SPIEGEL ONLINE: More Biased Iraq Coverage

(By Ray D.)

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, Iraqis are terribly desperate, fearful of the future and itching to get rid of foreign troops - yet the most evil and stubborn man in the world, George W. Bush, simply won't listen and doesn't care. Not surprisingly - the picture presented to German readers is one-sided and highly simplistic - yet wrapped in a guise of legitimate journalism. Below is the homepage from yesterday:

"Poll: Iraqis Increasingly Desperate - Bush Asks for Patience

The poll results are devastating: Three-quarters of Iraqis barely trust they can walk the streets, increasingly few look hopefully to the future. Four years after the start of the Iraq war around 80 percent want to get rid of foreign troops, but US President Bush won't yield.

TV Documentary from Iraq: "I regret the fall of the Saddam Statue"
Anniversary of the Iraq War: Bush warns of dangers of troop withdrawal"

SPIEGEL ONLINE goes on to mention that 40% of Iraqis primarily blame President Bush (9%) or the USA (31%) for the violence and lack of security. That is true, but the publication failed to mention the following facts from the very same poll in its piece:

• Only 35% of all Iraqis and only 36% of Baghdad residents want US troops to leave now. 65% want US troops to stay with conditions. This stands in stark contrast to the impression given by SPON.
• When "asked whether their lives were overall better or worse than before the invasion, 43 percent said better, 36 percent worse and the rest about the same."
• "Despite their pessimism, 47 percent of Iraqis still said it was somewhat or absolutely right for the U.S.-led forces to invade Iraq. But again respondents were divided on sectarian grounds, with 70 percent of Shi'ites in favour and only two percent of Sunni Arabs expressing any support for the war."
• "Most Iraqis accuse other countries in the region of meddling in their affairs and fomenting violence. Among those surveyed, 71% say Iran is actively encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq, 66% say Syria encourages violence, and 56% say the same of Saudi Arabia."
• (Source)

Further, SPIEGEL ONLINE writes that "only 42% of Iraqis still believe that their children will have a better life." They fail to mention that fewer Iraqis - 37% - felt their children would have it worse - and the remaining 21% said it would be about the same. To see the complete poll results unfiltered by SPIEGEL ONLINE, click here.

The SPIEGEL article also fails to report the following findings from another poll of 5,000 Iraqis conducted by Opinion Research Business, a British market research company:

• Only 27 percent of Iraqis believe their country is in a civil war.
• 49% of those questioned preferred living under the current government to living under Saddam Hussein. Only 26% said things had been better with Saddam. (How does that fit to the headline above that certain Iraqis regret pulling down the Saddam statue?) 

Obviously, the polling data is complex, sharply divided along sectarian lines and, at times, contradictory. There is no doubt that fewer Iraqis are optimistic now than in 2005. Most are affected by violence in some way and the majority are distrustful of foreign troops. This reflects the highly violent situation on the ground and real mistakes made over the years by the Bush administration and its partners.

However, when we look honestly at all of the polling data, it quickly becomes apparent that the reporting from SPIEGEL ONLINE is black-and-white, biased and highly selective. The publication cherry-picks and blends the facts it needs to fit the pessimistic, anti-American template that it has created for itself and its readers. Facts that contradict or complicate that template are left by the wayside, ignored or discarded.

This has become a troubling pattern: In its zeal to please the readers and adhere to an ideological line, SPIEGEL ONLINE and other German media chronically ignore key facts and fail to tell the entire story. They apparently think the entire truth would would upset readers already conditioned in their views through consistent exposure to only those facts that reaffirm pre-existing world views. In the process, reality becomes warped and news consumers find themselves unable to discuss Iraq with anyone who does not have exclusively negative views of the situation.

Endnote: Perhaps SPIEGEL ONLINE ought to cover this for the German readership. On the other hand, the fact that they are finally questioning the fraud that is and was the Lancet study is a breath of fresh air.

UPDATE: Looking at our comments, and looking around the German media, much of the recent Iraq coverage has much the same tone.

Comments

[Sagredo]

I cannot see where Spiegel gets its 80% from. I read the post twice and somehow missed (overlooked?) it.
Could someone explain?

[RayD]

@ Sagredo,

Well, not surprisingly, it appears that they rounded something up from the high 70s to further exaggerate and accentuate the negative.

[Sagredo]

Ray:

What something?
65% want US to stay
A majority do not blame the US for the violence
Equal amounts think things are now and will be better/worse for their children.
What is it that is in the high 70%--?

[Helian]

I was immediately struck by how crude the propaganda was in the SPON piece. They obviously assume none of their German readers will bother to click a few times on Google to read the poll results for themselves. SPON knows it can get away with spin so brazen it amounts to lying because of the virtual lack of alternative points of view in Germany on the Iraq War and many other topics of great importance and relevance to the German people. Bitch to your hearts content about Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the talk radio hosts, and the many powerful "extreme right wing" bloggers in the US, but their value is obvious when you read something as slanted as the SPON piece. It's called diversity. It's called alternative points of view. It's what gives the other side a reason to be honest and balanced, because they know they'll be exposed in a heartbeat if they're not. The thinkers of the enlightenment were too optimistic. Freedom of the press didn't guarantee the balanced expression of opinions, and the victory of truth. Marx would have been amused. What has really happened in Germany and much of the rest of Europe is the concentration of the "social means of production" of opinion in the hands of a powerful few. Guess it's time for Germans to smash the Stern and Spiegel "bourgeoisie." All power to the blogger proletariat!

[QuagmiredInTheBRD]

@ Helian:

I am aware of your stance on global warming but this is an example of lack of diversity in the German school system. Deutsche Schulen erhalten 6000 DVD von Al Gores Umweltfilm.

When my son was in Gymnasium several years ago he was taught that McDonalds was solely to blame for the deforestation of the Amazons. What an education.

[Chrisimo]

This stories about Iraq were all over the news the last few days. At least on the radio. And it was all reported like in Der Spiegel.

Im curious: Even if the Spiegel report was true and most Iraqis wanted the US out, do you think, the US should leave? There could very well be another Dictator in power soon, if the US leaves. Then we would have the problem again. What do you think?

[Helian]

@Quagmired

"When my son was in Gymnasium several years ago he was taught that McDonalds was solely to blame for the deforestation of the Amazons. What an education."

I don't doubt it a bit. The "Saviors of the Environment" who call "wolf," and were so admirably exposed by Lomborg in "The Skeptical Environmentalist," are an incomparably greater threat to the environment than the "global warming deniers" on the right.

@Chrisimo

"Im curious: Even if the Spiegel report was true and most Iraqis wanted the US out, do you think, the US should leave? There could very well be another Dictator in power soon, if the US leaves. Then we would have the problem again. What do you think?"

I was strongly opposed to going to war to begin with. One reason, although not the most important one, was the spinelessness that is an unfortunate characteristic of many in the baby boomer generation that now generally calls the shots in the US. Our enemies have not failed to notice this spinelessness. Its manifestations can be seen in all their pathetic glory among many on the left who loudly and confidently promoted the war before we went in. See, for example, the blog of Andrew Sullivan, or the columns of Jonathan Chaitt. These eager promoters of the war immediately became hand-wringing defeatists as soon as the going got tough. Of course, they perceive themselves as great servants of the truth. However, objectively speaking, it's very difficult for me to see their behavior as anything but a betrayal and an act of treachery. In practice, that's really what it amounts to. After doing their best to entangle us in a war, they are now doing their best to insure that we are defeated in that war.

Of course, the "usual suspects" at publications such as the NYT and Washington Post (you know, those American media people "in lockstep" with the Bush Administration) are now running defeatist headlines virtually every day, and are as bitterly determined to insure that Bush loses in Iraq as they ever were to complete the media assassination of Nixon during the Watergate affair. They, of course, would dismiss such a contention as "utter nonsense," and "shooting the messenger." It makes no difference. The headlines are still there every day, and the message is always the same, regardless of the real situation on the ground. Just read them and ask yourself if they promote victory or defeat. They have made up their minds what the "reality" will be, and the facts be damned. This sort of thing was not unpredictable, and, of course, in a democracy one can't simply shoot these people for "Wehrkraftzersetzung." It is a reality we must take into account as we go forward.

It seems to me that, if the decision is made to go to war to begin with, it should be fought with tenacity until victory is achieved. We now hear the familiar mantra, "It is not possible to achieve a military victory in Iraq (or Afghanistan)" repeated on all sides. No matter that these "words of wisdom" fly in the face of all recorded history. They are particularly ludicrous in the case of Iraq. In spite of the best efforts of the people who are determined that we will lose this war to define the conditions for victory upwards, those conditions are certainly achievable. After all, we aren't trying to defeat an evil ideology, as in Vietnam. We aren't trying to establish an American colony in Iraq against the united opposition of its people. We are merely trying to insure a reasonable level of safety for the Iraqi people before we leave. Modest victory conditions, one would think, but the Sullivans and Chaitts out there have convinced themselves that such a victory is out of the question, unless the Administration immediately gives them command of operations from their armchairs, or a miracle happens. In my opinion, such a victory is certainly achievable, and we must persevere until it is achieved. If we fail, the Iraqi people won't be the only ones who suffer in the chaos that follows. Our enemies, who are also the enemies of Germany and the rest of Europe, will be greatly encouraged, and they will pursue their assault on western civilization with renewed boldness.

In a word, then, I think we should stay until we have achieved the modest victory described above. Sorry for the "umstaendliche Antwort."

[Pamela]

Do you guys know of Michael Totten? He's been traipsing around Iraq under his own sail for awhile now. Currently, he's in the city of Erbil. Totten is a straight shooter. No gloom and doom, and no sugar-coating.

I have never seen so much construction going up so quickly anywhere. (There is more in Dubai, but I have never been there.)

The Hilton hotel chain is building a massive full-service tourist resort that will take five years to construct. It may seem dumb to build a tourist resort in Iraq of all places, but this is Erbil Province, not Anbar Province – there is no war, no insurgency, and no terrorism here whatsoever. The Middle East is a funny place. One part of a country may be consumed by blood, fire, and mayhem, but that rarely means the whole country is dangerous -- even when that country is Iraq.

*

I met two old friends for dinner and embraced them both. We knew we would see each other again, but it was nice to confirm it with another actual visit. This trip is my fourth to Iraqi Kurdistan in just fourteen months. A year and a half ago I could not have imagined that anywhere in Iraq would become a part of my life, let alone a pleasant part of my life. Iraq is strange, though, and more complex than it appears from far away. The civil war and the insurgency in Baghdad are real. But the civil war and the insurgency are not all there is.

And check out the photos. They're building a shopping mall. Looks like the Galleria at Tyson's.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

[Helian]

"Do you guys know of Michael Totten?"

Michael is one of the most valuable sources of information about the Middle East you will find. He also depends on people hitting the tip jar at his blog to finance his outstanding work. Please help him out if you can.

[blue]

@RayD
I found the poll data of Opinion Research Business, which were reported on by the suntimes. The full survey is published here:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67
Part of the results are published as a powerpoint presentation (If necessary, you can download the free PowerPoint Viewer from Microsoft to watch it). Amongst others, the detailed poll results show just how difficult it is to assess the public opinion in Iraq; the results vary strongly depending on region and on ethnicity.

@sagredo
In order to get their "about 80%" number they must have taken the results to Q25 "Do you [strongly/somewhat] [support / oppose] the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?" 78% strongly or somewhat oppose the presence. They neglect Q27 "How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?" 35% want the forces to leave now (up from 26% in 2005), 1% wants them to stay forever, 38% want them to stay until security is restored.

As for blame for the violence: Q38 "Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?" Justified or not, the blame is put for about equal parts on
a) the US/coalition forces (31%) and Bush (9%)
b) Al Qaeda (18%), Sectarian disputes (8%), Sunni/Shiite militia & leaders (5%/6%)

@Pamela
Thanks for pointing out Michael Totten, I did not know him.

What I do find disheartening in the D3 Systems poll are the trends over time in the people's perception. Compare the 2007 numbers with older numbers where possible. The Jihadists and other terrorists are successful at gradually making the Iraqi's outlooks worse. What I found shocking is, that one in four Iraqis has witnessed/experienced the murder of a family member or relative (From the ORB poll. I am aware, that each victim has several tens of relatives on average).

The polls being what they are, I do not think one can use them to justify a retreat, as SPON implies. A fast retreat would in my opinion be a disaster for Iraq, whether the Iraqis see it this way or not.

[joe]

Like most things dealing with Iraq, it is difficult to find accurate information which reflects the actually situation.

Much of what is presented by M$M is tainted by their ideology. This is especially true for such outlets as NYT, CNN and the German M$M.

Here is another opinion survey which differs from some of the comments made or the news which has been reported. It was published by The Times of London linked below

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259405,00.html

You will note not only is the margin of error smaller the sample size is much larger by twice.

It does paint somewhat a different picture than the screaming headlines.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Thanks for pointing out Michael Totten, I did not know him.

blue, I have no intention to pick on you, but I'm quite surprised. You love to surf the net for all sorts of meaningful or meaningless data, but you don't know Totten. If you don't know Totten then you obviously don't know or don't read Instapundit, and if you don't read Instapundit then... well, then...I don't know...you are missing at least half of the blogoshpere.

[Pamela]

Most welcome for the heads up on Totten. And do hit the tip jar, he's completely self-financed. Another good one is Michael Yon who's been hanging around Lebanon lately. I'll fish around and see if I have his link somewhere.

But the absolute must reads are the Iraqi bloggers themselves. Omar and (his brother, I think) Zayed have been to the U.S. and met Bush. I think Zayed is in NYC now. Omar writes:

Al-Qaeda's terrorists-whom AP insists on calling insurgents-expended three suicide bombers and precious resources against their supposedly sympathetic civilian Sunni hosts instead of American and Iraqi soldiers and Shia civilians; their usual enemies.
If this indicates anything it indicates that al-Qaeda's is reprioritizing the targets on the hit list. The reason: al-Qaeda is sensing a serious threat in the change of attitude of the tribes toward them and perhaps the apparently successful meeting of the sheiks with Maliki and the agreements that were made then was the point at which open war had to be declared.

The tribes in Anbar are stubborn and they have many ruthless warriors. That's a proven fact and it looks like Al-Qaeda had just made their gravest mistake—their once best friends are just about to become their worst enemy.

He has lots of links to other Iraqi bloggers too. Here's the url.
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[Pamela]

Here's Michael Yon (looks like he's in Iraq)
http://michaelyon-online.com/

On the morning of 12 January 2007 troopers of 2/7 Cav, and this correspondent, loaded aboard four Blackhawk helicopters in Mosul for a simultaneous air-ground operation east of Mosul, in conjunction with the Iraqi Army. LTC Eric Welsh commanded. Unlike the Ia Drang Valley this 7th Cavalry air assault succeeded without resistance or casualties.

This mission and what it says about the competency of Iraqi Security Forces in Mosul is the focal point of Michael's next dispatch.

[Hans Maulwurf]

@Chrisimo

What possible problem(s) do you have in mind? The problem that the (brutal) islamists were kept in check by a (brutal) secular dictator/party? The problem that there was an actual natural counterbalance to the predominantly radical islamic middle east? Ray's number of 49% of the polled Iraqis preferring the current government is probably right - since now they can freely exercise their religion of peace again.

[Charlie]

Well, Germany has finally made the headlines in my local newspaper. Seems that animal rights activists in Germany are demanding that the Berlin Zoo kill a baby polar bear. What is up with that? And that the German animal rights activists. Just imagine what an average German thinks. They are probably watching puppy snuff films on TV, no doubt it's the most popular program. Little kids running around after school drowning kittens in their satchels.

Bear cubs are so cute and cuddly. Children in the US have stuffed toys that look like baby bear cubs just because they are so cute and cuddly. I guess in Germany the children hug lizzards and spiders stuffed with scrap steal and broken glass. Franka Potente probably saw hundreds of baby seals on the California beaches and just freaked. Left the country right ASAP and made up some cover story about too many flags, knowing the folks back home couldn't handle the thought of all those fuzzy seal pups in the ocean.

My neighbor said that when she went to Germany she saw customs agents catch a person trying to smuggle drugs inside a furry stuffed baby rabbit. They confiscated the bunny and gave the heroin back. I thought she was making it up, then I read about this baby polar bear thing; so what am I to think now? I guess it's if Germans are against something, then I should be for it. I mean they are going to kill a baby polar bear! You don't have to be a PR specialist to see that it's going to a policy disaster.

[Helian]

"I guess it's if Germans are against something, then I should be for it. I mean they are going to kill a baby polar bear! You don't have to be a PR specialist to see that it's going to a policy disaster."

Thanks for bouncing in with such an enlightened point of view. I'm sure it makes a very fortunate impression of America on the German commenters here. You might want to consider the fact that the person who founded this blog is a German, and he has stuck his neck out in defense of America for some years now with no perceivable reward in sight other than lots of abuse from Germans with a mentality just like yours. There are many other Germans like him who have been as articulate in defending America as any American commenter on this or any other blog. Before you start shooting your mouth off again about "the Germans," you might want to keep these facts in mind.

[grlzjustwant2havefun]

I want to add Rantburg is a good site just to peruse headlines from around the world. But it might get some Euros dander up.

Did this poll oversample sunnis?

----

Found this at Bros. Judd:

...Whenever I asked Iraqis what kind of government they had wanted to replace Saddam's regime, I got the same answer: they had never given it any thought. They just assumed that the Americans would bring the right people, and the country would blossom with freedom, prosperity, consumer goods, travel opportunities.

----

Which is the problem, it's hard, dangerous work -- it's not handed on a silver platter. Or as OJ entitled, "Time to Grow Up."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer?printable=true

[grlzjustwant2havefun]

As for M. Yon, via Instapundit:

The surge is well underway in Iraq, and by some reports it's already making a big difference. We contacted the blogosphere's man-on-the-spot in Baghdad, Michael Yon, by satellite phone, and got his take on how things are going. Some important bits: The dispersal of troops out of big bases and into Iraqi neighborhoods has had a big impact -- somewhat like the "community policing" approach in New York and elsewhere -- and is generating a lot more intelligence and assistance from ordinary Iraqis. "Just being there makes a huge difference," says Yon. But don't expect overnight results: "The surge itself will go on well past summer," and it'll be Fall before we can tell if the trends are good or bad.....

[Pamela]

Sandy P
Whenever I asked Iraqis what kind of government they had wanted to replace Saddam's regime, I got the same answer: they had never given it any thought. They just assumed that the Americans would bring the right people, and the country would blossom with freedom, prosperity, consumer goods, travel opportunities.

How sad. People who have never been free have no idea how much work it takes.

(psst You might want to provide the link for Rantburg.)

[Pamela]

Helian, I think Charlie's post was a satire on how Germans react to news from the U.S. I didn't take it literally.

[Mike H.]

Tell me it's not true! Tell me we're not getting ready to export Paris Hilton to Erbil!

No wonder they want to nuke us, I would want to nuke me too if I did that. ;)

[Pamela]

Mike H.

Calm down. We're just going to nuke Paris and be done with it.

[Jeffrey]

For all of you who would like to take a quick spin around the Iraqi blogosphere, I would recommend the website run by myself, CMAR II, RhusLancia, Diane, and the enigmatic Mister Ghost.

Iraqi Bloggers Central.

IBC has been up and running for almost three years now, offering commentary on and links to the daily dust-ups and tactical retreats within the Iraqi blogosphere.

We try to keep blogroll up-to-date and add any new talent that pops up.

BTW, back in March of 2005, DMK honored me by highlighting a research article I had written on how and why the MSM had botched the story of the alleged looting of the Iraqi National Museum:

The Catastrophe that Didn't Happen.

I spent a month reseraching that piece, which included reading news reports in English, French, and German, with additional primary and secondary source material. If you read the entire piece, you will have a better understanding of how the competition to get to print first in the feverish 24-news cycle coupled with the inherent default biases of the journalists themselves help create a lot of the slanted and often anti-American reporting.

The reporting around the looting of the Iraq National Museum still stands as a good example of how things can go wrong. As I wrote in the conclusion:

Months later, when the truth finally surfaced and people began to ask how the reporters had made so many basic mistakes, John F. Burns would confess to Andrew Lawler that he and the other journalists were “disposed to believe the worst” and that “passion got the better of us.”

Indeed. That's THE John F. Burns of the New York Times.

*

[Pamela]

Jeffrey,

I would like to you know that some of the soldiers my husband and I are in touch with know your blog (as do I) and very much appreciate it.

David and RayD: A thought. In addition to exposing the egregious bias of the German media, perhaps a new dimension - alternative sources.

Here in the U.S. the conventional media is dying - under pressure from the alternative sources provided by the internet.

[Jeffrey]

Pamela,

Hey, that's great to hear! Thanks. I've been following your comments here at DMK ever since I first started visiting. It's fantastic to be able to come here and discuss issues with so many Americans who either live or have lived in Germany and with Germans who a curious about the systemic biases in their media outlets. I was back in Berlin for two weeks just a few months ago and it was a blast as usual. Americans and Germans share so much; but Germans have a culturally reinforced negativity whose default switch is set against the Americans. When Germans aren't complaining about Germans, they're focused on the Americans. It's very strange.

*

[Matz]

Jeffrey,

just a short comment: don't blame the bad image of the US to Germany alone - if the US hadn't gone to iraq, things would all look very different.

Concerning the article: comparing the Spiegel article and the poll results, I can't find that the article provides a biased, distorted view of reality besides being mostly US critical as usual.

The problem is that things in Iraq are really bad and steadily getting worse. No interpretation or scape goating can change that fact. For example, 82% have few or no confidence in the foreign troops, 52% none at all. 76% think that the US have done a bad job, 46% a very bad job.
Now, from this to conclude "65% want the US to stay with conditions" is a bit misleading. Let's acknowledge the fact that Iraqis hate the foreign troops as much as they did Saddam.
Now why would Iraqis want US troops to stay when they have no confidence in them and think theay have done a bad job? The answer is - they know they have no other choice. , otherwise the country would be lost completely.

[Jeffrey]

Matz,

The glee with which the international media -- not just the German media -- jumped on the botched story of the looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad is telling. But there are also structural problems that aided the dissemination of those erroneous original reports. I examine those problems in some detail the article I wrote.

Of course anyone and any media can question choices other governments make, as long as your criticism are made with fairness and ample context applied.

This footnote to the article gives some of the flavor of the international reporting of the Iraqi Museum story:

3. English headlines used variations on "plundered," "ransacked," "looted," and "pillaged"; German headlines were dominated by "gepluendert" and its cognates like "die pluenderer" and "die pluenderung" while the Suddeutsche Zeitung cried "Nur die Mongolen waren schlimmer" and TAZ exclaimed "Die schlimmste Verwuestung seit dem Mongolensturm" and one headline simply asked, "Wie bloed muessen die USA den sein?" and another baldly stated "Der amerikanische Ignoranz," and others referred to "die Vandalen"; French headlines used "pillages" and "les pillards." A collection of articles is available online at http://www.h-net.org/~museum/iraq_3.html.

Many German media outlets, in an odd reversal, refused to blame the actual collection of Iraqi thieves who broke into the museum; instead they likened the Americans to "die Mongolen." Sadly, as DMK chronicles almost daily, this type of smear-reporting is standard. The American soldiers did not ransack or loot anything. Even while they were still engaged in fighting street battles, they had already moved onto the compound, secured it, and set up a team to find out what had happened and how to get back any pieces that were missing.

*

[Matz]

Sorry, Jeffrey, the comment about the Spiegel article was not specifically directed to you.

"Of course anyone and any media can question choices other governments make, as long as your criticism are made with fairness and ample context applied."

It may be true what you write about the headlines. I remember the case with the museum. the headlines were quite strong and negative, and later it came out that it was actually a bit less serious.

But don't forget that America did not go to Iraq because of critical German headlines, it was the other way round. With the Iraq war the US broke a fundamental tabu shared by most modern societies: no war for political reasons. This is especially rooted in Germany, for reasons that should be clear. Every German can tell stories from the own family how people have suffered in a war started for political reasons.

Now you cannot realistically do such a thing that violates people's basic convictions and in return demand fair treatment. It would require a sort of buddhistic sense of "I don't care". I even think neutrality on that special topic is wrong, as it could lure people into thinking war for political reasons could somehow be justified.

This just for you to view these things from a not US perspective, and perhaps understand it a bit.

[Mir]

Please. Is it time for fairy tales again? Anti-Americanism didn't need the "evil" Bush to go to war for "political reasons". It existed long before, just like the Islamists didn't need American soldiers in Irag or Afghanistan to murder 3.000 people.

The war against Iraq was a too good opportunity for the old European left to pour oil into already burning anti-American sentiments. Yes, the decision was controversial and there are good arguments to claim it was wrong. But the hatred and smear against not only Bush or Republican Presidents but indeed against America didn't start in the year 2000 or with the invasion of Iraq. I still remember Clintoon's affairs. It was also a welcome reason for the German media to spread Anti-Americanism.

By the way, there is more than one war "for political reasons" going on in the world. Do I hear the German media / politicians / public condemn that breaking of a "fundamental tabu" that's so "especially rooted in Germany"? No. Except when the US or Israel get involved of course ...

[Pamela]

Matz
if the US hadn't gone to iraq, things would all look very different.

Matz, you are so full of shit. We aren't dealing with one event. We're dealing with a cultural seizure. I can't believe I have to post this again.
A Genealogy of Anti-Americanism

Heidegger cited a passage from the German poet Rainer Maria Rilke:

Now is emerging from out of America pure undifferentiated things, mere things of appearance, sham articles.... A house in the American understanding, an American apple or an American vine has nothing in common with the house, the fruit, or the grape that had been adopted in the hopes and thoughts of our forefathers.

Following Nietzsche, Heidegger depicted America as an invasive force taking over the soul of Europe, sapping it of its depth and spirit: "The surrender of the German essence to Americanism has already gone so far as on occasion to produce the disastrous effect that Germany actually feels herself ashamed that her people were once considered to be 'the people of poetry and thought.'"

[joe]

Germans have found new convictions. This is interesting. Wonder what they are?

[Charlie]

---"Helian, I think Charlie's post was a satire on how Germans react to news from the U.S."---

I thought it was blatently obvious... but then I forgot there may be Germans here who might not understand. So I apolargize to any Germans who were offended or terrified by graphic descriptions of baby seal pups on the beaches.

Free Knut!

While we're at it, just how do they execute bably polar bears in Germany anyway? Is it by electrocution, hanging, guillotine? It can't be by firing squad. I mean, giving a last cigarette to a baby polar bear... why he just might get cancer of the lung. Can Zionists make those yummy pastries from Knut's blood? I don't know. This is all new stuff for Americans. Perhaps it will become a replacement for veal.

I'm sure we all are all aware of the concept of "culture shock". The culture of one country may seem strange and incomprehensible to people of another country. German's can't understand capital punishment for murders in most of the US, and Americans can't understand capital punishment for baby animals in Germany. There's nothing new here. We just need to learn to understand each other better. Although I think you are going to have to spot Americans a little more time on this.

Free Knut!

[grlzjustwant2havefun]

Got you beat, Mir, I remember Ronnie putting the SS-80s(?) in West Germany.

Of course the Germans just loooved Ronnie Raygun!

[Chrisimo]

Helian

If I remember correctly, our media was against the Iraq war from the start. Most people were against it. Many of them were against it, because it was the US who was going to war. Others because they think war has to be avoided at all costs.
I am not sure which situation I would have liked better. Yours, where people suddenly changed their opinion from pro-war to anti-war, or ours, where people were against it from the start. You at least got it started - we would'nt have. Perhaps the US will be defeated because of innerpolitical reasons, like in Vietnam. Perhaps you didn't stand a chance in the first place, because the people in Iraq simply don't want democracy. But you have at least tried - and contiunue to do so - to make Iraq a better country. This is something that many others can not say.

[Mir]

Chrisimo, I'm glad there are still some of my countrymen who prove that resistance against mainstream anti-Americanism is NOT futile. And that has nothing to do with Iraq. Of course one can be against the war and still be pro-American. But that's not what we see in our media.

[Matz]

Mir,

"Of course one can be against the war and still be pro-American. But that's not what we see in our media."

Is it required that one is pro-American? It is possible at all to be pro-everything?

It's useless to solely bash Germany or German media. The US plays a role in that formula, too. To get to the core of the problem, you have to answer the question: why have the US the reputation that they have?

My suggestion: if you want to change the reputation, prove that is isn't true by giving facts. The problem is, only a neutral instance can do this with credibility.

[FranzisM]

Matz - "if the US hadn't gone to iraq, things would all look very different."

United Nations Secretary General Mohammed Khatami in a meeting with German Chancellor Jürgen Möllemann: "If the US had gone to Iraq, things would all look very different."

/1428

[blue]

WhatDoIKnow, no offense taken. You are right, I have spent quite some time for link hunting for comments on this blog and to be honest: more than I should have afforded - not because this blog and its commenters don't deserve the time, but rather because it becomes too costly on Real Life (TM). I need to shift priorities and I will, sorry. As tempting it is to keep up on the blogsphere it eats up more time than I can afford.

[Matz]

An interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism#Europe

"During the Bush administration, public opinion of America has declined dramatically in Europe. A Pew Global Attitudes Project poll shows "favourable opinions" of America between 2000 and 2006 dropping from 83% to 56% in the United Kingdom, from 62% to 39% in France, from 78% to 37% in Germany and from 50% to 23% in Spain [3]."

[joe]

Matz,

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china or for that matter anything else.

Good thing the Frau has decided the EU needs an army.

Wonder what they are going to do...

[Mir]

Probably trying to fight against global warming ...

[joe]

Then any resistance will be met with retreat.

[joe]

Then any resistance will be met with retreat.. . .. after a long moralizing speech of course.

[Helian]

"During the Bush administration, public opinion of America has declined dramatically in Europe. A Pew Global Attitudes Project poll shows "favourable opinions" of America between 2000 and 2006 dropping from 83% to 56% in the United Kingdom, from 62% to 39% in France, from 78% to 37% in Germany and from 50% to 23% in Spain [3]."

Interestingly enough, a Julius Streicher Stiftung poll in Germany showed that "favourable opinions" of the Jews between 1933 and 1945 dropped from 52% to 0% in Germany. There you have it. Incontrovertable evidence that the Jews are evil.

Odd that no data on changes in "favourable opinions" of the US were presented for 1995 to 2000. Oh, silly me! I forgot that any evidence that the relentless anti-American propaganda in Germany and elsewhere in Europe during the Clinton Administration actually had some effect on the level of "favourable opinions" before the advent of the evil Bush Administration, that greatest and most elaborate of European figleafs, would not fit the agenda.

[Matz]

Helian,

you can say what you want: 78% of "favourable opinions" in Germany vs. the US in the year 2000 (compared to 83% in the US best ally) is an indication that the image portrayed here of the German public and media misses some important aspects and might need a correction.

[Helian]

@Matz

"you can say what you want: 78% of "favourable opinions" in Germany vs. the US in the year 2000 (compared to 83% in the US best ally) is an indication that the image portrayed here of the German public and media misses some important aspects and might need a correction."

Nonsense. What needs a correction is your naive assumption, demolished here a thousand times, that a correlation between any US action or combination of actions with a drop in US popularity in polls proves that the drop in popularity was caused by whatever behavior you want to wave your finger at. Logically, your assertions are based on the classic fallacy that correlation proves cause. You don't even get the correlation part right, because negative attitudes about the United States in Europe do not correlate with the advent of the Bush Administration. In fact, (a fact which has also been pointed out here about a thousand times, but, of course, you can't be bothered to inform yourself before spouting off the hackneyed notions you assume are original), vicious anti-American propaganda appeared in the German media well before the start of that Administration. It is also a fact that it was more vicious and open then than it is now because, in the late 1990's, the hate mongers weren't concious of being watched.

Your claim that the slanted, hate dripping propaganda you are defending can in some way be justified if you can only show that, in some instance or other, the US did something wrong, is also ludicrous on the face of it. It has been demonstrated here a thousand times that there is a clear difference between genuine criticism and hate mongering propaganda. Propaganda distorts, misinforms, and disinforms, and is, therefore, neither a rational nor a useful response to any perceived shortcoming in the behavior of the US or any other country. In the case of Germany, the woeful, profound ignorance of the populace about the US, not to mention the negative attitudes you cite, are not based on a balanced presentation of the truth, but on the slanted lies and distortions of the editors of SPON, Stern, and the rest. In essence, all your criticism amounts to is the claim that the lies and distortions this blog regularly exposes are "reasonable" because the US is evil. That is not the assertion of a rational human being, but of a racist ideologue.

[joe]

Helian

Back to the price of tea.

Maybe when the Germans opinion of the US reaches zero Matz and his french allies might take action.

Should this keep me up at night???......nah that would mean they would have to do something... no worries there.

Of maybe if the Frau gets her EU army Switzerland might rearm. An arms race in the heart of euroland.

[Matz]

Helian,

"During the Bush administration, public opinion of America has declined dramatically in Europe. A Pew Global Attitudes Project poll shows "favourable opinions" of America between 2000 and 2006 dropping from 83% to 56% in the United Kingdom, from 62% to 39% in France, from 78% to 37% in Germany and from 50% to 23% in Spain [3]."

How do explain the drop in popularity in the other countries, especially in the UK, who don't consume "vicious anti-American propaganda appeared in the German media"?

"In essence, all your criticism amounts to is the claim that the lies and distortions this blog regularly exposes are "reasonable" because the US is evil."

You misunderstood me, I will never make such a silly simplification, reality is much more complex. I want to draw attention to the thoughtless and problematic use of the word "anti-american", which makes it more difficult to gain a deeper understanding of the things discussed here.