Germany's Ugly New Propaganda: Panorama's Selective Truth (Part III)

Panorama's Response

Here is our translation of Panorama's response to our article on its piece, "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers.":

"The core of the criticism against us here and in other, more extensive emails is from my point of view: The bringers of bad news are often unpopular. The facts reported on by Panorama are namely hardly brought into question – no wonder, they are true. Instead of founded criticism, some hope to use the anti-Americanism accusation to create the impression of substance."

The answer, written by Panorama editor Volker Steinhoff, and posted in the Panorama forum, goes on to cite comments left by our readers (NOT by us) to show how invalid our criticism supposedly is. But those comments have nothing to do with our criticism nor did we author them. It would be as if we criticized Panorama's arguments by pointing out comments left in their forum by total strangers. Steinhoff continues:

"Much more troubling than the lack of differentiation of the criticism is its understanding of the law: A basic pillar of humanistic democracies is the right to life. Whether it was a "mercy shooting" or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in line with an enlightened understanding of the law."

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinhoff (co-author of the Panorama report) obviously chooses to misrepresent or ignore (something he is obviously very good at) what we said in our first article. Instead he again relies on comments that we did not author in our comments section. Here is what we actually wrote on that point in our original post (bold in original):

"Let's be very clear: Maynulet's actions were absolutely indefensible and we are not trying to excuse them in any way. But when all of the facts of this particular case are presented to observers in a fair and sober light, the punishment meted out to Maynulet no longer seems "incomprehensible," though one could certainly still argue that the punishment was too light."

In any case, this is the classic defense we expected from Panorama. Instead of admitting that they made gross omissions, the staff writes that all of the facts presented are true and that we at Medienkritik are shooting the messenger with unsubstantiated claims of anti-Americanism. It may well be that the individual facts presented in the report are true, but, by themselves, they obviously do not tell the entire story in a fair, comprehensive and balanced manner.

Clearly, the overall story told by Panorama is not true because it is simply and undeniably incomplete. By grossly omitting facts vital to understanding the case, the television magazine has badly failed to properly and completely inform its audience. Furthermore, Mr. Steinhoff clearly seeks to further distract readers from our main critique by pointing to comments not belonging to the authors of this blog.

Here, again, are the key omissions that Panorama refuses to acknowledge:

1. First of all, the man shot and killed in the incident, identified as Karim Hassan Abed Ali al-Haleji, was a driver for an aide of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite movement and a paramilitary member of that militia. This is the same Al-Sadr movement responsible for the killing of numerous US soldiers and major combat throughout Iraq. At the time of the incident, Hassan was at the wheel of a black sedan which led Maynulet's company on a chase in the midst of a hotbed of insurgent activity. Maynulet's men fired on the vehicle, wounding both passengers inside.

2. And that brings us to the second critical point omitted by Panorama: According to the report of an on-scene medic, the Iraqi driver had already suffered traumatic fatal wounds in the initial exchange before Maynulet ever approached and shot him. According to a CBS news report:

"During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing -- the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation -- witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. (...)

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing was on video."

So why does Panorama fail to report that part of the driver's skull was blown away and that he was covered in his own brain mass (and essentially dead) before Maynulet ever approached and shot him? A BBC report tells of testimony in the case stating that the Iraqi driver "had half his brain hanging out" when Maynulet shot him. And thirdly, why does Panorama never mention the "mercy killing" aspect to the story and simply label the incident a virtual "execution"?

I want to openly challenge Mr. Steinhoff and his colleagues at Panorama to FULLY explain the obvious and gross omissions that they made in their report "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" as outlined in points A and B above. We will publish any answer in full on this site. And please stop hiding behind comments left on this site that have nothing to do with our criticism Sir!

I would also refer Steinhoff to an excellent criticism written by Dawson's Danube that also points out other issues including obvious translation errors.

It is particularly ironic that Panorama chooses to say that we are shooting the messenger. In fact the very opposite is true. This is more of the same blank denial that we have grown accustomed to in the German media. And that is why we will continue to expose them every time.

Just so Mr. Steinhoff and his friends at Panorama are clear on one thing: We at Davids Medienkritik are not going anywhere. We will tirelessly continue to expose misrepresentations and omissions made at Panorama and elsewhere in the German media and we don't ever plan to stop.

Note: Panorama's editors can be reached at: [email protected]

Endnote: Since Mr. Steinhoff was so interested in the comments on our site, I thought I'd translate one of the comments left in the Panorama forum on the "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" piece:

"Torturing and Killing Without Penalty

The report shows (among other things through the critical evaluation of American observers themselves) that the military is dangerous as soon as it removes itself from the control of the democratic state. One has to ask how powerful the control of democracy in the USA still is at all. This large and once model nation is, through religious fundamentalism and arbitrary leadership of the military, increasingly becoming a danger to the world!"

If only the person who wrote this knew the extent to which he was being lied to by Panorama...and the sad part is that nearly 3 million Germans viewed the report on television. (WATCH THE VIDEO HERE)

(Translation and article by Ray D.)

Comments

[Pogue Mahone]

You should be used to this guys

Whenever you object to some example of anti-Americanism on display - from the mild to the outrageuous - the answer you will usually get is "are you saying America does nothing wrong"

This is par for the course

[Helian]

Amazing, isn't it? These chumps trotted out the old "objective criticism" and "blaming the messenger" lines more than ten years ago. Now, after more than ten years of single minded, obsessive hate mongering and America bashing, they somehow still think we can't see through their pathetic fig leaf. Earth to Panorama! Here's a message for you (remember, don't blame the messenger). Deliberately distorted and lying "translation mistakes" are not objective criticism. Failing to report that half the victims brains were hanging out when Maynulet shot him is not "objective criticism." Your transparent utter lack of concern for much worse atrocities if they happen not to be perpetrated by the US blow your lame "blame the messenger" argument out of the water. Your goal isn't to end such abuse, and, in your hearts, you know it. You don't go about ending abuse by peddling hate. You don't appeal to the good in America by smearing her. It's not 1995 any more, Panorama, it's 2005. Ten years of obsessive, single-minded America bashing have exposed your pathetic "blame the messenger" argument for the transparent lie it truly is.

[tebox]

ad A:
Would a "voluntary manslaughter" be okay if it would have been al-sarkawi himself? The world would be better off if he were dead but there are rules and they were made for a reason. You simply don't kill a defenseless man without a trial. Rules that aren't enforced don't count as rules.

ad B:
Panorama has a clear position on this one. Simply reread the answer.

I would love to read something here about the two other cases Panorama reported. At last this blog is back where it belongs after some pitiably comments about the Bundesdance and SPON on Bushs readings

[Don Miguel]

"... This large and once model nation is, through religious fundamentalism and arbitrary leadership of the military, increasingly becoming a danger to the world!"

The person that wrote that knows nothing about the United States or is a completely disingenuous ideologue or is both.

[RayD]

@ Don Miguel:

Sadly, he sounds like your average Panorama viewer...

[Sock Puppet of Doom]

This is an old story already.

In every instance in which a member of the US military has been investigated for misconduct the appropriate action has been taken. I may not be the action some would agree with but action has been taken. ARD and Panorama need to prove their assertions. So far I don't see any facts.

So typical of the Chomskites of the left. No matter that they have been wrong for last 4 decades they still keep churning this propaganda.

My question for Panorama tebox is what do you think they have the power do do about any of your false accusations? Nothing. Typical howling infants. Just enough higher education to put on the pretense of education but in reality just pouting and ignorant to all realities of the world. Totally willing to let other do your thinking for you abd tell you waht is "truth". You must know you only slept safe at night for 40+ years because the people you hate with so much childish anger were willing to pay any price and suffer any burden to protect you. Those people haven't changed a bit in that respect. You and your Kameraden don't seem to understand that and have no desire too. Your hate will eat you up and kill you.

It's not Medienkritik that must answer any questions it is ARD and Panorama that need to answer questions.

[atlashrugg]

I must say, I am getting used to this kind of bias in the news--and not just in Germany. In reality, how many truly trust the news they hear or read from the MSM? I find myself reading the NYT and the Washington Post thinking I am likely reading distortions. Before the Clinton presidency, I don't remember ever thinking this way about the MSM.

If I cannot trust my politicians and I cannot trust the news outlets to give me the straight dope on things, just who am I as an average citizen supposed to trust to find out what's going on in the world? Frightening!

As a side note, I am not sure how I feel about Maynulet's case. I don't know if he was wrong to do what he did on a moral level. I don't know every fact, of course, but I can say that if I were flat on my back with half of my brain splattered around, I'm not so sure I wouldn't want someone to finish me off.

From a military stand point, at least in my view, he had to be tried for it. And from what I can glean, the punishment was appropriate.

[David J.]

@tebox

ad A: I think it's important to know about al-Haleji's militia background to understand why the US troops fired at his car and wounded him. When I read the script (I read it before I saw the video) I had the impression that Maynulet and his men opened fire without reason and then closed in to finish the job.

This is my personal impression and other people may have a different one. Still, I doubt that many people think of a wounded man in a car without wondering why he was wounded in the first place. Panorama forces its viewers to base their judgement on assumptions and not on facts. Different people will make different assumptions (ranging from "another innocent civilian slain" to "that terrorist got what he asked for"). Panorama decided not to prevent this confusion. That's bad journalism in any case. And I think Panorama isn't particularly unhappy if people assume an unprovoked US aggression like I did when I first read it.

For me, this has nothing to do with what Maynulet did after that. It's about the question: Why did US troops fire at this car?

[Tomaž Štih]

It is simply unnaceptable that a public journalist (for the second time) omits major facts and even tries to use bias and such low blows as taking comments not even published by the blog to reject criticism.
This has nothing to do anymore with independent journalism; it is just a page out of "Volker's Kampf".
Tomaz

[James]

More importantly, do the Germans themselves remember the several times that they killed unarmed people at German check points in the Balkens?

panorama - noun
1. An unbroken view of an entire surrounding area.
2. A comprehensive presentation; a survey: a panorama of American literature.
3. A picture or series of pictures representing a continuous scene, often exhibited a part at a time by being unrolled and passed before the spectator.
4. A mental vision of a series of events

Calling this program "Panorama" is about as an absurd mockery as Trotsky's publication of Pravda or the "truth."

[tebox]

@ David J:
The question why American troops fired at that car doesn't matter as long as they had good reasons. As long as nothing is said about these reasons I assume they were good enough to justify the shooting.

[Toby]

@ tebox:

Ad A: It may not matter, legally, why they had opened fire on the car in pursuit. But it absolutely matters in terms of what your average german panorama viewer will think of maynulet. If you omit the fact that he was chasing a gang of killers and terrorists, that does affect how people will evaluate the overall situation. Because it does make a difference (in terms of the suspect's guilt) if the victim has provoked a fight or was himself a suspect of a felony or if that victim was an innocent civilian taxi driver.

Ad B: Panorama's point is downright wrong. Because it is not a matter of "Bewertung" = "assessment, evaluation" what maynulet's motives were when shooting the driver. That is not to say that maynulet had any right to shoot someone still alive who was no danger to him (of course he did not). But it makes a tremendous difference (legally !) if he thought that person was already fatally injured (and he was saving him a few moments of agony) or if he just shot him for some sick, depraved motive. That's what makes the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter (American criminal law) or (under German law) "Mord", "Totschlag","Tötung in einem minderschweren Fall" (cf. §§ 216 ff StGB = German Penal Code).

I am not saying that Maynulet is innocent. But I am saying that he could be gulity of manslaughter as much as he could have been a murderer. why do you think the BBC report presented the story unbiasedly ? It is up to Panorama to present this ambiguity and find facts for their thesis that maynulet was a murderer because of his motives. if they can't find any, they must not simply omit the whole matter. but then of course, it fits so well with the American-soldiers-are-murderers-by-nature theory.

I do not expect them to present maynulet as innocent. But they have presented him as guilty with no proof (ever heard of the benefit of the doubt ?)

I just wished the American media picked up raillery like that for the American public to know where Germany's loyalties lie.

[koepfchen]

Hier meine Antwort an Volker Steinhof auf die Verteidigung des Panorama Program:

Herr Steinhoff:

Wiedereum werden in Ihrer Antwort Facten vezerrt, kritische Tatsachen unterschlagen, in ihrer Verteidigung von Panorama.
Sie sprechen von einer Verbreitung schlechter "Nachrichten"!! Monatelang nach der Verurteilung qualifizierd das Panorama Program kaum noch als "Nachrichten". BBC, kaum ein Verteidiger des Krieges im Irak, hat berichted dass das Hirn des Fahrer's aus seinem gespalteten Schaedel "splattered", oder verspritzt war. Sie reden davon dass Sie die schwehre Verletzung des Fahrer's erwaehnten, wohl die groesste Untertreibubung des Berichtes. Selbst unter den besten Umstaenden (z.B. ein Unfall neben der Universitaetsklinik in Berlin), waere der Mann sehr wahrscheinlich gestorben. Unter den Umstaenden in Iraq war keine Rettung ersichtlich.
Ausserdem hatte der Angeklagte gerade sein Leben fuer die Befreiung von Iraki Zivilisten riskiert, mehrere seiner Soldaten in einem illegalen Angriff der Militia Muqtada al Sadr's verloren. Seine emotionelle Einstellung nicht gerade die eines Jurnalisten der hinter seinem Schreibtisch sitzt und sich fuer seine moralische Ueberlegenheit gratuliert.

Das Theme des Panorama Program war Hetzpropaganda, nicht mehr, nicht weniger. Sie werden doch nicht im Ernst einen generellen Anit-Amerikanismus, vor allem beim NDR, abstreiten wollen?? Und der wird umso schlimmer, je laenger Deutschland von links-extremen Medien wir NDR unterstuetzt, an seiner Illusion des 3. Weges zwischen Kommunismus und Kapitalismus fest haelt, und wirtschaftlich weiter zurueckfaellt. Neid und Wut nehmen zu, bis endlich Einsicht uebernimmt (in ca 5 Jahren)??

Hier das Resultat einer Wirtschaftsumfrage:

Umfrage ergibt starken Widerhall für linke Thesen in Deutschland

Linke politische Thesen stoßen in der deutschen Wählerschaft auf starken Widerhall. In Umfragen des Instituts TNS Infratest für den SPIEGEL stimmten 56 Prozent der Westdeutschen und 66 Prozent der Ostdeutschen der Aussage zu: "Der Sozialismus ist eine gute Idee, die bislang nur schlecht ausgeführt worden ist." Dass die Kritik von Karl Marx am Kapitalismus "noch heute ihren Sinn" habe, glauben 50 Prozent im Westen und 73 Prozent im Osten. Die These, "es muss einen dritten Weg zwischen Kapitalismus und Sozialismus geben", finden 67 Prozent der Befragten West und 63 Prozent der Befragten Ost richtig.

You are hanging yourself with your own rope of antiamericanism, and don't even know it. Pathetic.

Uebrigens, der Author des Idioten Satzes war ich, und ich meine es.

Steinhof's Antwort darauf: Get a life

[RayD]

Dear Readers:

David and I are currently looking for the statements (on film/video or a written version) made by Maynulet and Maynulet's father after the trial that are specifically shown in the Panorama report. Unfortunately, a segment of the statements are highly difficult to hear when the German "translation" is dubbed over them. Any help on this would be much appreciated.

---Ray D.
Davids Medienkritik

[Cousin Dave]

I might point out, in relation to Maynulet's actions, that in the days before rifles and high-power artillery, it was considered humane and honorable in battle to put a mortally wounded opponet out of his misery. In fact, a soldier suffering injuries certain to be fatal would often request such, in order that his own side's medics not be tied up trying to rescue a lost cause. With the advancements in medicine, soldiers no longer engage in this practice generally, since without medical training they can't be certain which injuries are fatal and which aren't. But I wanted to point out that Maynulet's actions are certainly not without precedent, nor does it rise to the level of murder.

As for Panorama: This is yet another example of the media trying to curry favor with like-minded politicians, so that it may ensure its place in the pecking order when the certain (in their opinion) socialist revolution comes. It's often said that media doesn't really shape the news by what it reports so much as by what it leaves out, and we certainly see that at work here. Selective reporting of this magnitude simply doesn't happen by accident. As for Panorama's "because we say so" explanation, well, that's the way parents talk to small children, and by that you can see what Panorama thinks of its audience.

I'll also point out that this is the sort of thing that happens with mainstream media when they don't have any competition to fear. And, as we've seen in these pages lately, that's certainly the case in Germany.

[Doug]

Q: What do you call a court where only the prosecution gets to present a case?
A: Panorama's wet dream.

Someone could also take Pravdorama to task for the outright dishonest "exoneration" claim. It isn't as if he got a pat on the backside while a judge made a show of shuffling papers; he now has both a felony convicion and dishonorable military discharge. These will follow him for the rest of his life, and both conditions impose restrictions on him in American society. His career is over, he is stripped of the compensations and benefits that members of our military receive and he can never own a gun just to name a few.

And can anyone tell me just what "humanistic" is supposed to mean? When it's used in the context of leaving someone to writhe in agony until they die, I'm suddenly unclear.

@tebox -
I would love to read something here about the two other cases Panorama reported.

Which two cases? I'm assuming Ilario Pantano is one, and the prisoner who was walked into a river the other.

@atlashrugg -
Before the Clinton presidency, I don't remember ever thinking this way about the MSM.

Before the Clinton presidency, the American MSM was in the same sort of ideological lockstep that the German MSM appears to be in today. For me, it took the spectacle of Clinton saying that he didn't lie about never being alone with Monica because you can't be alone if you're with someone else - and virtually all media fawning over how intelligent it obviously made him - to finally decide that yes, I was being fed so much crap, and the media really warranted more scrutiny. I wish I would have found Fox News then, instead of listening to what "everyone knew" about it.

@Ray - I don't know what statements were in the video, but perhaps they're among these:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_haunted_040505,00.html
"I thought I was doing the humane thing," Maynulet said. "I still believe it was morally right but obviously it was legally wrong. I hope to God I never have to be put in that situation ever again."
"What people have to realize is that this guy was part of the Mahdi militia run by Sadr that was killing Americans every day."

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27259&archive=true
“I’m obviously very happy with the outcome,” Maynulet said afterward to reporters. “I’m happy to have my life back.” But, he said, “It’s bittersweet. It’s not the way I thought I would leave the Army.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050401/news_1n1army.html
"I respect your decision," he said. "I think you did what you had to do."
"We're trained, conditioned, to keep a distance," said Maynulet, 30, looking down. "Maybe my mistake was that I projected myself into that Iraqi. I didn't want to be in his state – if I were, I would hope that someone would put me out of my misery."

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=24091&archive=true
“We have given two of our children to America, and we are proud, very proud of them,” the retired doctor noted, referring to Capt. Rogelio M. Maynulet and his younger brother, Daniel, an enlisted soldier.
The letter, read in a court by Rogelio Maynulet’s attorney, continued: “For us, for his brother, for his sister, for all our friends, family members and for many Americans, regardless of race or religion, he is an American hero.”

[Toby]

Hey Doug,

thanks for those statements, they could come in really handy.

Because even now, panorama and the editor in charge (Volker Steinhoff) deny the relevance of the possibility that Maynulet may have acted out of mercy. They claim it to be a "theory" that Maynulet's "friends" have come up with and without naming a source they contend Maynulet had publicly said he had acted "out of other priorities than saving an Iraqui's life".

They also assert that there were no available comments from Maynulet in his own defense as to the "mercy-motive".

With those statements everyone is free to confront panorama and Steinhoff in their forum with the the fact that they could have easily quoted Maynulet from those sources which makes their blunder even more obvious.

[Doug]

Then clearly they either 1) did no research whatsoever, or 2) are lying through their teeth. Any actual coverage of the trial contains these details. In fact, if you Google his name, I will bet you that every single one of the top 20 results will contain them. Well, the top 20 English results will - I can only imagine what the Google.de results might be.

[Toby]

Google.de produces exactly the same results. I checked. Even "news from russia" and "china daily news" include the facts omitted by panorama. but they still go on claiming these facts are "irrelevant".