« Major Announcement Imminent... | Main | Welcome to the Epicenter of Anti-American Madness »


"...considering Mr. Luettgert's own outrageous manipulation of the facts"

I didn't see much in the way of facts to be manipulated. This entire filming issue is patently ludicrous!

That's one of the problems with trying to be a rational, sane person. It takes a lot less effort to make up crap than it takes to debunk it.

There are a couple of other issues in the article that are complete B.S.:

"The US media do not immediately show photos of American soldiers who have fallen in Iraq. For patriotic reasons."

This is ignorant crap. The media doesn't even know who they are until the family is notified. Then the photos are published in local (and some national) papers and the internet. If he is talking about the issue of showing the bodies as they return, he obviously doesn't understand the reasons.

“Many people no longer exercise criticism of the Bush government when with journalists. They are afraid to be arrested and interrogated. I never experienced such a thing earlier.”

What unadulterated stinking crap! That sounds like something he copied out of a William Shirer book.

@ Don

"This entire filming issue is patently ludicrous!"

"That sounds like something he copied out of a William Shirer book."

LOL Yes there really could be patent issues here!

Wow, the German media is a LOT worse than the Norwegian media... How can they get away with printing such obvious lies? David, have you contacted these journalists to get a response about this complete BS they are writing?

This is something that some Norwegians also believe in - that Bush is some sort of dictator. Some of them believe that Bush has all sorts of powers that he doesn't have. I can see now why they might think so, it is a staple of the European press to portray Bush in such a way.

You start to wonder: does the press in Europe miss Adolf Hitler? If not, why are they creating a new Hitler in Bush?

Has anyone contacted or attempted to contact Mr. Luettgert with regard to the statements from Ms. Jessica Beard of the Texas Rangers communications department?

@ Greg,

I did a brief search online, but I couldn't find his contact info. Maybe one of you could help us find it? I'll keep looking in the meantime...

His name is "Christoph Lütgert" and not "Christoph Lüttgert". Those NDR guys are so full of sh** they can't even spell the names of their own journalists correctly.

LOL! Wow, Germans have Bushitis worse than I thought!

Even if you hate Bush, you have to give the man credit for driving the left even deeper into the abyss of insanity than Reagan ever did, and I think this is a good thing. What will Lütgert (or whatever the hell his name is) come up with next? He got a wicked case of intestinal gas and it's Bush's fault?

All MLB games have included the statement "any rebroadcast or other reuse of this television broadcast with out the express, written consent of the baseball club or Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited" since I was a kid. They were primarily worried about bars charging their patrons admission for watching games on TV.

I guess they'll have to start worrying about clueless German film crews now.

Germany and France, countries of the past. India and China, counties of the future. Don't waste energy on the paste.

I've just contacted the NDR office via phone and they gave me the e-mail address of Mr. Lütgert, so if any of you want to contact him:


I might write a mail later when there is more time.

I really don't know what to say on this one. Are these loonies try to hint that it's the 1936 Olympics in the U.S. or something?

If any of you receive a response from Mr. Luetgert or NDR, please be sure to post it here and/or email it to us at: deutsche_medien@yahoo.de or medienkritik2@hotmail.com

Thanks! Ray D.

My God, thousands of loony Leftists in the U.S. regularly compare Bush to Hitler with no fear whatsoever of reprisal (other than someone disagreeing with them, which they seem to view as "tantamount to torture"), while in Germany, the press isn't even allowed to discuss Schroeder's hair.

Mr. Lütgert's ravings indicate that the Big Lie is alive and well in the German media. This might truly be a serious matter if Germany were not militarily inconsequential. Fortunately, the misguided here no longer have the hardware to act on their delusions.

The worst part about Luetgert's story is that it is so ludicrously wrong. The idea that their is no criticism of Bush in the US media is so idiotic that Luetgert has to be from a parallel universe and not this one. In the mainstream media, they go out of their way NOT to say anything positive about Bush. They lie constantly by ommission of the facts, when they are not making things up (Bush National Guard memos, Koran abuse at Gitmo).

Do people in Germany really believe this tripe? All they have to do is go to C-SPAN.org and watch any daily White House press briefing. They drove out the one guy who was pro-Bush (Jeff Gannon), who stood out because of his positive Bush point of view and questions.

We have an ABC reporter Terry Moran, who confirms that the press has an anti-military bias and sees Iraq in the template of Vietnam. Just go to hughhewitt.com to read the interview.

Luetgert is either purposively putting out the Big Lie or he is outrageously incompetent.

"Do people in Germany really believe this tripe?2

Yep. And they are increasngly coming to believe, along with most Europeans and people living in Europe, that Americans are, for lack of a better term, stupid assholes. It's truly sad.

Then again, this kind of propaganda has probably always been pretty strong in Europe. It's hard for me to say if it's worse now, or just more pronounced, given the heightened global tensions after 9-11. (Using the term "heightened global tensions" reminds me of the German woman who told me right after 9-11 that the U.S. was reposible for these 'heightened global tensions' and that the people who died in the Twin Towers 'deserved it'. And of her English husband who told her - in my presence - that Americans are 'just dumb' and 'have no depth'. This stuff is common currency in the Old World.)

Incidentally, I recently passed through the Washington D.C. airport and noticed that anti-Bush t-shirts were being sold at souvenir shops in the airport. You would think that, with Bush being a dictator and all, he would somehow prevent himself from being mocked in the airport of his own capital city. So much for censorship.

I think you and I are on the same wavelength today.
I read this article a long time ago, and finally found it.. just before I read your comment.
something similar to what you expressed.


Geez, Bush really needs to work on his gulag, doesn't he? Man, one word of dissent and you.. you...
make a million dollars from a book contract..
sold at Bush's bookstore.
That Karl ROve, what a genius.

Youre forgetting that its stuff like this that keeps America dreaming and running. They must believe it.

But isn't this all exactly why the mediakritik is so needed - the fact that such nonsense can be printed with no fear of rebuttal in any major publication



Go anywhere in Germany and start putting up some posters comparing Schroeder to Hitler, and see how much freedom of speech there is in Germany as compared to the U.S. Heck, you don't even have to go that far - just try putting up some posters claiming that Schroeder wears a toupee.

Moreover, where were any facts 'spun' on this site. Where is the censorship Lütger claims? Is Ameriquest Field owned and operated by the U.S. government? If not, then the owners/operators are under no obligation to provide access to the stadium for anyone at anytime.

Did Mr. Lütger contact the White House and ask for permission to film in the stadium? Was he refused? The article doesn't say. What proof does Mr. Lütger provide that he contacted the stadium at all? After all, we only have his word for it. Nor does the article say precisely what Mr. Lütger requested to do in the stadium, when he wanted to do it, how long it would have taken, how many people he was going to bring along, etc. All of this information is relevant to anyone wanting to make an informed decison as to whether or not refusal to allow him to film there was reasonable or not. Assuming, that is, that any of it happened at all.

@ Otto,

First off, stick to the facts and stop insulting people at this website and your comments won't be deleted. I'm totally behind David on this.

Secondly, you wrote:

"You are assuming - although you know it's not true - that Mr.Lütger was trying to film the stadium because he wanted to produce something about sports. Your entire "case" is based on that false assumption.

Totally wrong. In fact, the opposite is true. First: I never said Mr. Luetger wanted to film about sports. That is obvious because if that (sports) is all he had wanted to film at Texas Rangers stadium, he would have never been asked to call the White House! That is simple logic. If you actually read my posting (did you actually read my posting?), you would know that. Here is what I wrote:

So this naturally left me wondering what Mr. Luetgert could have possibly been talking about. When I asked Ms. Jessica Beard of the Texas Rangers communications department why he might have been asked to contact the White House for permission to film the stadium, she told me that this could only have happened if Mr. Luetgert wanted to film an event at the stadium actually physically attended by the President of the United States or if the NDR reporter wanted to film about Mr. Bush’s work at the club and use actual pictures of the President. She stated that only in such specific instances, directly involving the safety and/or right to privacy of the President and his family, would a journalist be requested to directly contact the White House for permission to film.

So again: Since it is obvious that Mr. Luetgert wanted to film something about Bush (which he clearly did), WHY ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT DETAIL MENTIONED BY NDR IN THIS PIECE? Why is it omitted? All that the piece says is that he simply wanted to film at Texas Rangers stadium. And why the absurd comparison to the Bayern Munich stadium? What connection does Schroeder have to Bayern Munich or filming at that stadium? Answer that one for me please.

Here again is the passage from the NDR report in question:

"How large the influence of the Bush clan is in the entire country was also experienced by a German TV journalist. The Texas Rangers Stadium in Texas. Here began the career of Bush as a businessman. The club did not want to grant permission to film. Christoph Luettgert*, NDR executive reporter: “When we made a request there we were told that we had to ask the White House for permission. I mean, that is an outrageous story. That would be something like if I wanted to film in the soccer stadium of FC Bavaria Munich and the club managers of Bavaria Munich would say to me I have to first call and ask at the Chancellor’s office in Berlin. I mean such an all-encompassing control, well such an all-encompassing censorship is unimaginable in Germany."

The Bayern Munich comparison clearly gives readers the false impression that Bush has some sort of arbitrary control over filming at stadiums around the United States. This is reinforced by the closing sentence that claims that Bush has "all-encompassing control" and "censorship".

Now how ridiculous is that?

And don't you think that if a US camera crew went to one of Schroeder's former employers asking to film for a documentary about him that they might just be asked to call his office in Berlin first for permission due to privacy issues? Doesn't sound "outrageous" at all to me, and it wouldn't sound like someone trying to exercise "all-encompassing control." But the point, again, is that Mr. Luetgert never clearly mentions that he wanted to film something specifically about Bush in this piece. His Bayern Munich comparison makes it seem that he did just want to randomly film at the stadium!

So, with all due respect, I think your criticism has absolutely no merit.

---Ray D.

German media keeping its readers stupid...just another example.

Great Post. It doesn't really matter to me wheather or they were filming it based on sports. The owners would likely enjoy the publicity regardless of the motivation of the film crew.

Really, though, what a shame. It's just astounding that this stuff is acceptable to any one, anywhere. I'm very fond of germany and reasing this and knowing it's true is saddening. A group of good people indulging in their baser feelings and a media complicit.

The constant trench partisan warfare over here means that regardless of your side of the aisle there always someone dying to call bullshit. Thank goodness.

"And don't you think that if a US camera crew went to one of Schroeder's former employers asking to film for a documentary about him that they might just be asked to call his office in Berlin first for permission due to privacy issues? "

Yeah, I think that´s a very fitting comparison. I assume that this was the case here: They probably wanted some pictures from the Rangers stadium that Bush managed a while ago. I don´t think they wanted to film an event attended by Bush in person.

But I don´t understand what kind of "privacy issues" you mean. Unless you assume that Dubya leaves some kind of magical image behind that haunts all the places he ever visited :-).
What if I want to film inside Yale? Do I need a White House placet? That´s ridiculous.

I´d really love to hear what Lütgert´s account of all this...

@ fuchur,

I think its clear that they wanted to film President Bush's office or some private space where he formerly worked and still maintains an office on the grounds of the stadium. That is hardly comparable to filming on the campus of a major university where the President no longer maintains a private office, dorm room, etc.

That said, I also would love to hear Mr. Luetgert's explanation.

I've been trying to get a friend at work to finally see the light. I've shown him articles and videos from Fox News' website about the 'Oil for Food Scandal'; I've given him sources to read that show Michael Moore is a propagandist; I've sent him links to articles at Medienkritik per email, including this one....and nothing seems to convince him of German media bias. I really thought that this posting would do the trick. Nein.

I'd always thought of him as a pretty intelligent guy, but now I have to wonder. (Then again, I've kicked his ass in chess 11 matches in a row.) Perhaps, he has a grudge that he's not telling me about, that blinds him from seeing the truth.

It's so (bleep, bleepity, bleep, bleeeeep) damned frustrating!

Just had to get that off my chest.

I just wonder how many other Germans are as tough to convince as my friend.

BTW, I received my T-shirts--they look great and fit perfect!

@ James W.

Glad you got the shirts! Well, as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. If someone has a closed mind and isn't even willing to consider a different point of view then there is something wrong with that person that you cannot fix. In other words, it isn't your fault James. On the other hand, maybe you are forcing him to think it over, but he just doesn't want to admit it and lose face.

Whatever the case may be, keep fighting the good fight. I'm sure other people will be more open and receptive.

""On the other hand, maybe you are forcing him to think it over, but he just doesn't want to admit it and lose face.""

Hmmm. Yeah, I think your on target--he's lost enough face playing chess. :-)

Wonder how such widespread such idiocy is - here is an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal to read - enjoy


A section reads -

"The ( SENIOR GERMAN NY BASED )diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.

Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."

How about a conference call with the NDR reporter and the Texas Rangers PR department. Who told that reporter what?
OK, I know that even commenting on this shows some interest in the topic, but who really cares anymore? Europe is becoming more marginalized every day in America. This relationship is not symmetrical. The response to Euro hysteria is not an energized, "let's tell them the real story", but increasingly, "who cares?". And this is not expressed out loud but by implication of a host of actions. There is more interest in developments in China, India, Japan and the Middle East. Secondary schools are teaching Japanese and Chinese in greater numbers every year. A presigious university on the east coast has a course "Reshaping Europe", which details the disasterous demographics. Ask a college student if they have a friend from Asia. Then, ask them if they have a friend from Europe.
A generation ago, European meant something sort of grand and romantic, not exactly what it means today. E.G.:In an ordinary IT trade publication with no political axe to grind, a columnist dismissed a certain French business practice by asking "why would you want to emulate a third-world place like that?" Now, this was in a particular context, but any expression like that was unthinkable a generation ago. Now it is expressed as a fact that all sides to that discussion tacitly agree upon.
A prestigious university offers a course "Reshaping Europe", which informs on the demographics changing that continent, and the unfavorable consequences.
I enjoy this blog, and No Pasaran! but the bigger story is the waning interest in and diminished respect of Europe. That phenomena is grass-roots and is getting no attention.


That guy is a diplomat? I read that article and can't help to think that he is probably as bad at his job as he is as a host.

"Here began the career of Bush as a businessman."


Obviously this clown missed the day in Anti-Bush indoctrination school where they discuss at great length Bush's sinister beginnings in a small oil development firm PREVIOUS to purchasing a share of the Texas Rangers.

Took me all of about 2 minutes to pull up a fairly complete resume of Bush's career pre-Presidency off google- interesting how this hard hitting investigative "journalist" couldn't manage the same thing. He must be from the new school, where one should never let the facts get in the way of a good ideological fantasy.

2BrixShy - Careless, lazy misstatements of facts are very common in German media, where journalists are seemingly encouraged to make things up as they go along.

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