« Markus Guenther Colleaugue Responds with Insults - Bluster | Main | Heilbronner Stimme: "American Way." »


Quite interesting. Thanks for posting that. Seems he mostly "gets it". And he's willing and able to discuss things rationally (doesn't happen that often in our MSM these days). Of course, he does sit in Washington. People who have actually been to the US tend to be less susceptible to the well-known half-truths, sentiments and prejudices.

PS: I still think the WMDs were there.

We're in agreement Mir. I also believe that he had WMD because it's hard to use something that you don't have. Halabja shows that he used chemical weapons. I also believe that what he had in his possession went to Syria.

Ray you do an excellent job of interviewing.

What a weird view, he drops a lot of gems but entirely lacks any consistent train of thought. There are no ideologies any more, but we are all driven by trends? The little shouting match he is trying to start when asked why that was so at around 17min into the track is very telling.

My impression is that this man does not reject the ideologues for their limited horizons, but because they might stick to principles, and his alternative to them is to be always with the pollsters, whereever they may be going. This is best visible in his attempt to project this opportunism on the pro-war stance of his interlocutor - you were just riding a patriotic wave back then never mind the issues now yadda yadda... (funny thing that he is using that metaphor given the name of the media outlet he is working for)

And there´s unintended humour as well, when he is trying to remember Schröders reelection motto and what pops into his mind instead is the Kaisers colonialism motto from a century ago - I guess this journalistic chameleon would have fit in with any German policy in between.

He´s representative for his profession, and the conversation is representative for the difference between German and American journalists. The interesting question is whether German journalists (the trend is my master, forget the crap I wrote yesterday) or American journalists (don´t criticise my agenda, I must speak truth to power) are better equipped to grasp a world shaped by a fundamentally ideological threat (radical Islam and its secular anti-imperialist satellites). Who can better understand this death cult, a man with no principles whatsoever or one with wrong principles?

Re the Iraq/WMD issue, I thought back then and do now that this was not so much about devices in that country, but about a furcation on one side of which the defunct international system was significantly more likely to gravitate towards a war in which WMD are being used on a grand scale than on the other. Bringing on the infinitely prolonged battle of Iraq finally shed sunlight under the rock of the United Nations - if AQ Khan was still trading WMD with nobody watching, and Persia was arming under the pretext to protect itself against a hostile neighbour the risk would be much higher than they are now.

Well, what should Mr. Lentz say? He's working for a state-controlled media outlet.

I think the fact the R. Lentz talks openly about ant-Americanism in the media is a big step forward. I would say that only three years ago DMK was, in the view of many, a fringe blog making bizarre claims about anti-Americanism in the German media.

Today, we have mainstream journalists talking about this issue. For me this is progress. Big progress. In only a few years. I don't feel any satisfaction because it vindicates what we have said for so many years, my only satisfaction comes from the hope that maybe the German media will now find its way back to the principles of journalism.

As Ray said in his interview (by the way, great interview, Ray), the journalists who wrote all the vicious attacks against America are still there, they are still writing. The fact that they scaled down or stopped their attacks doesn't mean that they have any interest in presenting a true unbiased view of America. It only means that they stopped attacking. For now. That's all.

R. Lentz's opinion is that this anti-Americanism is only an irrational trend, a response to America's position in the world as the sole superpower. This doesn't explain though the anti-Americanism of the 80's, when America was not the only superpower. If it's a trend, it's nothing like trends in the world of fashion where the trend changes every season of the year.

Since it's quite a long lasting trend, a trend that at times simmers but never truly dies out, could it be that it is an *ideological* trend?

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27