« German Media: No Time for Counter-Demonstrators | Main | German History 101: Peaceful Transition Works! »

Comments

I realize that I'm wasting my time here. David's so called 'Medienkritik'is a very reactionary and misguided site, which has nothing better to do than spreading resentments against Germans and their Media, without realizing that the statements of its authors are at least as close-minded as they accuse the German media or even worse 'the Germans' to be. Most of the time the comments and statements in here are made out of nothing more than an angry gut feeling.

"I realize that I'm wasting my time here."

Tschüss, Thorsten. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I would like to know what that bomb means. They can't be all as ignorant as Matz is. Oh, never mind.

Ha ha! So he wrote it any way!

"Tschüss, Thorsten. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

This is exactly the sort of close-minded attitude that he was criticizing. I am an American living in Germany and know full well how biased the media is here, and I love this site because it often has intelligent and well-spoken critique of the more egregious examples from the media.

However, lately it seems as if (especially the comments) have been degenerating into just close-minded name-calling and ridicule. Perhaps people feel the need to "blow off steam" after seeing the injustice in the German media.

But I personally find it completely counter-productive. In the past I've very much appreciated this site as a place where I can refer my German friends to to show examples of what their media is saying. But lately I've started noticing alot of posts by presumably Americans that pretty much validates many of their preconceptions of us.

This debate (over anti-american bias in the German media) needs critique without silly, childish name calling. It's starting to feel less and less like a legitimate critique and more and more like a comedian.

@kennon

So behaviour like Thorstens is OK? Very productive and unchildish to behave like Thorsten isn't it:
"Waah, you are all stupid and I don't want to play with you".
If he doesn't like the article, he should point out why and make some counter arguments. If he doesn't like the site he should simply not visit it anymore.

Oh, I think the 'S' of 'USA' being morphed into a dollar sign is so, um, nuanced. We do everything for the money. Affluenza at work.

@ kennon

"This debate (over anti-american bias in the German media) needs critique without silly, childish name calling."

I agree.

@ Thorsten

Ironically, it seems that your comment consists of little more than "gut feeling." Seems like this site really bothers you and you don't know why. Actually, this is not about spreading resentments against Germans. It is about stopping Germans' resentments against Americans! We can't really do that unless we point to and openly admit the problem.

Irrational scapegoating is always the sign of political pathology. It doesn't matter who is playing the goat. Scapegoating is the premier social distress signal, the SOS of the soul. Anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-Anglo-Saxonism are today's scapegoating passions on the European continent. But it could equally well be French anti-Prussianism of the 19th century, anti-Black demagogy in the American South during the Jim Crow years, or contemporary rage against democratic conservatives from the Left all over the world. Scapegoating is a confession of secret fear and envy. Totalitarian fantasies are designed to allay those feelings.
Hence German hectoring against "the Anglo-Saxons" --- a phony racialist term from the 19th century --- and its implicit reversion to the dark, rejected past

Thorsten, German media is a cesspool of anti-American bigotry and lies.

Americans bitch about the stench and that Germans seem to smell nothing but a sweet perfume - until they get caught out.

Then you complain that getting caught is hurting German/American relations.

No word about cleaning out the cesspool.

Grow up.

I'm waiting for one of the "true believers" to come on this site and specifically defend the graphics that ZDF chose to use. In particular, would they think it OK if a US news station depicted Germany's position on an issue in such a way (by the way, I'm still waiting for the German jackboot stomping on US workers since Daimler-Chrysler is layiong off thousands in the US).

I for one find it ironic that for the USA, ZDF depicts a bomb dropping downward when the proposed US-funded missile shield is designed to prevent exactly that!

I hope that I may post one last statement in here: I thought I've made myself clear, but seems that only one person in here understood what my intention was. thank you kennon.

@ Ray: U agree that "this debate needs critique without silly, childish name calling."? Well then I don't understand why you let people away with it, who begin to call the
Germans Nazis just because they feel insulted or hurt in their patriotism. (this stereotypical Nazi accusation makes me very angry for example, allthough I would never join this low niveau/level) Or the ones who begin to to show their malice about Germany's recent economical problems - the question is: has this anything to do with the topic? Perhaps it's because you've lost your objectivity long ago, too, becasue u don't really mind those verbal freak-outs? Perhaps you even become a feeling of satisfaction to let the people in here write whatever they want as long it's anti-German as some kind of counterpart to the alleged anti-americanism? Don't you recognize, that most of ur own statements and the ones of the authors of this site have got a non-objective, agressive undertone, which lacks clear intelectual analysis whithout gut feeling? I am not anti-american and I have some friends in the States, allthough I don't agree with the decissions of the Bush-administration at all, but many of my American friends don't agree with Bush and the extreme conservatives either. Does that make us anti-american? I don't think so. The mentioned German media like the 'Spiegel', 'Stern', 'Süddeutsche', 'ARD Panorama' 'ARD Weltspiegel' and the ZDF heute Nachrichten are not anti-american, too, allthough they sometimes use caricatures, but it was always the sense of caricatues to express something in a exaggerated way and to use satire. Those reportages don't spread hate against the American people - many Germans have relatives and close friends in the States and therefore can't be that anti-American as you accuse them to be - but they criticize the extreme conservatives, which is legitimate in my eyes. What I really don't understand in here is, why most of the people in here completely overreact in a childish manner instead of asking why the European allies criticize the US government? Perhaps you don't want to be bothered with self-criticism, allthough it wouldn't have damaged the American Media in the view of the world, if most of them had questioned their government earlier, instead of affirming that Saddam played arole in 9/11 and that he was threatening the US with weapons of mass destruction like some of them did(Fox news is probably one of the worst examples for this). Don't u think that some of the German and worldwide carricatures have a reason, for example the total disrespect of the UN by the Bush administration? I am very glad that we have the UN, allthough this organisation is not perfect at all. The unreflected verbal freak-outs by Bush himself with 'axis of evil' and 'old Europe' by Rumsfeld caused much disagree with the Europeans,too, which is justified in my eyes. But still the Europeans and North-Americans are cultural and ethnical strong linked, like no other continents on this planet(perhaps with one exception: Australia). Last I want to raise one single and easy question: Which kind of friends do u prefer personally? The ones who try to save you from misery and allow themselves to criticize you in a construct manner, if u begin to overreact, or the ones who don't care, say yes to everything and let you run into an open knife?

"David's so called 'Medienkritik'is a very reactionary and misguided site, which has nothing better to do than spreading resentments against Germans and their Media..."

Immediately followed by:

"However, lately it seems as if (especially the comments) have been degenerating into just close-minded name-calling and ridicule. Perhaps people feel the need to "blow off steam" after seeing the injustice in the German media."

Thinks he detects any inconsistency? Not a bit of it! Bizarre, isn't it? Apparently close-minded name-calling and ridicule don't count as long as they're dishing it out.

Notice how they don't even try to take issue with the point of the post, another typically racist portrayal of the USA. They're like the birds who feign broken wings to lure attention away from their nests. In this case the "nest" is another in a long line of typical German propaganda caricatures. An American flag covered with a USA with a dollar sign for the S and a bomb? How clever! How original! How funny! Care to try actually defending that, instead of getting all pouty and whiny on us? Thorsten? Kennon? Remember, you don't like name calling and ridicule, or so you tell us. Do you think the ZDF portrayal of the US is accurate, objective, and unbiased? How do you think Germans would react if a major US news organization posted a German flag with say, a swastika and a gas chamber?

Rodney King is larger than life

"This debate (over anti-american bias in the German media) needs critique without silly, childish name calling. It's starting to feel less and less like a legitimate critique and more and more like a comedian."

I might be partially guilty of that. Note however, that in order to be able to do that, the debate needs intellectually honest positions on both sides in order to continue in a serious manner. No distracting tactics by off-topic heresay, no "I do not think you are running this blog the right way" Oberlehrer comments which do have nothing to do with the matter at hand, like our German "everything's fine" occasional visitors here like to do. If they engage in such tactics, it is THEM who are not willing to engage in honest discussion ON THE TOPIC and are making this a comedy.

Take the missile debate as an example. Matz and the like were busy to derail the topic from the start, succeeded with that and when brought back on track and confronted with the actual topic, Matz showed colorfully that he had NO idea what that system is, what it is capable of, which however is THE POINT when talking about how legitimate or not the Russian critizism is.

If you want to debate whether or not that critizism is legitimate from a technical view, looking at the facts, or if it's just a political gamble tool for Russia, then you have to address the system specifically. And as I understood, I think the topic was all about the idiocy of critizising this as some kind of "Cold War Reloaded" balance disturbing system. If you don't like it just because it's American - well, next one please, nothing to see here.

Which kind of friends do u prefer personally?

I prefer the ones that don't lie. Personally.

"If they engage in such tactics, it is THEM who are not willing to engage in honest discussion ON THE TOPIC and are making this a comedy."

They have a big problem. Their ideology requires them to defend the indefensible. The ZDF caricature is about as egregious an example of hate-mongering propaganda as you're likely to find. But they can't just agree that, yes, it is hate-mongering propaganda, and just leave it at that. Their world view requires them to consider any villification of the US, no matter how racist or vile, as acceptable. If they object to it, they wander outside the bounds of their ideological reservation, they challenge the defining shibboleths of their anti-American cult, and risk finding themselves among the outcasts, the ostracized. They can't risk that, but they can't really defend racist propaganda either without making laughing stocks of themselves. What a quandary! What to do? Why, stick your fingers in your ears, and start making loud "Hmmmm, Hmmmm, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" noises. In this case, the "Hmmmm, Hmmmm" noises consist, as usual, of the claim that Medienkritik is "evil," the commenters are "evil," and that, therefore, they must refuse to notice anything posted on the site, and, coincidentally, insist that no one else look, either. That's all right. I doubt that David's goal was to convert ideological zealots when he started this site. Rather, it was to present the evidence to people who still had open minds. This blog continues to do precisely that, and, obviously, very effectively. When the professionally virtuous start wringing their hands and claiming you're "evil," you know you're hitting the mark.

Another interpretation, albeit a rather "benevolent" one, might be that the creator of this image wanted to point out the controversy surrounding the issue of stationing defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the old cold war reflexes consequently triggered in many Europeans. This does not mean that the picture is in any way balanced, it's not. I think we would need some Iranian missiles in there to have that, or some Russian ones.

Sloppiness and laziness on the side of the editors - just an idea. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that anti-American sentiments are well presented by this, and possibly eagerly taken into account.

@Thorsten,

"I realize that I'm wasting my time here. David's so called 'Medienkritik'is a very reactionary and misguided site, which has nothing better to do than spreading resentments against Germans and their Media, without realizing that the statements of its authors are at least as close-minded as they accuse the German media or even worse 'the Germans' to be. Most of the time the comments and statements in here are made out of nothing more than an angry gut feeling."

-OK, so you don't like this website. Now, to the topic:

Do you care to comment on the ZDF graphics depicting a proposed US-funded missile shield in such a way? Does it seem approrriate to you for a U$A plus a downward dropping bomb (ironic since the system is designed to stop such a thing)? Do you think the ZDF depiction is fair and objective? Would you think so if this was how a US media outlet depicted a German position on an issue? Can you see why this would bother Americans to see their country and its proposal depicted in such a distorted, cartoonish way?

Well, I think the purpose of the image is pretty clear. It means to say "The US are a warmongering country that does everything for money." (or something similar). I don't think that the bomb has something to do with the missle shield but should display the warmongering aspect of the US. And I think it doesn't even need to be discussed whether this is Anti-American or not.

This debate (over anti-american bias in the German media) needs critique without silly, childish name calling. It's starting to feel less and less like a legitimate critique and more and more like a comedian.

Lile Alex N., I also might be partially guilty of that, by saying to tropby, a German WWII revisionist, that he is some sort of abject creature. I appologize for that and in the spirit of brotherly love I will have only flowers and smiles for all the miscreatures of this Earth. I see now that he is not a low life, but a noble being who came to his conclusions after serious consideration and whose only goal was to share his deep insight with people less intellectually gifted.

From now on, every time some applogist of the present or distorter of the past comments I will turn the other cheek, have understanding for him and encourage with my attitude an exchange of ideas from which we all have to gain. Eventually, an atmosphere of mutual respect will permeate the comment section of DMK. After all, who am I to judge someone who twists history in order to satisfy his distorted mind? Now I see that I have no right to do that and that it was naive and discriminatory from me to assume that just because reality is on my side my word carries more weight than that of a...say...WWII revisionist.

Furthermore, I suggest that DMK give up their unjustified obsession with the German media and open up their comments to fringy comments because, after all, if we don't try to stretch our imagination and understanding we will all end up narrow minded like the Americans (sorry, I meant Bush).

Welcome to our world, Thorsten.

Helian, I really don't think the term "evil" should be a part of the conversation. After all, to them there is no evil, only shades of grey and all points are valid.

@WhatDoIKnow

You sound bitter...

As to Rummy and "Old Europe," well, Europe is old, as some Europeans keep reminding us as to why we should listen to them.

Museums are were old things are kept, after all.

As to friends??

How about those who don't supply our enemies for the all mighty Euro?

German observer busily cuts and stitches on the emperor's new clothes:

"Sloppiness and laziness on the side of the editors - just an idea. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that anti-American sentiments are well presented by this, and possibly eagerly taken into account."

But that "simpleton," Chrisimo, fails to see them:

"Well, I think the purpose of the image is pretty clear. It means to say "The US are a warmongering country that does everything for money." (or something similar). I don't think that the bomb has something to do with the missle shield but should display the warmongering aspect of the US. And I think it doesn't even need to be discussed whether this is Anti-American or not."

I hope I will always be a "simpleton," like Chrisimo. I also hope that I will always be "too eager" to suit german observer when it comes to resisting hate mongering propaganda, because anyone who his not "too eager" to please the ever sedate german observer is also likely to be dead.

I don't think he actually believes what he wrote...I don't know him, though.

German observer busily cuts and stitches on the emperor's new clothes

On another very similar thread, German observer's explanation was that "it's stereotypes". Here, his explanation is that it's "sloppiness and laziness". Doesn't a certain pattern emerge here? As I said to him before, he just can't bring himself to condemn propaganda and leave it to that. However, his next post will be about how he really condemns anti-Americanism and all that...


The point is that ZDF is not a private tv station or a newspape like Frankfurter Rundschau; it is an organ of the federal government, in as much as it was created under federal legislation as one of the regional monopolistic tv/radio services. By extension, this is a public insult. I really dont see how you can poo-poo that instrinsic and fundamental fact. I have never really understood those who refuse to comprehend it as such.
Hell, if the VOA or the army newspapers started out columns with: "Germans again broach the Oder: Merkel and Co. visit Warsaw." The Germans would go crazy. And rightfully so. However, public diplomacy and tactfulness has always taken a back seat to speaking truth to power amongst the 68ers. It is shockingly provincial and spiessig.

Here´s the top story the ZFD missed:

IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

Number of hits in German commercial media at time of this posting: none

/they need a Prussian Blue gig in pistacchioland

@Franzis,

So basically you really, really don't want to comment on the ZDF graphics depicting a proposed US-funded missile shield in such a way. Does it seem approrriate to you for a U$A plus a downward dropping bomb (ironic since the system is designed to stop such a thing)? Do you think the ZDF depiction is fair and objective? Would you think so if this was how a US media outlet depicted a German position on an issue? Can you see why this would bother Americans to see their country and its proposal depicted in such a distorted, cartoonish way?

By the way, all of those Iranian agents and special forces officers have been captured in Iraq, not Iran. The Iranian government is just putting up a smokescreen to make it look like we went deep into Iran to get them (just not possible).

Again, care to comment on the missile shield distortions by ZDF?

Interesting choice of graphics - indeed. On the ZDF website, 5mm to the right of where your screenshot accidentally ends, there is a link to a video with a Mr. Obering who explains thoroughly in about 10 Minutes to a reporter why the defense shield is good and necessary and america only wants to protect it's dear allies in Europe from evil iran ;-)

The headline of the video is: "Obering: US missile shield is defensive.". The link is accessible from all (or most - I didn't check it) articles on that topic.

http://www.heute.de/ZDFmediathek/inhalt/7/0,4070,5251367-5,00.html

I have to admit, however, that the particular picture here is unnecessary and a bit sensational - on the other hand, it is somehow summarizes and illustrates the SPD's opinion on the issue, which is the topic of the article.
The other articles have different pictures, such as this heartening one:

http://www.heute.de/ZDF/s_img/90/0,6752,5950298-render-L2-,00.jpg

;-)
.

What Obering said in the video was the official US position of course. Essentially that Iran is evil and the only reason why the US want to build that shield is they want to protect their allies in Europe.
I found that not quite believable. This sounds too much of sheer altruism and genuine friendship, which doesn't exist in politics. There are only interests. So, what are the real motives for the US building a shield that doesn't protect US soil directly?

Perhaps they want to protect american military bases. This would be a reason, but I wonder who would rather be protected if iran would launch an attack with a higher number of missiles - US bases or german cities?

Another idea - by listening how Obering repeatedly mentioned Iran I wondered if it could be primarily a propaganda instrument directly aimed at Iran. If they would manage to build that system in Europe, it would be a huge victory, and they would have effectively drawn Europe deep into their conflict with Iran.
Right now there is a conflict between Europe and Iran because of the atomic program, but it's not comparable at all with the war between the US and Iran.

Hector,

I have dropped in the "heart of Europe" threat here, since this may mean another Mykonos attack, but you push me back ontopic.

The clipart above is the kind of motive I would expect to see on a photograph of a protester with his sandwich banner. An article on this issue could also feature a photograph of the weapons system in action, of the electronics development scientists, or a missile range map or sattelite imagery. If such a clipart appears directly as a part of the redactional design, it may be an indication that the writer fantasises of himself as said protester. As to the clipart itself, I noted that it does not directly refer to missile defense, as even to my civilian eyes the bomb seems to be a model that would be dropped from an airplane rather than being installed on a missile, but I may be wrong on these technical details. Maybe it is referring to one of the devices in the nuclear sharing.

@ Thorsten

>> Don't you recognize, that most of ur own statements and the ones of the authors of this site have got a non-objective, agressive undertone, which lacks clear intelectual analysis whithout gut feeling?

No. Just take the article under which you have posted your comment. It simply shows an anti-American picture that appeared on the website of one of Germany's largest state-sponsored TV channels. Depicturing that image is as objective as it gets. Americans should know how our media portrays them, don't you agree?

>> The mentioned German media like the 'Spiegel', 'Stern', 'Süddeutsche', 'ARD Panorama' 'ARD Weltspiegel' and the ZDF heute Nachrichten are not anti-american

There are several possibilities:

a) You have never read or seen any of the mentioned.
b) As a German, you simply want to defend our media regardless.
c) You are pretty much anti-American yourself and don't even recognize their anti-Americanism anymore, because for you it's simply the "truth".
d) You are too stupid to recognize simple facts.

>> it wouldn't have damaged the American Media in the view of the world, if most of them had questioned their government earlier

What kinds of American media have you seen, heard or read? And I don't mean what you heard ABOUT them, but what YOU have personally witnessed.

The Leftists at ZDF who produced this garbage certainly are not Nazis in the classical sense, but they do seem to have inherited their ancestors' knack for propaganda. The immeasurable hatred that inspired the ZDF graphic as well as the hatred it is meant to inspire are obvious. To say that an emotional response to this provocation is 'reactionary' adds insult to injury.

Who is running German media these days, ex-Stasi?

Did Germans not learn anything from the cold war?

Pamela,

These are our allies. The ones you think are worthing spending our national treasure on.

Helian

The picture with the U$A tag has been shown on signs in demonstrations against the missile shield and is probably taken from that context (see here for a similar sign on a demonstration in Poland) and not explicitly designed by ZDF. It was probably inserted into the picture with US and EU flags to underlign the controversy of this issue across Europe. I don't think there is a doubt that the picture above can be interpreted as anti-American. As I said, to get a balanced picture, there should be Iranian missiles in there.

I was merely trying to offer a causal explanation for the composition of this picture that complements the Julius Streicher attitude ascribed to the German media here.

The picture I was referring to is actually here.

"The picture with the U$A tag has been shown on signs in demonstrations against the missile shield and is probably taken from that context"

Sorry, but I fail to grasp why anti-American propaganda is somehow less objectionable when it has previously been shown on signs in demonstrations. I guess I'm just too much of a "simpleton" to understand the logic here. Apparently only people in the German media and their apologists are capable of the mental gymnastics necessary to perceive this higher truth.

Sorry, but I fail to grasp why anti-American propaganda is somehow less objectionable when it has previously been shown on signs in demonstrations.

It is not, nor did I say so. Charles from LGF regulary reports moonbat activities, as does LGF operative zombie. Does this make them moonbats? Does this make certain moonbat activities and signs less objectionable?

I think there is a difference between the ZDF, a state controlled TV channel, designing such a sign itself and the ZDF using an existing sign in a picture. In the former case, they would actively promote their own opinion, whereas in the latter, they would more or less report what is going on. As stated above, this refers to the possible motivation of the picture.

The point is this: I basically think it is very likely that the editors wanted to convey with this picture the distinct opinions between the US and the left-oriented part of some European countries with respect to the missile shield. Hence, they chose an existing controversial sign (or anti-American sign, to put it correctly) to show that there is controversy. It's an interesting if not impossible task to design a picture (not a text) that shows controversy between the US and parts of EU countries with respect to the missile shield without being controversial.

When seeing this picture together with the caption, I was thinking exactly this: The US is interested in stationing defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, while some parts in EU countries object to it, using basically anti-American and controversial propaganda. I am well aware that the picture can be interpreted as if the ZDF wanted to make the statement "U$A" etc., but I simply don't think this is likely.

The picture is ambivalent and should have been more clear with respect to this issue (e.g., by showing demonstrants holding this sign - this is what I was referring to with "sloppy"), not mentioning that it should have been more balanced as stated above (Iran?). The fact that the picture is ambivalent with respect to the shown sign is in my opinion the critical point here.

To put it into a nutshell, I don't think the picture is meant to be the epitome of evil, but rather is a sloppy (ambivalent) and failed attempt to convey the political controversy surrounding the missile issue.

German observer

"I think there is a difference between the ZDF, a state controlled TV channel, designing such a sign itself and the ZDF using an existing sign in a picture. In the former case, they would actively promote their own opinion, whereas in the latter,
they would more or less report what is going on. As stated above, this refers to the possible motivation of the picture. "

Does that mean that if I wrote an article about the NPD "criticising" Israel and put a depiction of "the typical jew" of "Der Stuermer" aside to it, it would constitute a report of what is going on?

GO

You seem to be an apologist for German state sponsored anti-Americanism. Why is that?

Chrisimo

Does that mean that if I wrote an article about the NPD "criticising" Israel and put a depiction of "the typical jew" of "Der Stuermer" aside to it, it would constitute a report of what is going on?

I do not think that many German papers would print this image. I'm not sure whether it is allowed at all.

joe

You seem to be an apologist for German state sponsored anti-Americanism. Why is that?

I tried to depict an alternative explanation for the motivation of this picture. It might very well be wrong, although I think it is not unlikely.

"To put it into a nutshell, I don't think the picture is meant to be the epitome of evil, but rather is a sloppy (ambivalent) and failed attempt to convey the political controversy surrounding the missile issue."

The logo was probably taken from recent anti-war demonstrations and put on top of the two flags in a failed attempt to illustrate objection against US plans. If this is the only objectionable picture on the ZDF website, then one cannot take any other conclusion than that it's an example of bad/unprofessional journalism (which is btw not true for the article itself, which is just matter of fact). No one is perfect.

Generally, public German TV is excellent, and you'll hardly find anything more objective here. If you aren't satisfied with picking out one example to confirm your existing opinion, and look at the whole of the website, which is huge, you'll agree. I just want to point to the Obering interview again, which is just beside the article in question.

"Generally, public German TV is excellent..."

Sure, it's excellent as long as you like a steady diet of socialist, anti-American propaganda carefully filtered and selected to serve the purposes of the modern feudal masters.

>> Generally, public German TV is excellent, and you'll hardly find anything more objective here.

Sorry, my English seems to be worse than I thought. Can anyone explain to me the meaning of the words "excellent" and "objective"? Until now, I didn't think they were synoyms for "biased", "prejudiced", "agenda-driven" and "predominantly staffed with politicized left-wing journalists".

German observer

The question was not if german papers would print it, but whether it would constitute reporting if I wrote such an article. Or do you think that influencing would be more appropriate?

Matz

You think that was a mistake and the editor didn't want to portray the US as a greedy, warmongering country? Please tell me, which of the offered opinions on this matter are more likely to you! Was it a mistake/sloppy/etc? Or was it a deliberate try to instill a specific view of the US in the reader? Don't regard the other articles of the site just now.

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