-semitism. There is no rational reason as to the why's of the hatred, except their massive inferiority complex resulting from Germany's disgraceful place in world history and current events.

The great thing about being American, is I can go for weeks at a time without even thinking about Germany, or even giving a damn about what some kraut thinks. I would rather be hated that irelevant.

@Wolfowitz:

As one who had the misfortunate to live under Hitler for 12 years, I can tell you that you don't need a "study" to convince yourself of a severe German media and public anti American bias.

The German words used today to describe the American president and its people are mostly the same one could easily find in any German paper or radio station during WW II. End of debate?

Peter P. Haase
USA

"The great thing about being American, is I can go for weeks at a time without even thinking about Germany, or even giving a damn about what some kraut thinks. I would rather be hated that irelevant"-

I like that! Spot on, Ian!

Well, as sad as it may be: The anti-Americanism is not only a German thing. You find it even more so in France and even in Italy, where big numbers of Communists are still running around claiming that they have a cure for all the world's ills.

@ Ray

I give up on the methodology thing... There is a difference, however, between a general statement on Medientenor's website and background information on how this SPECIFIC "study" was conducted. I appreciate your comment that the graph and the summary of the report are indeed limited. I guess we are on the same page on this one now...

I may be qualifying for another name-calling with this one:

Why did you not show the whole graph in your post? Why did you give it a new spin with your subtitle?

The real title of the graph reads "Explicit rating of US protagonists in 7 German newscasts." You reframe it to: "Steady Trend: German Television Media Have Grown Increasingly Negative Towards All Things American Since 2002." For this, of course you had to cut the real title of the graph...

"All Things American" is not in the graph, I'm sorry! It is about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc. and how those folks are portrayed on German television. It's fun to see how "fair and balanced" you are making your case.

I don't contest that there is a widespread US-critical reporting in Europe and elsewhere in the world. And Germany may even be comparatively negative/critical. But why are you so obsessed with the German media as a bogeyman? And what is the reason for this reporting according to your view?

--wolf

PS: @ Peter P. Haase
As you seem to be living in the US, what do you think about the anti-French/anti-European bias of Fox News Channel?

@ wolfowitz:

You write:

"I appreciate your comment that the graph and the summary of the report are indeed limited. I guess we are on the same page on this one now..."

No, we aren't. Although the graph and summary are in themselves limited, this does not make the study itself limited or "unconvincing" as you have repeatedly claimed it is.

"Why did you not show the whole graph in your post? Why did you give it a new spin with your subtitle?

The real title of the graph reads "Explicit rating of US protagonists in 7 German newscasts." You reframe it to: "Steady Trend: German Television Media Have Grown Increasingly Negative Towards All Things American Since 2002." For this, of course you had to cut the real title of the graph...

I do show the entire graph in my post. I didn't include the main title or the second page of the PDF document you are referring to because it would have taken up too much space on this blog and taken forever to load. That is why I just wrote: "here is the graph." In fact, I explicitly state that the study is of 7 major news networks and deals with US protagonists, so your claim that I am trying to hide or omit that information simply falls flat.

On top of that, everything I discuss can be easily viewed by utilizing links in my posting to Medien Tenor. The study is right there at the top of the Medien Tenor homepage for all to see and examine. In fact, it is obvious from your last comment that you yourself had no trouble doing just that.

So your implication that I am deviously trying to hide, slant or alter something to deceive my readers is just more of the same smear game. It is certainly more insulting than any of the "names" I have called you.

As far as the sub-head goes, it is clear and obvious that it is my sub-head and does not belong to the study. Additionally, my sub-head is nothing more than an obvious re-statement of the study's findings. Saying that it gives the graph a "new spin" as you claim is ridiculous. It is in complete agreement with what is shown in the graph.

What I really can't believe is the following misrepresentation on your part:

""All Things American" is not in the graph, I'm sorry! It is about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc. and how those folks are portrayed on German television. It's fun to see how "fair and balanced" you are making your case."

Huh? Wolfowitz, did you even read the summary? This is clearly not just about US political figures, but about "US protagonists." Let me quote the summary again for you:

"The negative trend was also not limited to political figures, but also encompassed news reporting on business. Scandals and crises have predominantly marked the picture of the American economy since 2002. "Successful developments clearly stand in the shadow of scandals and are barely portrayed," Schatz analyzes. The news prefer to repeatedly present their viewers with information on Enron or the investigations of Eliot Spitzer instead of reporting on success stories like those of Dell."

Common now Wolfowitz, at least get the basic facts straight before you question my "fairness and balance."

You further write:

"But why are you so obsessed with the German media as a bogeyman? And what is the reason for this reporting according to your view?"

First of all, I don't obsess about the German media as a "bogeyman". I do, however, think that influential sectors of the German media are doing a substantial amount of damage to transatlantic relations through their bias and negativity. And it is my good right to speak out against that here on this blog because I want to see better relations between Germany and the United States. Apparently, thousands of daily readers of this website seem to think David and I have a valid point.

The reasons behind the bias in many parts of the German media are many-fold. I could write a book about them, so I will be brief. For one, the German left feels deeply threatened by American, conservative, free-market ideals. Have you ever heard the term "amerikanische Verhaeltnisse" used in Germany? It is a very bad word, especially when it comes out of the mouth of someone in the SPD, PDS or Green party. That is because those folks feel very afraid of Americans who favor less taxes, less bureaucracy, less welfare, more self-reliance and more free trade. They also feel deeply threatened by a strong America in the world. This goes back at least to Vietnam times. There are certainly dozens of other factors at play.

"As you seem to be living in the US, what do you think about the anti-French/anti-European bias of Fox News Channel?"

Can you document that bias? Additionally, why is Fox News, the one conservative cable news channel, always everyone's whipping boy? It is as if conservatives didn't have the right to have their own news channel. What, we simply have to accept the monopoly on the news of non-conservatives? Give me a break.

---Ray D.

@ Ray

Oh, yes, I read the "summary" of the study. Let me clarify: The graph, and this will not change due to you claiming otherwise, is about the coverage of "US protagonists" on German TV. Which is different from the summary of the study! The study is about general reporting on the US which includes the "protagonists". That should be made clear! I guess it's one of multiple graphs that the study has produced...

What do you suggest the German media do? The Bush administration is among the most controversial in US history (more than Reagan). The US itself is deeply divided into a liberal and a conservative camp. Blue and red states, if you will. And regarding foreign policy, the administration has shown, how should I put it, an aggressiveness and preference for military tools that has alienated allies, Germany in particular. The German media is reflecting these tensions, sometimes fuelling them, of course, which is, as I stated repeatedly, worrisome. I hold that it is a diffucult task to assess which reporting crosses the line between critical views, which are okay and welcome (or would you prefer an uncritical media?), and anti-American bias. "Amerikanische Verhältnisse" is, by the way, in my view, revealing anti-American bias, plainly because it is an unacceptable generalization. It stigmatizes US society as a whole.

I share your point that transatlantic relations have to be brought back on track. The question is on what terms! I don't share your apparent radical pro-American bias. It seems akward to me that you are obviously unconditionally surrendering to current US political views. This is, I think, as problematic as anti-American bias.

RE Fox. Have you watched it? It's great fun!
Example: repeated calls to boycott French products in the US as seen repeatedly during/after the war in Iraq (you guessed it: O'Reilly), do you want more?
PS: At no point do I state that conservatives were to be denied the right of their "own" news channel (which strikes me as if you are suggesting that all other news channels belong to the "liberal" camp... This is a widespread illusion upheld by those groups who benefit from it: the so-called non-mainstream media, FOX NC, talk radio. With that fairy tale they are legitimizing their "anti-bias.")

--wolf

I have been living in Germany for almost a decade and the Anti-American reporting is beyond a doubt. I understand german posters here not seeing it, you have really no other alternatives to your media services to actually compare or you are living in denial. No worries, you have loads of company in the latter.

Looking foward to see how Schroeder projects the countrys current problems in the 2006 election. He will always need a scape-goat to pin his the SPDs failings on. I imagine they will dig up the CDU-Kohl scandal from 10 years ago for some added smoke.

@ Wolfowitz:

Actually, if you want to get really technical, the summary is about "the negative trend in the portrayal of US-American protagonists and institutions that has been ongoing since 2002." The title above the graph only mentions "American protagonists." But I see no evidence that this does not include institutions. A protagonist can be a non-human actor such as a firm or institution. I could be wrong, but I see no clear evidence that the summary and graph are dealing with two different things. I don't see why the authors would have made such a confusing distinction without clearly pointing it out.

"And regarding foreign policy, the administration has shown, how should I put it, an aggressiveness and preference for military tools that has alienated allies, Germany in particular."

Just a hint Wolf: Germany is not America's only "ally." And by the way, Germany continues to strongly support the US use of the military in Afghanistan with its own troops!

As far as Iraq goes, there are literally dozens of US allies that were and continue to be supportive there as well. Particularly new eastern European allies of the United States who still have a fresh understanding and memory of what it means to suffer under an aggressive dictatorship.

(I hope my calling them "new" won't throw you into a rage...)

"I don't share your apparent radical pro-American bias. It seems akward to me that you are obviously unconditionally surrendering to current US political views. This is, I think, as problematic as anti-American bias."

Radical pro-American bias? Wow, this coming from the guy who couldn't stand being called a "minion of the left." Well, that's the first time anyone has accused me of that, lol. Why...because I dare to object to the defamation of an entire nation in the German media and politics?

OK, give me some examples of my "radical pro-American bias." And what "political views" exactly am I "surrendering" to? I could say the same of you wolf...why are you surrendering to the political terms of the German left?

"RE Fox. Have you watched it? It's great fun!
Example: repeated calls to boycott French products in the US as seen repeatedly during/after the war in Iraq (you guessed it: O'Reilly), do you want more?"

Yes, I watch Fox and several other news channels every day. Bill O'Reilly, who has his own show on Fox News weeknights, is NOT representative of the entire news channel in all of his views. This is more of the guilt by association argument that you seem to resort to as a crutch everytime you are losing the argument. O'Reilly's show is clearly opinion-journalism and not a part of the official news segments on the channel. In fact, his program is interrupted at the bottom of the hour by the Fox news report.

Saying that all of Fox News is anti-French because O'Reilly has called for a boycott is like saying CNN is anti-Mexican because Lou Dobbs is constantly complaining about illegal immigration on his program or like saying that SPIEGEL ONLINE is pro-American because they allow Henryk Broder to publish an occassional token article. One opinion-journalism show or journalist does not define an entire network nor does it make the entire network biased in one way or the other.

If that is all the evidence you have (one reporter on Fox News) that the US media is anti-French, then I must say that I am highly unconvinced Wolf.

"At no point do I state that conservatives were to be denied the right of their "own" news channel (which strikes me as if you are suggesting that all other news channels belong to the "liberal" camp... This is a widespread illusion upheld by those groups who benefit from it: the so-called non-mainstream media, FOX NC, talk radio

Well, up until about 15 or 20 years ago, most of the "non-mainstream media" such as talk-radio, Fox News and blogs, did not even exist. Indeed, there were very few conservative media sources. I do not assume that the entire "mainstream media" is liberal, but I do believe, based on substantial evidence, that much of the mainstream media does lean in that direction. I also believe that much of the MSM leans away from the conservative point of view. I would go so far as to say there is a clear bias towards the liberal point of view and away from the conservative point of view in the MSM.

If you actually read what I wrote, I referred to the major networks other than Fox News as non-conservative. That is different from calling them all liberal.

---Ray D.

PS: Buckeye Abroad: The SPD has already found a new scapegoat to blame for all of its failings: Global Capitalism.

Concealing vital information and news (that support the view they don't like) and often failing to report the other side of the story... is just as bad as intentionally distorting reports to make America look bad.

What an excellent point. That is something you find very often in the US media as well. For example, I've ever once heard a CNN reporter mention, that Saddam's repression of the Iraqi people was one of the reasons stated in the Congressinal resolution which approved the war. It'll be almost two years since they've been carping nonstop about the missing WMD, but they never mention the other reasons, like Saddam's proven support for terrorism, another stated reason in the resolution. This is just one example.

But whether you would call something like that anti-Americanism or simply propagandizing, I don't know.

@ Ray

I surrender unconditionally, I just don't have enough time to engage in meandering ideological discussions.

Here's a last one:

What I figured during the last exchanges is that you are deliberately misapplying the term anti-Americanism (when critical of America would be warranted). (Just scroll up back to your post...) To use this neat sticky label instead of nuanced and more applicable characterizations heats up the discussion and probably lets you have more fun... (That's the difference between a blogger's ethic and a good journalist's.)

By misapplying and oversimplifying, however, you are constructing scape-goats and "enemies" (like the liberal media, the minions of the left, etc.). Which also simplifies making your point: The German media is pervasively biased against the US, yeah! The "Left" does the same which puts you on the same intellectual level. (Sorry, just a little insult, lol)

What you are missing out on, on the other hand, is a really fair and balanced discussion; something that would really help transatlantic relations. But, I take notice that you are simply not interested in that. This is the sad story of this blog. What you get in the end is a relatively homogenous group of people with fairly similar views. And you do a good job on that!

--wolf

PS: Do you know the difference between anti-Americanism and critical views on America? O'Reilly is anti-French, Der Spiegel is PARTLY critical of the US, partly not. You just mentioned Broder as a prominent exception. I mention Malzahn. What about Szandar. I'm sure the're more...

@ wolfowitz:

You write:

"What I figured during the last exchanges is that you are deliberately misapplying the term anti-Americanism (when critical of America would be warranted). (Just scroll up back to your post...) To use this neat sticky label instead of nuanced and more applicable characterizations heats up the discussion and probably lets you have more fun... (That's the difference between a blogger's ethic and a good journalist's.)"

I'm sorry that we aren't nuanced and sophisticated enough for you wolfowitz. Just to re-state what I've said before: We have no problem with balanced, valid criticism of the US or anything else on the part of the German media. But when it comes to the obvious cases of America-bashing in the German media we will continue to call a spade a spade whether you like it or not. Certainly, as I look over this discussion and how you have conducted yourself, I think you are hardly in any position to tell anyone here about "ethics" or standards in "journalism."

"By misapplying and oversimplifying, however, you are constructing scape-goats and "enemies" (like the liberal media, the minions of the left, etc.). Which also simplifies making your point: The German media is pervasively biased against the US, yeah! The "Left" does the same which puts you on the same intellectual level."

What we do here day in and day out is to bring example after example after example of bias in the German media to our English speaking readers. All of our examples, along with numerous studies done by Medien Tenor point to a very clear, widespread pattern of negativity and bias towards the US in the German media. Literally hundreds of people who live or have lived in Germany know through personal experience what we are talking about. That is why we have 3,000 readers every day.

It is obvious to everyone reading these comments that you are in a state of denial about this and have decided that bias in the German media simply doesn't exist. My guess is that this denial is caused by your intense dislike of the American government and its politics.

"What you are missing out on, on the other hand, is a really fair and balanced discussion; something that would really help transatlantic relations. But, I take notice that you are simply not interested in that. This is the sad story of this blog. What you get in the end is a relatively homogenous group of people with fairly similar views. And you do a good job on that!"

That sounds like a perfect description of SPIEGEL ONLINE. If you are interested in a fair and balanced discussion, you should be demanding that the German media present the arguments of American conservatives and Bush supporters in a fair way instead of smearing, distorting and demonizing them time and again. In fact, most of the interviews done with Americans by SPON and other publications like STERN are almost exclusively with Bush opponents. Bush's speeches are regularly sliced and diced beyond recognition just to make him look bad. Even a lot of the pictures you see of Bush and Co. show him with an ugly expression like a snear or a contorted face.

As far as your claim that we only attract people with like views...well, you obviously haven't followed our comments section for very long my friend...it can get pretty hot.

"Do you know the difference between anti-Americanism and critical views on America? O'Reilly is anti-French, Der Spiegel is PARTLY critical of the US, partly not. You just mentioned Broder as a prominent exception. I mention Malzahn. What about Szandar. I'm sure the're more..."

Critical views of anything examine both the positive and negative aspects of a situation. "Anti-American" views are only negative and play on people's stereotypes of American people, society and politics. I could go on defining both terms for several pages, but that is the fundamental difference to me in a nutshell.

As far as the authors you mention, Broder and Malzahn are certainly friendly towards the US. I'm not sure about Szandar, he seems relatively neutral. The problem with that is that they (Broder and Malzahn) are not exactly posting on SPON with any great frequency. I have rarely (if ever) seen a Der SPIEGEL cover featuring one of their stories.

I am sure (since you know about Fox) that you also understand the role that Alan Colmes plays on Fox News. He is the token liberal and (almost) everyone knows it. Unfortunately, Broder and Malzahn are the token authors who occasionally get to publish something that goes against the conventional wisdom at SPON. Like Fox News, SPON does this to give itself the appearance of "objectivity" more than anything else. That doesn't mean that SPON is fair and balanced towards the US. In fact, the magazine is overwhelmingly negative towards the US despite the presence of Broder and Malzahn.

But I'm sure that someone as nuanced and sophisticated as you are will have no trouble understanding that...

---Ray D.

@wolfowitz

"As you seem to be living in the US, what do you think about the anti-French/anti-European bias of Fox News Channel?"

The four major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and NPR
had a TV monopoly of news for 40-50 years in America with their slightly more liberal trend. During the late 1960ies, this trend became an outright leftist bias in news as well as in talk shows and entertainment features. A pretty widesperad, leftist revolt against the Vietnam War was in full swing in America.

With the more conservative Reagan counter revolution, came the public demand for more balanced TV news programming as America is also home to a very large conservative movement. This event happened in contrast to most European countries and particular in contrast to Germany.

The result was the appearance of the more conservative leaning FOX NEWS. So far, Fox News has produced record numbers of viewers in comparison to the other, older and more liberal networks.

As the older networks seem to follow the expected line of being more lenient toward German or French, agressive anti Americanism, Fox News takes a more patriotic and therefore defensive stand on such subjects by giving voice to both, liberals and conservatives.

As an American conservative, I am watching mostly Fox News. I am grateful that decades of liberal monopoly on U.S. Television news have ended with a democratic poll on consumer opinion.

Peter P. Haase
Boca Raton, Florida

"Watch the flow of money and the attack on weaker political organizations", says an American proverb "and you can foresee the future."

In Germany, it was the recognition of the Oder-Neisse-line by Brandt which trumpeted the new politcs of convenience without moral content or consideration for rights of minorities. Until the late 1960ies, such an announcemnet would have benn greeted with wild protest from all political parties in Germany (as the DDR, in fact, received consolidated West German wrath when it recognized the Oder-Neisse as German border years earlier.)

But that was just the beginning. In short order, the criminal regime of the DDR was recognized and those who demanded German reunification as well as those who demanded a peaceful return to their homland became suddenly demonized as "war mongers". Communist, however, were wined and dined at Bonn. Everything happened, of course, to strengthen peace even if the rights of minorities were kicked to the ground and effectively silenced.

It was just a question of time when this leftist crowd, which ignnored cavalierly all principles of freedom, international law and human rights of minorites, would also turn around one day and kick its old friend, America.

Now it has and that comes as to no suprise here.

Peter P. Haase
Boca Raton, Florida

Wolfie wrote "At no point do I state that conservatives were to be denied the right of their "own" news channel (which strikes me as if you are suggesting that all other news channels belong to the "liberal" camp... This is a widespread illusion upheld by those groups who benefit from it: the so-called non-mainstream media, FOX NC, talk radio. With that fairy tale they are legitimizing their "anti-bias.")"

Let me clarify this for you - I don't know if Ray or David were suggesting the above at any recent time but I will be very clear

for the past 30-40 years the mainstream media has drifted further and further to the left

As "right" as Fox is - thats how "left" CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN have been for decades

The same is true to a greater degree in the printed media - the NY Times and Wash Post are both very liberal papers

Please don't pipe up unless you have some facts to dispute all of the above

As far as I can tell you live in some fantasy world where you actually don't see any liberal tilt in the mainstream media - in the US or europe

And thats just willful ignorance

Why are you posting here if you don't know anything about the topic of media bias?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

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
28