Davids Medienkritik

"War in Afghanistan Hopeless" - Tagesspiegel Twists Obama Interview

(By Ray D.)

Perception and reality are not always clear in the media world. That is particularly true when supposedly trustworthy media sources misreport (or simply distort) the most basic facts. Case in point - Tagesspiegel's recent coverage of statements made by President Barack Obama on Afghanistan in a recent New York Times interview. Here's what Obama said to the Times:

"Q. Mr. President, we need to turn it to foreign policy. I know we have a review going on right now about Afghanistan policy, but right now can you tell us, are we winning in Afghanistan?

A. No. I think that we are – we are doing an extraordinary job, or let me say it this way: Our troops are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation. But you’ve seen conditions deteriorate over the last couple of years. The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think the – in the southern regions of the country, you’re seeing them attack in ways that we have not seen previously. The national government still has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people. And so it's going to be critical for us to not only, get through these national elections to stabilize the security situation, but we’ve got to recast our policy so that our military, diplomatic and development goals are all aligned to ensure that al Qaeda and extremists that would do us harm don’t have the kinds of safe havens that allow them to operate."

Obama is not willing to tell the New York Times that the United States is winning in Afghanistan. While it is debatable whether Obama is saying the United States is losing or not - he is clearly not saying the war cannot be won or is hopeless.

Tagesspiegel: Obama Says the War Can't Be Won

Here is how the above was interpreted in a Sunday article on Tagesspiegel online:

"War in Afghanistan Hopeless: Obama Willing to Talk to Moderate Taliban

Barack Obama indicated a willingness to have talks with the Taliban in an interview. The reason: The USA could not win the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karsai welcomed the announcement.

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama displayed openness to negotiations with moderate Taliban in Afghanistan and admitted that the USA would not win the war there. Obama told the "New York Times" Sunday edition that the situation in Afghanistan has further deteriorated in the past years. Afghan President Hamid Karsai welcomed the announcement of possible negotiations."

Obviously, Obama's statement has been warped into something he did not say. He clearly never said the war could or would not be won - but simply refused to say the U.S. was winning the conflict.

The piece concludes by declaring the war in Afghanistan "hopeless." This conclusion is supported by what the paper calls "expert opinion." In this case, the opinion is that of a single individual - British officer Sebastian Morley - who clearly supports Tagesspiegel's anti-war editorial line. No other "experts" are presented to challenge Morley's opinion or offer another, less pessimistic view that Afghanistan is anything but completely doomed. (And yes - more optimistic opinions exist in abundance.)

Clearly, the departure of President Bush has not cured German media of its shoddy, biased and often inaccurate reporting on the United States. The Tagesspiegel's coverage sounds more like opinionated propaganda than news. The German public deserves better...

UPDATE: The lead front-page article in the paper edition of "Die Welt" for March 9 is essentially a carbon copy of the Tagesspiegel piece. The headline offered the same false claim that Obama had said the war in Afghanistan could not be won. (Are we missing something - did Obama ever unequivocally say that the conflict in Afghanistan could not be won???) Why would Obama send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and call on allies to contribute to the effort if he believed the cause to be futile and already lost? The Welt/Tagesspiegel headlines defy basic logic and can only be characterized as journalistic malpractice... 

John Vinocur: "Trying to Legitimize Missile-Shield Hostility in Germany"

John Vinocur published a must-read article this week in the IHT and New York Times. Excerpts:

"There's a maxim in German politics, sometimes attributed to Bismarck, that if a subject gets too miserably uncomfortable to discuss with an unmistakable German voice, bid it up, and carry on in the name of Europe.

So there are times when Germans call their own issues European ones in an attempt to legitimize them, or try to blur their motives or goals by insisting German concerns foreshadow or encapsulate Europe's less well-articulated views — while stating them better, quicker and more forcefully.

This is the case now as some of Germany's deepest and hardest-to-admit worries — how to preserve its special, advantageous relationship with Russia without betraying its status as a Western player and ally of the United States — rise to the surface of its national debate.

The context is Poland and the Czech Republic's acceptance, over Russian threats and objections, to participate in an American antimissile shield that could block Iranian nukes.

The particular German conundrum lies here.

Angela Merkel wants to avoid Germany becoming the fulcrum for a maneuver by Vladimir Putin that seeks to cast the United States, regardless of the defensive nature of the U.S. system, as the cause of a new arms race in Europe.

But for some in Germany, those fears mean a chance for domestic political profile and profit, a wide horizon depending on their exploitation and Europeanization. Inside Germany, that diffuse fearfulness is there for the taking: polls not only show that around 70 percent accept Putin's characterization of America-the-aggressor but 77 percent opposed the Bundestag's decision over the weekend to send Tornado reconnaissance aircraft to support NATO troops in Afghanistan.

So it's open season for opportunism, encouraged by the ambiguity, accommodating Russia's line, expressed on the missile shield by Merkel's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The German landscape, right to left, is crowded these days with pols who cannot swallow the idea of "new Europeans" like Czechs or Poles, European Union members since 2004, assessing their security requirements in ways that do not please the Russians. These are the same pols who don't like other EU members asking why Germany has abandoned pressing Russia for an energy charter that would outlaw blackmail on oil and gas supplies as a condition for renewing the EU's "strategic partnership" with Moscow."

Read the whole thing.

In thinking about this situation, it is actually useful to quote Richard Nixon. In his book "Seize the Moment," published in 1992, he writes on pages 119-120:

"While Germany's power will inevitably grow, the key question is how it will be used. Germany is not a potential rogue state or threat to its neighbors. The changes wrought by forty years of democracy and close association with Western institutions have transformed its society. But Germany must undergo a profound adjustment. During the cold war, free Germany lacked the power and confidence to chart an independent foreign policy and felt compelled to maintain a tight alliance with the West. With the waning of the cold war, that has changed. While still limited by the legacies of World War II, Germany is now tentatively staking out its new European and global roles. Our challenge lies in helping the Germans define constructive ways to use their new power.

Their are two key concerns. The first centers on the re-emergence of Germany's geopolitical tradition of keeping one foot in the East and one in the West. The cooperation between Imperial Germany and Tzarist Russia, the covert rearming of Germany after World War I, Germany's role in the industrialization of Soviet Russia under the Rapallo Treaty, and the division of Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin marked the darkest chapters of that tradition."

Mr. Vinocur's article reminds us that the German tradition of keeping one foot in the East and one in the West is alive and well. So does this. (Posted by Ray D.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE's Biased Modus Operandi

(By Ray D.)

Over the years we have come to recognize a modus operandi at SPIEGEL ONLINE when it comes to reporting on the United States. This trademark "m.o." involves taking extreme and anecdotal stories and presenting them as general, comprehensive journalism.

One recent example is a large, four-part series on unemployment in Kannapolis, North Carolina. An even more recent example is a SPIEGEL ONLINE article on an extreme case in the Florida court system in which a man named Timothy Kane, who was passively involved in a brutal double-murder when he was 14 years-old according to the New York Times, was sentenced to life in prison. SPIEGEL introduces the case this way:

"US Juvenile Justice System: 30 Minutes Curiosity, Life Behind Bars
By Friederike Freiburg

More than 2000 youth are sitting behind bars in the USA - for life. Human rights organizations consider this practice inhumane. Conservative hardliners, on the other hand, are vehemently calling for the re-establishment of the death penalty for juveniles."

The article then goes on to focus on specific details surrounding the case of Timothy Kane. It is a near verbatim translation of Kane's story as reported in this New York Times article with a few extra details and commentary sprinkled in at the beginning and end. In all frankness, the circumstances of Mr. Kane's case as the Times relate them certainly appear to be extreme and unfair. But is this case really representative of the "US Juvenile Justice System" as SPIEGEL ONLINE implies?

Well, here are a number of statistics cited by the New York Times (and omitted by SPIEGEL ONLINE):

"Juvenile lifers are much more likely to be in for murder than are their adult counterparts, suggesting that prosecutors and juries embrace the punishment only for the most serious crime.

While 40 percent of adults sent away for life between 1988 and 2001 committed crimes other than murder, like drug offenses, rape and armed robbery, the Times analysis found, only 16 percent of juvenile lifers were sentenced for anything other than murder.

In those same years, the number of juveniles sentenced to life peaked in 1994, at about 790, or 15 percent of all adults and youths admitted as lifers that year. The number dropped to about 390, or 9 percent, in 2001, the most recent year for which national data is available.

Similarly, the number of juveniles sentenced to life without parole peaked in 1996, at 152. It has dropped sharply since then, to 54 last year. That may reflect a growing discomfort with the punishment and the drop in the crime rate."

Nowhere in the SPIEGEL ONLINE piece does author Friederike Freiburg mention that an extremely high percentage (84%) of juvenile lifers are sent away for murder nor does she mention the precipitously declining numbers of life sentences for juveniles in recent years. She only briefly discusses the Times observation that there is "growing discomfort" with such sentences in the US.

Instead Ms. Freiburg compares the number of juveniles sentenced to life behind bars to other countries and focuses on the following:

"In Germany the maximum penalty for youth is ten years imprisonment. Here emphasis is not placed on punishment and revenge, but instead on rehabilitation and resocialization. Different in the USA. (...)

A conservative columnist, himself a prosecutor, wrote in the "Washington Times" that he was certain that "juries are sometimes presented with 16 or 17 year old defendants who are entirely aware of the evil nature of their murderous deeds and who deserve - after the conclusion of an entire palette of legal proceedings - to be grilled, gassed, hanged, shot, poisoned or to be sent to hell some other way.""

This is the picture SPIEGEL ONLINE wants its readers to absorb: America as a land of extreme hardliners, religious-zealots and hyperpatriots with a radical justice system. This is the image of America the magazine knows to supply and the image its readers have grown to demand. It is simply a question of ideology and economics. And reality gets left on the wayside...

Overall, the modus operandi remains unchanged: Individual slices of misery are made to appear representative of America on a national level. And make no mistake: This selective presentation of the extreme is what shapes many Germans' perceptions of the United States day in and day out, year for year. Millions of people are reading this stuff everyday and very few of them think twice about bias in the stories they're presented. Sad but true...

German Justice: The Opposite Extreme

In closing, let us be clear: No justice system is perfect and we at Medienkritik do not at all want to deny that there can be excesses and miscarriages of justice in any system. Like the case of one Mehmet A. in Germany last Spring. Mehmet A., a repeat criminal, brutally tortured and beat his 3 year-old daughter to death in the most horrific way imaginable and only received a ten year prison sentence from the German justice system. I guess they want to try to "rehabilitate" and "resocialize" him and not emulate the overly harsh American system. How enlightened! When will you Americans ever learn to be more like Germany...?

Update: SPIEGEL ONLINE has caved-in to our demands and pubished an English-version of the Kannapolis piece. More on that in the near future...stay tuned...

Germany: Selective Incapacity for Outrage

Here are excerpts (hat tip Erik Svane) from John Vinocur's article in the NYT (Sept 27, 2005) "Schröder is Counting on a Lack of Indignation" (subscription only):

...First, Gerhard Schröder's fierce (some say scary) insistence on staying chancellor overrides what he mocks as the "formal grounds" of the election results on Sept. 18, like the Christian Democrats having the most seats in Parliament, or some 450,000 more votes nationwide than the Social Democrats. Instead, it's based, beyond the figures, on what he describes, eerily, as his reading of Germany's will.

There were references in this column a week ago to Schröder's bunkerish behavior, a political climate here more Bolivian in feel than Berliner Republik, and to the defeated chancellor's near self-destructive, ranting moment à la Howard Dean on national television. Written on Sept. 19, this turns out to be understatement gone wildly out of hand in comparison to later German descriptions.

A putsch attempt, chutzpah, absurdity, Schröder-running-beserk, hocus-pocus, megalomania, German commentators said for starters. Then the Social Democrats were reported on Thursday by a newspaper favorable to Schröder to be planning to rejigger the Bundestag rules so they would become the largest party before a vote on a new chancellor. This time, the anti-Schröder press compared him to Julius Caesar ("Ich, Gerhard Schröder") and spoke of his growing "Putinization" - a reference to the reverence of the rules of his friend Vladimir Putin, whom the chancellor has called a "crystal-clear democrat."

Here comes the second catch. At a roundtable discussion with a group of Germans here, I hardly heard, in contrast to the editorial roar, the hissing flame of German indignation. In fact, alongside the scorn George W.'s inaction during Hurricane Katrina or the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto pact reflexively receives in Germany, public evidence of some kind of massive revulsion with Schröder's democratic reflexes is in trace quantities.

The reality is that Germany can have a selective incapacity for outrage. Oskar Lafontaine

Sudan: Let the UN and Germany do the Job...

Excellent article in the New York Times:

Another Triumph for the U.N. By DAVID BROOKS Published: September 25, 2004

And so we went the multilateral route.

Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.

And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.

Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.

We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.

We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.

The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.

For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur. (...)

Read it all!

And here's an example of the determination of the German government to help people in Sudan, whatever the costs. Please note the tough language:

Minister of Foreign Aid Wieczorek-Zeul on September 23, 2004:

The Minister of Foreign Aid issued an urgent appeal to the government of Sudan to implement the resolutions of the United Nation's Security Council in their entirety, and especially to disarm the equestrian militia groups.

Only by doing so the path can be cleared for an African Union peace group. Against this background Wieczorek-Zeul once again reiterated that human rights are of central importance. "Respect, protection and advancement of human rights are issues of central importance in the politics of the federal government, since they are central prerequisites for peace, stability, justice and sustainable development in the world", affirmed the Minister of Foreign Aid.

The real result of doing things the enlightened, multilateral, UN, Joschka Fischer way: More mass graves, human rights abuses and genocide in Darfur.

"Urgent appeal": This will surely scare the living daylights out of the government of Sudan....

(Translation of Wieczorek quote by Dorothea)

The NYT: Malaise in Germany

(By Ray D.)

The New York Times “International” section today ran an article reflecting the current mood in Germany: Pessimism.

“Germans are gloomy because there is a general realization that the formulas that have worked so well for this country in the decades after World War II are not working anymore, and nobody knows exactly what to do.”

Interestingly enough, the “experts” in the German government and media seem to know exactly what the USA needs to do to be a more socially and internationally responsible country. So why is it that the same army of Oberlehrer (know-it-alls) can’t seem to fix their own country’s problems? A mystery indeed.

Iraq Good News - Not Heard In Germany? / Gute Nachrichten aus dem Irak: In Deutschland nicht vernommen?

(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)

Good news from Iraq:

As Andrew Sullivan notes, US and UK military casualties in Iraq have fallen to a new low in February.

Also, the New York Times reports:

A Revival for Iraq's Oil Industry as Output Nears Prewar Levels

Iraq's oil industry has undergone a remarkable turnaround and is now producing and exporting almost as much crude oil as it did before the war, according to officials with the American-led occupation and the Iraqi oil ministry.

The good news from Iraq haven't arrived yet in the German press. Still checking...checking... Wait, here we go:

Sex Scandal Rocks the US Army

The largest sex-abuse scandal in its history is rocking the US Army. In the last 18 months, 112 cases of sexual harassment were reported by female soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

Just glad the anti-American, Bush-bashing, hate brigade at SPIEGEL ONLINE is on careful guard against any good news from Iraq...

Capital Punishment for Saddam: On the one Hand, On the Other Hand / Todesstrafe für Saddam: einerseits, andererseits

(English translation at end of post)

Einerseits...

Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder hat sich dagegen ausgesprochen, den inhaftierten früheren irakischen Machthaber Saddam Hussein zum Tode zu verurteilen. Das sei seine Grund- Einstellung für jeden, selbst wenn es sich um einen Diktator handele, der in übelster Weise mit anderen umgegangen sei, sagte Schröder der 'Bild am Sonntag'. (Deutsche Welle)

Die Menschenrechtsbeauftragte der Bundesregierung, Claudia Roth (Grüne) sagte am Mittwoch, Saddam müsse "ein faires, transparentes Verfahren bekommen". Der internationale Prozess unter Einbeziehung der Iraker sollte sich am Vorbild des Europäischen Gerichtshofes orientieren. Es dürfe keine Todesstrafe verhängt werden. (N24)

"Ich glaube nicht, dass die Verhängung der Todesstrafe die Toten wieder lebendig machen würde", sagte Amnesty-International-Sprecherin Nicole Choueiry. "Und ich glaube nicht, dass diejenigen, die sie verhängen würden, sich von ihm (Saddam Hussein) unterscheiden würden." (SPIEGEL ONLINE)

Andererseits...

Um Haydar war eine 25-jährige irakische Frau, deren Ehemann Saddam Husseins Regierung verärgerte. Nachdem er 2000 aus dem Land floh, zogen einige Mitglieder der Fadayeen Saddam sie aus ihrem Haus und auf die Straße. Dort - vor ihren Kindern und ihrer Schwiegermutter - ergriffen zwei Männer ihre Arme, während ein anderer ihren Kopf zurückzog und sie köpfte. Funktionäre der Baath Partei sahen beim Mord zu, warfen ihren Kopf in eine Plastiktüte und nahmen ihre Kinder mit.(New York Times)

Als vorläufiges Ende einer Reihe entsetzlicher Entdeckungen meldete das US Militär am Donnerstag, daß es ein weiteres Massengrab fand, und zwar im Nord-Irak. Das Grab enthält vermutlich die Körper von 400 kurdischen Frauen und Kindern, die von Saddams Regime ermordet wurden. (ABC News)

Mehr als 30 000 dieser staatlichen Terroristen sollen im Namen Saddams Zungen und Hände amputiert und Köpfe vom Rumpf getrennt haben...Lügnern wurde das Rückgrat gebrochen...wurde die Zunge mit einem glühenden Eisen verbrannt...Frauen, auf die er (Saddams Sohn) ein Auge geworfen hatte, ließ er auf offener Straße rauben und ihre Begleiter foltern und töten...Man hat kaum eines dieser Mädchen je wieder gesehen...Wer über Saddam spottet, verliert seine Zunge. Die Zunge ist mit einer Zange herauszuziehen und mit einem Teppichmesser abzuschneiden. Dann ist die Zunge auf den Boden zu werfen. Alles das hat in Anwesenheit der Familie zu geschehen...Homosexuellen wurden die Hände gebunden, dann stieß man sie von einem Hausdach...etwa 200 000 Menschen ermordet und verscharrt... (Alle Zitate aus SPIEGEL 25/03)

Unser Vorschlag: Saddam wird in Deutschland Asyl gewährt. Knallharte zwei Jahre lang darf er nur in Begleitung eines Wärters an TV-Talkshows teilnehmen. Erst nach fünf Jahren darf er wieder für politische Ämter kandidieren.

Strafe muß sein.

Update: Henryk M. Broder hat eine wunderschöne Satire zum Thema verfaßt:

Ein Herz für Saddam

Noch nie zuvor konnte ein entmachteter Diktator mit so viel Mitgefühl rechnen. Was sind schon die Leiden der Getöteten und Gefolterten gegen die Demütigung, bei einer Speichelprobe gefilmt zu werden? ...

Während Exiliraker wie der Schriftsteller Hussain Al-Mozany von einer "Katastrophe apokalyptischen Ausmaßes" sprechen, die eine "aktive, multifunktionale Mordmaschinerie" im Irak hinterlassen hat, spricht der Kanzler nur von einem Regenten "der mit anderen in übelster Weise umgegangen ist", als würde es sich um einen Familienvater handeln, der im Suff seine Familie schikaniert hat. ...

Und während die Iraker ihre Toten ausgraben, um sich von ihnen zu verabschieden, gilt das Mitgefühl der Guten einem Massenmörder, der nicht mehr morden darf. ... (Hat tip to Kim Hill)

Libya to Dismantle WMD Programs / Libyen gibt ABC-Waffenprogramme auf

(English version at end of post)

tagesschau:

Libyen hat eine vollständige Aufgabe seiner Massenvernichtungswaffen angekündigt. Das Außenministerium in Tripolis teilte mit, das nordafrikanische Land habe nach Treffen mit Experten aus den USA und Großbritannien aus freien Stücken entschieden, die entsprechenden Programme vollständig aufzugeben. US-Präsident George W. Bush und der britische Premierminister Tony Blair nannten dies übereinstimmend in eigenen Ankündigungen einen Schritt Libyens hin zu einer Rückkehr in die Staatengemeinschaft. ... Die BBC zitiert ihn (Gadaffi) jetzt mit der Worten, er sei bereit, eine Rolle beim Aufbau einer von allen Formen des Terrorismus freien Welt zu spielen.

Die klare außenpolitische Linie von Bush und Blair zahlt sich aus. (Vielleicht haben auch die Fotos von Saddam etwas nachgeholfen.) Meine Hoffnung: auch der Iran, Syrien und Nordkorea besinnen sich eines Besseren. Und wenn auch das erreicht ist, realisiert sich vielleicht sogar die Mutter aller Wunder: die deutschen Medien loben die Politik von George W. Bush und Tony Blair.

Übrigens: Gadaffi begann die Verhandlungen über die Aufgabe seines WMD-Programms im März 2003. Da fing doch noch etwas anderes zu dieser Zeit an? Und noch etwas fällt auf: Gadaffi hat offensichtlich nur mit Bush und Blair verhandelt, nicht mit der UN, nicht mit der EU, Frankreich, Russland oder mit dem deutschen Medien-Wunderkind Joschka Fischer. Gadaffi scheint zu wissen, wer politisch zählt.

Hier ist Bushs Rede zur libyschen Erklärung. Und hier die von Blair.

Nachtrag: SPIEGEL ONLINE löst das Problem sehr elegant: Bush hat mit der Entwaffnung Libyens - nichts zu tun! (Hat tip to Kim Hill from New York City)

Libyen wird dem britischen Premierminister Tony Blair zufolge sein Programm zur Herstellung von Massenvernichtungswaffen aufgeben.

Schon sehr viel präziser auf die Ursachen eingehend die New York Times:

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are entitled to claim a large share of the credit for Libya's surprising announcement. To an extent that cannot be precisely measured, the fate of Saddam Hussein, who was ousted from power by the American military with British backing after endless prevaricating about Iraqi weapons programs, must have been an important consideration in Libya's decision.

(English version: click "continue...")

Ouch! / Au!

New York Times:

U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

But then again - we're making so much money on the sale of nuclear technology to China...

Update: German media realize, something's going terribly wrong here...: FAZ: "Kriegsgegner müssen draußen bleiben", SPIEGEL: "USA strafen europäische Kriegsgegner ab".

German translation:

New York Times:

Die USA sperren Irak-Aufträge für Länder, die gegen den Krieg waren

Das Pentagon hat französische, deutsche und russische Firmen von Angeboten für die 18,6 Milliarden US-Dollar-Verträge zum Wiederaufbau des Irak ausgeschlossen. Das Pentagon sagte, der Schritt "ist notwendig, um die essentiellen Sicherheitsinteressen der US zu schützen".

Die Anordnung, die vom stellvertretenden Verteidigungs-Staatssekretär, Paul D. Wolfowitz, erlassen wurde, stellt vielleicht die wesentlichste Antwort der Bush-Administration bis zum heutigen Tag gegen amerikanische Alliierte dar, die gegen die Entscheidung zum Krieg gegen den Irak waren.

Auf der anderen Seite: wir verdienen ja so viel Geld durch den Verkauf nuklearer Technologie an China...

Nachtrag: Deutsche Medien erkennen, daß hier etwas ziemlich dumm läuft: FAZ: "Kriegsgegner müssen draußen bleiben", SPIEGEL: "USA strafen europäische Kriegsgegner ab".

(Hat tip: N. Klaric)

The Decline of German Journalism / Niedergang des deutschen Journalismus

(English translation at end of post)

Der Blog "The CounterRevolutionary" veröffentlicht immer wieder interessante Presseartikel über den deutschen Wiederaufbau aus der Zeit nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Deutlich wird, wie sehr in jenen Jahren Skepsis und Kritik der US-Medien die Arbeit der amerikanischen Militärbehörden begleitete, und wie wenig es den journalistischen Zeitgenossen gelang, die folgenden positive Entwicklungen zu erahnen. Als Leitbild der deutschen Zukunft wurde "endloser Schlamassel" statt "Wirtschaftswunder" vorhergesagt.

Dies gilt auch für einen Artikel in der New York Times vom 24.1.46 "Dark German Outlook Encourages Resistance", von W.H. Lawrence. Der Autor ergeht sich in düsteren Spekulationen über den wachsenden Widerstand eines deutschen "Untergrundes" gegen die Besatzungstruppen vor dem Hintergrund der Hoffnungslosigkeit der Lage:

"... die Deutschen erkennen, wie schlimm ihre Zukunft ist, und wie wenig schöne Dinge sie erwarten. Die nächsten 10 Jahre zeigen ein trauriges Bild für den durchschnittlichen Deutschen..."

Der negativ-skeptische Grundton des Artikels klingt vertraut. W.H. Lawrence würde für eine entsprechende Berichterstattung über den aktuellen Irak-Krieg in deutschen Medien großzügigste Förderung erfahren. Ein Stammplatz in populären TV-Talk-Shows wäre ihm sicher.

Bis hierhin passen die Parallelen zur Nachkriegszeit. In einem Punkt aber unterscheidet sich W.H. Lawrence von seinen heutigen deutschen Epigonen: er trennt klar Sache und Meinung. Stets dort, wo er eigene Mutmaßungen einschiebt, weist er darauf hin: "...it is the opinion of this correspondent...". Damit ist klar gestellt, was Bericht, und was Meinung bzw. Spekulation des Verfassers ist.

Sollte diese Übung in deutschen Redaktionsstuben je existiert haben, so ist sie schon lange ausgestorben. Meinungen und Erwartungen deutscher Journalisten werden heutzutage in Artikeln und Berichten nicht als solche gekennzeichnet, sondern in geschickter Weise als objektiv begründete Sachverhalte eingeführt. Beispiele sind Formulierungen wie:

"...es wächst die Kritik an (ersatzweise: die Unzufriedenheit über) ..."

"Beobachter sind der Meinung..."

"Der Experte ... weist darauf hin..."

"Immer mehr ... (bevorzugt: Amerikaner) glauben nach einer Umfrage nicht mehr..."

Der Vorteil des Verfahrens liegt in der Entlastung des Journalisten. Ihm kann eine versuchte Beeinflussung des Lesers/Zuschauers/Zuhörers nicht explizit zum Vorwurf gemacht werden. Die Zitierung von "Beobachtern" und "Experten", die Behauptung zunehmender Kritik, dient der Glaubwürdigkeit des Berichtes - und damit der Manipulation der Öffentlichkeit im Sinne des Journalisten bzw. des Mediums.

Große Bereiche der Irak-Berichterstattung in deutschen Medien sind nach diesem Muster angelegt. Meinung wird transportiert durch den Bezug auf vermeintlich objektive externe Quellen oder Geschehnisse. Eigentlich unbeachtliche Kleinstdemonstrationen bestellter Saddam-Anhänger nach Bombenattentaten an der Straßenkreuzung einer Kreisstadt werden zu einer anwachsenden Welle des Protestes im Irak gegen die alliierten Besatzer aufgeplustert; dubiose Sofa-Experten aus der gut genährten deutschen Verbändeszene dürfen sich als Kronzeugen für den Mißerfolg komplexer militärstrategischer Planungen der Amerikaner produzieren; jede noch so unbeachtliche Zufallsschwankung von Popularitätsumfragen wird zum Menetekel verhaßter Politiker (Bush, Scharon und/oder Berlusconi) hochstilisiert.

Man darf hoffen, daß die demokratische Reife und das Fairness-Gefühl der Deutschen am Ende über die Manipulationsbedürfnisse ihrer Medien obsiegen werden...

What a Quagmire! / Was für ein Schlamassel!

U.S. PRESTIGE DROPS AFTER GI PROTESTS
By DREW MIDDLETON By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times; Jan 13, 1946; pg. 1

Source

(Hat tip to Tanker)

NYT: No Good Grades for Schroeder / NYT: Keine guten Noten für Schröder

(English translation at end of post)

In der New York Times vom 16. 11. 03 findet sich ein Kommentar (registrierungspflichtig) von John Vinocur zu Kanzler Schröders Besuch in dieser Woche in New York. Für seine Politik erhält Schröder nicht ganz so gute Noten wie in deutschen Medien. Es sind dort ja auch weniger Parteifreunde in führenden Medien-Positionen tätig...

Auszug:

"... five years in office have not brought clarity about the chancellor's convictions. When he lost to Mr. Schröder, Mr. Kohl called his successor a man consistently positioned on the wrong side of history. ... Before becoming chancellor, Mr. Schröder voted against German reunification, called for a cease-fire during the first gulf war while Iraqi troops were still in Kuwait, backed indefinite postponement of the introduction of the euro, and argued, in opposing American nuclear arms in Europe in the early 1980's, that Leonid I. Brezhnev seemed more intent on peace than the American presidents."

Schröders antiamerikanische Irak-Politik findet in den USA keinen Widerhall, nicht einmal bei liberalen Medien wie der New York Times. Deutschland wird in den USA nur noch als Juniorpartner Frankreichs angesehen - eigentlich die größte Beleidigung, die in diesen Tagen ein Amerikaner aussprechen kann.

Wir zahlen einen hohen Preis für die Politik Schröders.

Nothing New Under The Sun / Nichts Neues unter der Sonne

All dates refer to 1945/Alle Datumsangaben beziehen sich auf 1945.
Source: The CounterRevolutionary

Seems like there is a tradition in the media to exaggerate a bit...

Es scheint eine Tradition in den Medien zu geben, ein wenig zu übertreiben...

We will not forget!

Julia Melendez und ihr Kind waren auf dem 107. Stock im Restaurant Windows of the World,
als das Desaster geschah. Auch ihr Mann war anwesend - auch er kam um.

Für ihre Bereitschaft zum Kämpfen, zum Weitermachen lieben wir die USA

Am 11.9.2001 war ich auf einer Nordsee-Insel, in Langeoog, um ein paar Tage auszuspannen.

Um 15.15h deutscher Zeit - 9.15h Ostküste USA - erhielt ich auf meinem Handy eine SMS meiner Frau:

"Eben sind grad zwei Flugzeuge ins World Trade Center".

Diese SMS, in großer Eile eingetippt, ist heute noch auf meinem Handy. Ich werde sie nie löschen.

Ich bin sofort in mein Hotelzimmer, stellte den Fernseher ein - und weinte. Der Anblick der vom WTC fallenden Menschen, die Gesichter der Fliehenden, der Zusammensturz der beiden Türme, brachen mir das Herz.

Es ist nicht zu glauben, daß sich gerade einmal zwei Jahre nach dem 11. September 2001 in Deutschlands Medien und in der Politik ein arroganter, zynischer Antiamerikanismus breitgemacht hat. Es gehört heute fast schon zur deutschen Staatsraison, Georg Bush und die Amerikaner herabzuwürdigen und mit Häme auf die Opfer der Amerikaner im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus, in Afghanistan und im Irak, herabzuschauen.

Die Reaktionen der Nutzer dieses Weblogs zeigen mir, daß nicht alle Deutsche den Antiamerikanismus hierzulande kommentarlos hinnehmen.

Nachtrag: Zum zweiten Jahrestag des Terrorangriffs auf das WTC erinnert der SPIEGEL an das Leid - der gefangenen Terroristen! Titel: "AMERIKAS RECHTLOSE GEFANGENE - Ins Mittelalter zurückversetzt". Zitat: "Die Drahtverhaue von Guantánamo Bay, jenem Gelände, das die USA seit 1903 von Kuba gepachtet haben, sind zum Symbol für das neue amerikanische Rechtsverständnis geworden." Vielleicht mag Herr Sontheimer, bevor er zur nächsten journalistischen Geschmacklosigkeit greift, einmal nachschauen, was die New York Times am 10.9.2003 über die Familie Petrocelli schreibt. Die Petrocellis haben ihren Sohn am 11.9.2001 verloren, und nach und nach werden Teile seines Körpers gefunden.

At some point, the Petrocellis instructed the medical examiner's office to notify them whenever any of Mark was recovered. They could not imagine allowing parts of Mark to go unclaimed. No matter how painful, they felt a responsibility — a primal need, really. Mrs. Petrocelli could just imagine her son meeting her in heaven and asking, "You left me there?"

On Sept. 25, 2001, the Petrocellis learned that Mark's death had been confirmed through dental records. On Oct. 26, they were told that his upper torso had been identified. On Nov. 11, some soft tissue and muscle. On March 21, 2002, four parts, including his heart.

"They found his heart," Mrs. Petrocelli said. "What do you say?"

Tomorrow, on the second anniversary of his death, more of Mark Petrocelli will be buried at the Cemetery of the Resurrection. And the Petrocellis — all of them — will continue on with his absence an integral part of their lives.

"We're new people now," Mr. Petrocelli said.

You might see them someday in the shops and restaurants of this city and notice what they are wearing: Al's bracelet that bears Mark's name, Ginger's pin of the steel-girder cross found at ground zero. Or you might pass them on a highway — the B.Q.E., or maybe the Belt — and see the silhouette of the World Trade Center skyline adhered to their back windows, along with Mark's name and the inscription, "We Love You, We Miss You."

They are the Petrocellis of Staten Island. Of New York.

Ob wohl auch nur einer der Gefangenen, deren Wohlergehen Herrn Sontheimer so sehr am Herzen liegt, mit Mark Petrocelli tauschen möchte?