Davids Medienkritik

Unfiltered: Bush Takes His Message Directly to the German People

(By Ray D.)

This is perhaps the only way German citizens will ever see the true opinions and positions of the US administration unfiltered. This is one of the few ways the administration can hope to get a fair shake in foreign media - by defining its own positions without the overwhelming spin of a hostile press.

BILD: Exclusive article by Bush on fighting AIDS in Africa

ZDF: Exclusive interview with Bush on the upcoming G8 summit

US Diplomatic Representatives in Germany Have Long Failed to Effectively Engage Mass Media...

The US Embassy ought to have representatives fluent in German engaging mass media on a regular basis to clarify the US position, debate transatlantic issues and correct misinformation. They ought to be far more present on television talk shows, radio shows and as guest columnists in major newspapers. One appearance on a program such as "Berlin Mitte" will reach exponentially more Germans than years of organizing art exchanges or discussion groups at the local Amerika Haus or cultural center.

The fact that members of the American Foreign Service haven't more effectively engaged German media has been a costly failure. The system of two year rotations in the US foreign service clearly makes it more difficult to establish an effective media program. The fact that the Foreign Service and State Department tend to lean undeniably to the left also means that there is currently less desire to go out and explain and defend the positions of the US government on mass media forums - despite the fact that that is the very mission of the public diplomacy officials. One could say that some in the State Department and Foreign Service sympathize with or at least condone the America-hostile rhetoric of the European left.

Here's an important point: If the Ambassador cannot speak the local language - and the current US Ambassador in Germany cannot - then he needs to have a media representative fluent in the local language and able to effectively engage local media on important bilateral and multilateral issues. This MUST become a central mission of American embassies throughout Western Europe.

Education of US Future Diplomats is Wanting...

As someone who just graduated from a top foreign service Masters program in the United States - it is obvious that future American diplomats are not receiving the adequate preparation they need to deal with mass media. Writing memos, following the news and studying past foreign policy is fine - but it does not produce the sort of forward looking, modern, media-savvy diplomats that America has a critical need for moving forward. Top graduate programs must integrate communications and media studies into their foreign affairs and foreign service programs. Public diplomacy is a track that is vitally important and will only grow in importance. It must be emphasized and failure to do so will wield further mediocrity in dealing with foreign media.

Further, when it comes to U.S. university programs in international affairs, the conservative point of view is vastly underrepresented in programs designed to prepare future diplomats. The classes I took on media, for example, were taught exclusively by individuals with unmistakably left-leaning world-views and an open hostility towards conservative and electronic media.  Even the self-proclaimed "registered Republican" professor bought a theory put forth by Bill Moyers and Dan Rather that the media were largely in lockstep with Bush before the Iraq War - serving as uncritical lapdogs in the administration's march to war. This deeply flawed and extremely self-serving theory has become widely (and often uncritically) accepted inside the beltway. We were asked to follow the New York Times and Washington Post - and largely ignored conservative publications and viewpoints. When a controversial conservative professor was invited to teach on campus, the protests became so loud among faculty (one could say that a lynch mob atmosphere was created) that the dean actually had to step-in to keep him on board. That would have never happened had he been a controversial liberal like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.

It may be that conservatives are politically "out of fashion" for the moment (but - then - aren't they always in Washington?) Still, as a graduate student, I would like to be exposed to both sides of the political spectrum in a balanced manner. It didn't help that most of the students also tend to the left. It didn't help that not a single classmate had served in the US Armed Forces. Academia can be a lonely place if you aren't down with the left-leaning groupthink - particularly in the social sciences. You essentially have to keep quiet - or risk being shouted down and disliked by most of your peers and professors. 

Bush Interview: SPIEGEL ONLINE's Phony Forgiveness Ploy

(By Ray D.)

Like most German media, SPIEGEL ONLINE has grown somewhat predictable in reporting on the United States over the years. You might say that they have a time-tested, populist playbook that they turn to when in need of a catchy headline. This weekend, SPIEGEL ONLINE cracked open the playbook and shot-up a front-page article with more spin on it than a Dirk Nowitski three-pointer:

Headline: "Charm Offensive: Bush Forgives German No to Iraq War"

The article in question purports to describe a recent Bush interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. (Part I / Part II of interview in German). (Read the English original here.) But through the entire interview, President Bush never once expressed the need or desire to "forgive" Germany for anything. Instead, when asked whether Americans felt "left in the lurch" by Germans over Iraq, Bush spoke of understanding for Germans' opposition to war and repeatedly praised Germany as a partner in the fight on terror.

Now back to SPIEGEL ONLINE's predictable playbook: The magazine's disingenuous "forgiveness" spin is remarkably similar to an earlier piece entitled, "German-American Relations: Bush Forgives the Chancellor." That article was also based on an interview with Bush in which the President (similarly) made no actual mention of the need, desire or wish to "forgive" Schroeder, Germany, or anyone else for opposition to the Iraq conflict. The word "forgive" simply never came up. Instead, (as in the Bild am Sonntag interview,) Bush expressed appreciation for Germany's contributions in the fight against terror and understanding for the German people's historically-rooted pacifism. Yet, despite that, SPIEGEL ONLINE chose to interpret Bush's words as an attempt to "forgive" Schroeder.

One interesting aspect of the latest phony "forgiveness" piece is that SPIEGEL ONLINE now claims that Bush only forgave "the German 'no' to Iraq" after Schroeder left office. But if we are to believe the 2003 piece, Bush already forgave Schroeder's 'no' on Iraq in 2003! So which is it? The SPIEGEL spin is getting more difficult to follow by the day...clank...looks like they've just thrown up another brick...

Here's a little suggestion for our friends at SPIEGEL ONLINE: If you are going to invent facts for your readers and pretend the President has "forgiven" German opposition to Iraq, couldn't you at least be consistent about when Bush didn't do what you say he did?

You may be scratching your head by this time and wondering: Why does it matter that SPIEGEL ONLINE feels the need to repeatedly spin Bush's positive statements on Germany as "forgiveness"? Our answer to that question can be found in a posting we wrote back in 2003. Much of what we wrote still applies today...(except that Schroeder has since been voted out of office and started work for his pipeline-pal Putin):

"...but I see this bogus interpretation of Bush's comments in the German headlines as a further cynical attempt to stoke anti-Bush sentiment in Germany. Here's why:         

It is critically important to remember that the majority of the German people are still firmly convinced that they were right to oppose what they still see as an unjustified, illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Many Germans also despise President Bush with a passion, especially because the US President has been systematically and unrelentingly demonized and attacked by Germany's left-wing media for years on end. So when your average German reads the headline "Bush forgives Schroeder" he or she is probably thinking, "How dare Bush forgive Schroeder when he is the one who should be down on his knees apologizing for his illegal adventure in Iraq and begging us for forgiveness?  Our Chancellor (incompetent though he may be domestically) has nothing to apologize for with regard to Iraq!  After all we were right to oppose the war all along!" 

In fact, the erroneous use of the headline "Bush forgives Schroeder" turns what was, in fact, a very diplomatic statement by Bush into a humiliating attack on the dignity of Schroeder and the majority of the German people. Remember, in the German culture authority and being right are very important, so the idea of someone condescendingly "forgiving" Germany's leader must be incredibly insulting."

SPIEGEL ONLINE's phony "forgiveness" ploy is nothing more than a cynical perversion of reality in the magazine's ongoing effort to smear President Bush as condescending and arrogant. We at Medienkritik suggest that Germans read the interview for themselves (here and here) and stop relying on chronically biased journalists to spoon feed them news on the United States. Instead of watching SPIEGEL ONLINE and other media losers chuck up predictable airball after predictable airball, the German public should look more to blogs and other alternatives to counterbalance the failing mainstream.

UPDATE: And here is the latest on Bush at SPIEGEL ONLINE, apparently he and Tony Blair have suddenly transformed into powerless lame ducks. All in the course of a single day!

"The Most Powerless Man in the World"

"Blair Becoming a Lame Duck"

Of course, according to SPIEGEL ONLINE, both Bush and Blair have been under enormous, unbearable, heavy, MASSIVE political pressure since at least 2001. You'd think they would have both been politically finished years ago. Oh wait, SPIEGEL ONLINE has already thought that...repeatedly...

Der SPIEGEL, March 1, 2004: "Will America be Democratic Again? Five to Twelve for George W. Bush"

We rest our case...

UPDATE #2: SPIEGEL ONLINE is currently running two other "fair and balanced" articles on the USA that in no way perpetuate negative stereotypes. The topics? America's ten most wanted criminals and the super obese. But hey, what's the big deal, the German media is just as tough on German politicians...no need to get upset...

Fire Trittin!

We have two more pieces on German environmental minister Trittin's remarks. The first is a commentary in Germany's largest daily BILD, the second is an e-mail we received from Andreas, a German who wants to stress his solidarity with the U.S.

BILD:

Fire Trittin!

The dead in New Orleans are still uncounted, thousands of people are fighting for survival.

But instead of standing by the Americans as they cope with this terrible hurricane catastrophe, our environmental minister Jürgen Trittin shows the world the grimace of the ugly German.

With ice cold arrogance he shouts to the poor people, who are swimming for their lives: “It your own fault!”. Translation: With climate protection á la Trittin it never would have happened.

Not a word of regret, no sympathy, no ... nothing! Instead, hold the German election on the American victims' backs.

If Jürgen Trittin still has a spark of decency left, he’ll shamefacedly tender his resignation without a fuss.

But you can’t expect that from the man. So the Chancellor will have to act and fire the Minister of Heartlessness.

(Translation of BILD quote from Richard Bartholomew.) This is the e-mail from Andreas:

Another October Surprise: Germany's Largest Newspaper Endorses Bush

(By Ray D.)

Perhaps the largest October surprise in Germany is the BILD newspaper's endorsement of President George W. Bush. BILD, which has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe, lists the following 10 reasons why Bush should be re-elected:

Update: The list we had up earlier was an abbreviated summary of the 10 reasons. We have now translated BILD's list of reasons in their entirety. Here they are:

1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.

2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush -- unlike with Kerry -- there is no doubt about this.

3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a "holy war" which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared.

4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.

6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won't ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that – and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.

7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.

8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.

9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.

10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America – and the world.

Certainly, BILD should be applauded for its courage. Supporting George W. Bush in a nation where the overwhelming majority of the leftist dominated media absolutely seethe with hate for Mr. Bush is no small matter. The newspaper's email inbox is likely jammed with thousands of angry, outraged emails by now. But BILD's action proves that not all Germans have bought into the anti-American, anti-Bush mindset of most of the nation's media publications.

Via Cox & Forkum: Most of Germany's Angry Leftist Media and Intellectual "Elites" Just Can't Understand Pro-Bush Americans...

On another note, Stern magazine, a left-wing publication, has come out in favor of Senator Kerry.

Stern Endorses Kerry (Left: Last week's Stern depicts an American cowboy boot crushing German workers. Right: A Stern from earlier this year depicts Bush and the ruins of the World Trade Center with the headline "How America Lied to the World.")

Stern's Chief Editor Thomas Osterkorn writes:

"With John Kerry a more reconciliatory President would occupy the White House. He is simply closer to the Europeans and the Germans."

More reconciliatory? Keep in mind that the German government has already clearly stated that it will not send troops to Iraq, regardless of who wins the election. The French have effectively said the same thing. What countries will Kerry get more troops from at his "summit" to internationalize the effort in Iraq? We honestly couldn't tell you.

And Mr. Kerry has already insulted America's current allies as a "coalition of the bribed and coerced." What nations will want to join him in a war that he himself called a "mistake" and "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?" Those are important questions the American people will have to consider on election day.

Be sure to check out our list of recommended readings on Germany, the USA and the upcoming elections.

Note: For those of you who missed it, Medienkritik has also made an endorsement. It may surprise you...it may not...

Speaking of endorsements: Here is an article from the Washington Post (not exactly known as a conservative paper) pointing out that members of the US National Guard fighting the war in Iraq and their family members overwhelmingly endorse the leadership of President Bush by a two-thirds majority. Around three-quarters of active military support the President. That wouldn't seem to indicate Iraq is a disaster as some have claimed...

Update from David: Here's a guy who doesn't agree with BILD's endorsement. Michael Moore disagrees with BILD as well, calling John Kerry a real "liberal" on CNN. And here's another online poll, in the German daily WELT...Choose your candidate and then click "abstimmen" at the bottom of the page.

German Media Quote Dubious Witnesses to Discredit Bush Ad / Deutsche Medien zitieren dubiose Zeugen gegen Bush-Werbung

(English translation at end of post)

Darauf konnte man wetten: die deutschen Medien übernehmen dankbar die Kritik von US-Medien an der TV-Werbung von Präsident Bush. Ausgesuchte Zitate sollen den Eindruck eines weit verbreiteten Unmutes vermitteln.

Süddeutsche Zeitung:

"Den 11. September auszunutzen, ist pietätlos"

Es ist die teuerste TV-Wahlwerbung in der Geschichte der USA: Unter anderem mit Bildern von den Trümmern des World Trade Centers versucht George W. Bush die Bedeutung seiner Führung im Kampf gegen den Terror zu betonen. Angehörige der Opfer werfen ihm nun vor, er instrumentalisiere ihr Leiden.

BILD:

Hinterbliebende der WTC-Opfer wütend auf Präsident Bush

Die Botschaft: Ich bin eine Führungspersönlichkeit, die auch schwere Krisen zu meistern versteht. Doch vielen Amerikanern geht diese Art der Werbung viel zu weit. Vor allem die Hinterbliebenden der WTC-Opfer und die Feuerwehrleute New Yorks sind stinksauer über die Spots. ... Die New Yorkerin Monica Gabrielle, die ihren Mann bei den Anschlägen verlor.„Den 11. September für politische Zwecke auszunutzen, ist pietätlos.“

Rheinische Post:

Als geschmacklos kritisieren Hinterbliebene von Opfern der Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001 die neuen TV-Wahlkampfspots von US-Präsident George W. Bush: Die Bilder zeigen u.a. das eingestürzte World Trade Center. "Den 11. September für politische Zwecke auszunutzen, ist pietätlos", sagte die New Yorkerin Monica Gabrielle, die ihren Mann bei den Anschlägen verlor. Der Chef der Feuerwehrvereinigung, Harold Schaitberger, warf Bush "Heuchelei der schlimmsten Sorte" vor. Bush schlachte den "Heldenmut der New Yorker Feuerwehrleute" für seine Wiederwahl aus, während die Feuerwehr unter Geldnot leide.

Fortsetzung: "Continue" anklicken.

Die deutschen Besserwisser / The German Know-It-Alls

Die USA - so die deutschen Medien unisono - haben sich in der Einschätzung der Entwicklung des Irak völlig geirrt. Hätten sie (die Amerikaner) doch auf uns und unsere Politiker gehört...
The US - according to the German media - have completely failed to grasp the development of Iraq. If they only had listened to us and our politicans...

Hier sind einige Prognosen unserer deutschen Politiker aus der Zeit vor Beginn des Irak-Krieges, zitiert aus einer Studie der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung:
These are a few predictions of German politicians from before the begin of the war in Iraq, quoted from a study of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation:

Olaf Scholz, Generalsekretär der SPD: Der Krieg wird "vielleicht hunderttausenden unschuldigen Menschen das Leben" kosten. Olaf Scholz, Secretary General of the SPD (Social Democratic Party): The war will "likely result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul (SPD), Entwicklungshilfeministerin: Sie erwartete, daß "(h)undertausende von unschuldigen Menschen, Zivilisten, Kinder, Frauen" Kriegsopfer werden, wobei sie darüber hinaus mit zwei bis drei Millionen Flüchtlingen rechnete.
Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul (SPD), Minister of Development Aid: She expected "hundreds of thousands of innocent people, civilists, children, women" to become war victims, and she expected two to three million refugees.

Der ehemalige SPD-Politiker Erhard Eppler, seit Jahrzehnten Guru der Friedensbewegung, sah "das Leben von Hunderttausenden, vielleicht Millionen ... gefährdet".
The former SPD-politician Erhard Eppler, Guru of the peace movement, expected "the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions (of people) at risk".

Jürgen Trittin (Grüne), Bundesumweltminister: "Dem Bundesumweltministerium liegen verschiedene Studien vor, darunter UN-Dokumente. Danach wird mit 40.000 bis 200.000 Opfern von militärischen Aktionen gerechnet. (...) Es wird befürchtet, dass bis zu 200.000 weitere Menschen an den mittelbaren Folgen eines Krieges sterben."
Jürgen Trittin (The Greens), Minister for the Environment: "The Ministry of the Environment has several studies, among them UN documents. According to these 40.000 to 200.000 victims of military actions can be expected. (...) We are afraid, that up to 200.000 more people might die from the consequences of a war."

Christian Ströbele, MdB (Grüne): "Zehntausend von Toten..."
Christian Ströbele, MP (The Greens): "Tens of thousands of deaths..."

Bundestagspräsident Wolfgang Thierse (SPD): „Ich denke an die Millionen von Menschen in Bagdad, die Opfer von Bomben und Raketen werden.“ (das letzte Zitat wurde einer Aufstellung der BILD-Zeitung entnommen).
Wolfgang Thierse, President of the German Parliament (SPD): "I think of the millions of people in Baghdad, who will be victims of bombs and rockets."

Ob die deutschen Medien auch einmal auf die unglaublichen Schieflagen der Prognosen der Politiker eingehen? Obwohl - dann müßten sie auch ihre eigenen Fehleinschätzungen gestehen, und das wollen wir doch vermeiden, oder?
Will the German media one day report the incredible miscalculations of politicians? Though... in that case that'd have to explain their own miserable calculations, and this has to be avoided by all means, right?

Den Hinweis auf die Studie der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung verdanke ich Torsten Jacobi, der ein interessantes - englischsprachiges - Blog (TJ's Weblog "Technology, Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship") unterhält.
Hat tip: Torsten Jacobi made me aware of the study of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation. BTW: Torsten has an interesting blog (TJ's Weblog "Technology, Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship").

Blair ohne Tadel

Aber hallo: der Geheimdienstausschuß des britischen Unterhauses entlastet in seinem Bericht die Regierung weitgehend von dem Vorwurf, das Irak-Dossier im Sinne des Kriegseintritts manipuliert zu haben.

Was bleibt, ist der - wesentlich mildere - Vorwurf an die Adresse des Verteidigungsministers, bei den Untersuchungen nicht sehr hilfreich gewesen zu sein.

Was aber wird nun aus dem Kampf der deutschen Medien - FAZ, SPIEGEL, BILD - gegen Tony Blair?

Wir wollen nicht angeben: aber in diesem Blog haben wir den Zusammenbruch der Anschuldigungen gegen Tony Blair vorhergesagt.

Jetzt warten wir natürlich darauf, daß über den eigentlich Schuldigen - die BBC - in deutschen Medien berichtet wird. Aber diese Bemerkung ist nicht wirklich ernst gemeint. Eine Medien-Krähe hackt der anderen...

Nachtrag zum Tod von David Kelly

So Jul 20, 03:21:36 PM
Am Ende einer Meldung von CNN heißt es: "As the press conference ended a journalist shouted: "Have you got blood on your hands prime minister? Are you going to resign?" That question was not answered because Japanese authorities were wrapping up the briefing."
Das bedeutet: Blair verweigerte nicht die Antwort - die Pressekonferenz war durch die japanischen Gastgeber einfach beendet worden. Man weiß nicht einmal, ob Blair die Frage überhaupt gehört hatte.
Im SPIEGEL hieß es noch: "In Japan wurde Blair von einem Journalisten gefragt, ob Blut an seinen Händen klebe. Blair ließ die Frage unbeantwortet."BILD zum gleichen Vorgang: "Ein Reporter der Londoner Zeitung „Mail on Sunday“ fragte ihn: „Premierminister, haben Sie Blut an den Händen?“ Blair wurde aschfahl. Wortlos stürmte er aus dem Saal."

Es geht eben nichts über den deutschen Qualitätsjournalismus...

Wo BILD hinhaut, bleibt kein Auge trocken

So Jul 20, 01:26:36 PM
In der Online-Version findet sich ein Bericht über den mutmaßlichen Selbstmord des ehemaligen britischen Waffeninspektors David Kelly (vgl. auch dieses Blog vom 19.7.03), von BILD zu "Blairs Berater" befördert. Es fehlt nichts an Vorurteilen gegenüber Blair, was auch in anderen deutschen Medien gehandelt wird: "Ein Reporter der Londoner Zeitung „Mail on Sunday“ fragte ihn: „Premierminister, haben Sie Blut an den Händen?“ Blair wurde aschfahl. Wortlos stürmte er aus dem Saal. .... Der britische Premier Tony Blair (50) muss sich kritische Fragen zum Tod seines Beraters stellen lassen ... Donnerstag kehrt Blair von seiner Asien-Reise nach London zurück. Hier wird es politisch schwer für ihn. Die langjährige Labour-Abgeordnete und „Oscar“-Gewinnerin Glenda Jackson empfahl ihm: „Zurücktreten!“ Ein TED des Nachrichtensenders Sky News ergab: Fast zwei Drittel der Briten (64 %) teilen diese Ansicht."

Nun läßt sich das politische Gewicht von Glenda Jackson zwar nur in Nanogramm ausdrücken - sie ist in der britischen Politiker eine exzentrische Randerscheinung ohne jeden Einfluß -, aber wenn man sonst keine Zeugen für Rücktrittsforderungen an Blair findet, greift man eben auch mal zu Strohhalmen. Der Eindruck, den BILD über die Sky News-Umfrage vermittelt, ist allerding skandalös falsch. Zwar sprachen sich in der Tat zwei Drittel für einen Rücktritt Blairs aus. Zwei Drittel der "Briten", wie BILD meldet? Nein, zwei Drittel derer, die sich an dieser vollkommen unrepräsentativen Umfrage im Internet beteiligten. Das können Inder, Tschechen, Andoraner und auch Briten gewesen sein - halt jeder, der über einen Internet-Anschluß verfügt.

Mit so was macht man Stimmung. Substanz ist nicht gefragt. Und was ist die Substanz? Kelly war, wie die BBC jetzt bekannt gab, tatsächlich der Informant, der die Falschmeldung in die Welt setzte, die englische Regierung habe die Nachricht über Iraks Atomwaffenpläne durch die Erfindung von Tatsachen "sexier" gemacht. Das hat Kelly stets geleugnet.