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... 

Tagesspiegel: "Distorted Perception?"

Joerg of Atlantic Review points to another interesting snippet from German media - a picture on the front cover (top center) of Berlin's Tagesspiegel daily newspaper from Friday with the headline: "Distorted Perception?":

The caption reads: "US President George W. Bush reminded war weary Americans to hold on in Iraq. In a speech on Wednesday in Kansas City, he said that it was about an ideological struggle in the Gulf state as in the Second World War and Vietnam. The speech was met with outraged rejection by Democrats and ex-military. They declared that the only real lesson from Vietnam was that a change of course had to be immediately implemented in Iraq. (Page 5 and editorial page)"

Here - as in an earlier SPIEGEL ONLINE piece - it is clearly implied that the voices of a few ex-military (most notably John Johns) represent the broader consensus among ex-military in the United States. Predictably, the Tagesspiegel caption completely fails to mention that a heated debate is raging over Iraq (and the most recent Vietnam comparison) in which many voices - including those of Democrats, ex-military and left-of-center intellectuals - support the surge, see success as a real possibility with sustained commitment in Iraq, and reject calls for imminent withdrawal.

Unfortunately yet predictably, neither the caption above - nor the articles that accompany it - offer anything but a one-sided - (you might say "distorted") - picture of the heated debate currently underway. The paper makes little, if any, mention of support for the surge and opposition to rapid withdrawal.

As is so often the case, Tagesspiegel seems more interested in reinforcing its readership's Hate-Bush, Hate-America tendencies than offering them an honest, objective overview of the diverse political scene in the United States. This type of media coverage - all too common in Germany - furthers the perverted, biased version of reality that has deeply encrusted itself in segments of the national consciousness. Many readers live in a world where Iraq is the worst disaster in human history. Nothing - by definition - can ever go right. As a result, any attempt to explain or report progress in Iraq (thereby breaking with four years of reporting nothing but failure, death, misery and defeat) requires shock therapy (as employed by Der Spiegel - "The US Military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe.") or a continuance of total denial (until exposure to established fact makes that impossible). It seems that - for the time being - Tagesspiegel will remain on the path of total denial.

UPDATE: A commenter on Atlantic Review writes:

"This is nothing more but the violation of one of the fundamental principles of journalism in democracy: The separation of news and comment (opinion)."

Indeed. Of course this isn't the first time we've noticed this problem...

Endnote: This quote from the introduction of the book Uncouth Nation by Andrei Markovits hits the nail on the head:

"The West European media report almost nothing that they associate with America in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner. Most things engender a palpable tone of irritation, derision, annoyance, dismissal."

Bingo.

Hostile Environment: SPIEGEL ONLINE Presents Cooperation as Conflict

(By Ray D.)

Welcome to the world of German media. This is your first day as a SPIEGEL ONLINE trainee. Your mission: To become an expert on transatlantic relations. Let's get started:

Lesson number one: The United States government is always wrong.

Lesson number two: Bush is evil - no matter what.

Now let's examine a current case: The United States wants to engage in multilateral cooperation, negotiation and engagement on the environment and climate change. They want to sit down and compromise on how best to reduce global greenhouse emissions in an effort to avoid confrontation. So - how do we spin this development in accordance with lessons one and two? Exactly...we sensationalize America's attempts to reach-out and cooperate as a hostile "offensive against Chancellor Merkel's climate plans."

SPIEGEL ONLINE Homepage Headline: "US Push: Bush Begins Offensive Against Merkel's Climate Plans"

Now let's step outside the classroom: The language is quasi-military ("Vorstoss" / "startet Offensive"). The photo aggressive. The background accented with hyper-patriotic flag-waving.

What does it all mean? Well, this is clearly a packaging and portrayal of events intended to upset and emotionalize the pacifistic, left-leaning audience. This despite the fact that the Merkel government has openly welcomed the willingness of the United States to move the discussion forward - a fact that SPIEGEL ONLINE readily acknowledges.

Further, this is the biased reporting readers have been conditioned to expect after years of hate-America coverage. The covers speak for themselves:

After years of the above, how could it be any different? Bush - the perennial villain - the most dangerous man on the planet - could not be portrayed in any other way. The established "bad guy" template has grown so thick and entrenched that it would be impossible to shatter. And - with Bush now relatively unpopular in the USA - the cost of putting emotion and vilification before reason and analysis is historically low in covering the US administration.

So Why Does the US Reject the German Position on the Environment...Do Most Media Consumers in Germany Really Know?

SPIEGEL ONLINE has not been alone in its efforts to trump up conflict over the environment. Other media outlets have repeatedly played the "us versus them" card in coverage of debate over a proposed German plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the upcoming G8 summit. Rather than cool analysis and explanation of differing positions, much of the German media's reporting has wrapped American resistance to German environmental positions in nationalist undertones. (Read President Bush's actual speech on aid to Africa and environmental initiatives. Warning: This transcript is unfiltered by German media.)

Above all, there has been virtually no attempt to explain why the U.S. government rejects certain aspects of the German position - or to explain the environmental policies of the current administration. Further, they chronically fail to consider the following points, made so eloquently by Robert Samuelson in 2005:

"Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent. (...)

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?"

We now know that many of the European participants in Kyoto have missed their targets. The lack of real analysis and debate of that point in German media has been deafening. Yet the lack of real analysis and debate on virtually any issue has long been a tradition in most coverage of the Bush administration over the past six years. Typically, the coverage does not get too much further than: Bush = Bad.

Voices of Moderation - Signs of Hope...

It hasn't helped that the usual Social-Democrat suspects have opportunistically seized the issue to attack the United States - a tried and tested method for rallying their America-hostile political base. It would seem that, to them, no agreement is truly multilateral and satisfactory unless it excludes the United States.

Yet, in rare instances, responsible voices have broken through the thickets of bias and confrontation.

The first example is a tagesschau interview with Karl-Heinz Kamp of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, a foundation affiliated with Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats. The opening paragraph correctly depicts the transatlantic debate over the environment as "heated" - yet warns that it would be wrong to celebrate it as a transatlantic fight. Mr. Kamp correctly notes that Germany must genuinely engage the United States and other nations on the environment - not dictate absolute positions from on-high - and then vilify those who do not go along. He emphasizes that - despite George Bush's "Darth Vader-like" poll numbers in much of Western Europe (which also have more to do with media-driven vilification <see above photo> than true understanding of Bush and his politics) - that many Germans recognize the importance of strong transatlantic relations.

A second hopeful example is to be found - of all places - at Tagesspiegel. Amidst advertisements for a book by former Guantanamo inmate Murat Kurnaz and a typical smear photo of George Bush - a small gem of intellectual honesty sits like a diamond in the rough.

Tagesspiegel Homepage -  Christoph von Marschall's article offers a Glimmer of Hope in a Sea of Bias...

Christoph von Marschall, Tagesspiegel's Washington correspondent, published an article that actually discusses the differences in policy and outlook between the United States and Germany. The headline and photo - which push negative images - were likely added by the online editors. The article itself delves into the political context of the debate in the United States and acknowledges that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate (95-0) in 1997 well before George W. Bush ever assumed office. It admits that Germany and other European partners will fail to uphold their Kyoto commitments - a commitment they have attempted to force on the United States despite that nation's concern that such an agreement could cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars in economic loss. Most incredibly, it discusses in some detail the Bush administration's environmental policy and acknowledges that there are areas in which the United States is ahead of Germany. He writes:

"Bush has, for example, created a billion dollar project to develop emission-free coal power plants. As in Germany, around 50% of the energy comes from coal. Thanks to Bush, America will have a  reduced emission or even an emission-free coal plant on the energy net by 2012, years ahead of Germany. The proportion of renewable energies from wind, sun and water is almost as high as in Germany. Additionally, Bush is spending billions to support the gradual transition from oil-based gasoline to biofuels like Ethanol."

Given the fact that Mr. Marschall has offered positive comments about Bush and his policies, it is quite remarkable that his work made it past the editor's desk. (Perhaps Malte Lehming is on vacation?) This respect for balance and fact could be a sign of hope - and it is certainly a sign that at least one German correspondent possesses some degree of intellectual honesty.

Overall though, the "environment" issue has been characterized in German media by conflict, confrontation and transatlantic hostility. One can only hope that the small but growing trend towards moderation and engagement will continue to move in a positive direction - despite the many voices of division.

Predictable Media Reaction to Virginia Tech Tragedy: Gun Control, Hate-America and Bush Bashing

UPDATE #3: SPIEGEL ONLINE is now acknowledging the angry reaction from the United States.  But they add this in an English translation:

"It didn't take long before bloggers began attacking and Matt Drudge's faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers began spamming our In-Boxes and conservative political blogs resumed their attacks on the "European left."

So now anyone who does not agree with SPIEGEL's view of the world is a brainwashed zombie follower of Matt Drudge's "faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers." Let's make one thing very clear: You don't have to be American or conservative or from a red-state to be deeply upset by the callous, politically motivated reaction from European media - particularly left-leaning European media just like SPIEGEL ONLINE. For example, our comments section reflects the vigorous, and, at times heated, debate on gun control. There is, however, no debate as to the shameless and irresponsible nature of media coverage throughout Europe.

The SPIEGEL ONLINE article actually catalogs the most outrageous articles (here is a link to the English version) and offers several letters to the editor from the United States. Will Europeans finally start to understand that their media has done enormous damage to transatlantic relations - in this case and for years on end? With people like Uwe Schmitt out there, however, we still have a long way to go - but one can always hope...

UPDATE: "Journalist" Uwe Schmitt, correspondent for Die Welt - concludes an article on the killings with the line: "America is reaping what it sows." Can't he even wait until the dead are buried? Guess he is too busy trying to prove that American leaders are liars to the brain-dead Hate America audience to care.

NOTE: Uwe Schmitt has "adjusted" his article and taken out the hateful last lines after massive complaint.

UPDATE #2: Like Schmitt, Tagesspiegel is exploiting the tragedy to bash Bush and score political points:

"Amok in America: Bush Brings No Happiness: Sadness and compassion once again overshadowed by the behavior of the US President, who reflexively expressed that everyone must continue to have the right to own a weapon. That's called loyalty to your principles in Texas." Commentary by Peter Becker (On top of the Tagesspiegel homepage)

Once again Tagesspiegel and other German media are reflexively exploiting a tragedy in America to peddle their pet issues like gun-control and Bush-bashing to a willing audience eager to degrade the United States at all costs. President Bush never said that everyone had the right to own a weapon - he simply defended his stance on gun control - but actually explaining the debate and Bush's actual stance on gun control is a little too nuanced for Germany's propaganda central.

As expected, before the victims are even buried, SPIEGEL ONLINE is already exploiting the Virginia Tech tragedy to attack President Bush and politicize the gun control issue in one of their online forums. They could care less about the American friends who just got blown away. This is all about their agenda and selling more copy. Don't be surprised if much of the German media follows suit. Sick but true...

The forum question asks if Bush is right to defend the American right to bear arms. One SPIEGEL commenter left this entry: "Why sharpen (the gun laws)? You can't take away the Normal American's favorite toys as long as the Big American struts around with atomic bombs and aircraft carriers."

Actually - the killer was South Korean. But hey, what difference do the facts make...

Not much sympathy there for the American friends and the parents of the deceased. Comments like this are quite common on SPIEGEL forums - humanity goes right out the window.

Matthias Kuentzel: A Rare German Voice of Reason on Trade with Iran

Joerg of Atlantic Review points out this rare yet encouraging piece in Tagesspiegel by Matthias Kuentzel criticizing Germany's trade with Iran and resistance to US efforts to choke off that trade. If someone could translate this piece to English for us and publish it in the comments section, it would be much appreciated.

UPDATE: One of our commenters offers an English translation here and points to other English-language publications by Mr. Kuentzel on his website.

Atlantic Review: Tagesspiegel Characterizes US Military as "White Trash" and Minorities

Tagesspiegel author Caroline Fetscher: Haditha caused by "structure" of US military...

This outstanding post by Joerg of Atlantic Review again exposes the arrogance of the German media elite. Author Caroline Fetscher believes Haditha was caused in part because, as she writes, the US military is composed primarily of "White Trash" and minorities. Read the entire thing.

Our take: Ms. Fetscher's assertion that the Haditha incident is evidence that American troops have "learned nothing from Abu Ghraib" is somewhat like an American pointing to a German Neo-Nazi and proclaiming that the Germans have learned nothing from the past. It is nothing more than an empty commentary based on false assumptions and ridiculous generalizations. How could anyone possibly judge the cumulative actions of 150,000 men and women in uniform based on charges brought against a handful implicated in one incident? Ms. Fetscher's logic is not only absurd, it is dangerous in that it paints an entire class of people as criminals based on the (alleged) actions of a few. Yet this passes for legitimate commentary in a major German news publication.

Here a suggestion: Perhaps Ms. Fetscher and her media colleagues should stop and reflect for just one moment that they have their freedom of speech and the right to open their big mouths in large part because of the sacrifices of American soldiers. As far as the "White Trash" slur goes: It takes one to know one Ms. Fetscher! If you are willing to belittle an entire group of people you (clearly) know little about, you deserve no better.

UPDATE: Contact Ms. Fetscher directly on her blog or per email. Here is her original article at Tagesspiegel and here is the link to her blog posting on the article which includes a comments section. Ms Fetscher can also be emailed at: [email protected]. Let her know what you think of her comments and please keep your responses respectful, polite, and to the point.

Note to readers: If you know of other similar examples of German media mischaracterizing the structure and makeup of the US military, please leave us the link and/or title in our comments section or email us.

Rushing to Judge America: A Blinding German Obsession

(By Ray D.)

In the repeated rush to judge the United States from the moral mountaintops of Europe, most German media have long forgotten Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. A morbid obsession with American crimes, real and perceived, has replaced most authentic concern for international human rights.

And the contrast couldn't be more extreme: While the German government busily promotes German industry at annual trade fairs in Khartoum, the German media quietly looks the other way as the Sudanese government continues its campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur. On the other hand, when previously unseen photos of Abu Ghraib recently emerged, the German media had an absolute field day. SPIEGEL came out with a particularly exploitative cover and finger-wagging editorials popped up like so many mushrooms.

It's much the same with Guantanamo Bay. The American prison has become a perverse national obsession in Germany while most Germans ignore the plight of hundreds-of-thousands imprisoned, abused, tortured, and murdered in North Korean, Russian and Iranian prisons. Where is the balance? Where is the sense of proportion?

In pointing out these contradictions, we need to be very clear on one point: It is not our intent at Davids Medienkritik to quell or discourage discussion on the legitimacy of Guantanamo as a means of dealing with stateless enemy combatants or the very real abuses at Abu Ghraib. The very opposite is true: These are vitally important issues and we believe they must be discussed and debated openly and constructively.

But that isn't happening in Germany. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have become little more than populist baseball bats with which leftists media and political elites repeatedly bludgeon the United States and George W. Bush. Why? Because Bush and fellow conservatives represent a massive ideological threat to everything they stand for. Fairness and objectivity have long been replaced by a sick moral relativism, as the cartoon below (from Tagesspiegel) demonstrates:

"I should have also made such pictures of my crimes at Abu Ghraib. Then maybe I also wouldn't have been held accountable..." 

This cartoon is just another example of a media mentality grounded in an array of cynical, flawed assumptions. In this case they include:

1. The false assertion that President Bush ordered or supported criminal acts at Abu Ghraib and therefore must be held accountable. Unlike Saddam, who knowingly ordered the mass torture and execution of men, women and children, Bush has repeatedly condemned the crimes of American soldiers found guilty of torture and abuse.
2. The equation of Saddam Hussein's systematic, systemic and intentional mass-murder, torture, invasion and aggression with sporadic abuses committed by US soldiers in clear violation of US law.
3. The false perception that no one has been held to account for Abu Ghraib. Several soldiers have been charged, sentenced and imprisoned, the commander of Abu Ghraib was demoted.

A lot of well meaning people on both sides of the Atlantic talk about the need for greater dialog. But many of the same people don't understand how much damage the German media is doing. The central question is one of constructive versus destructive criticism. When we look out across the German media landscape over the past three to four years and beyond, we see far too much of the latter and far too little of the former. That has to change. If it doesn't, meaningful dialog will continue to grow increasingly difficult and the German-American partnership will continue to disintegrate.

Another World War Starting in Berlin?

No doubt, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's energetic president, might use this cartoon* in last Friday's edition of the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel as an excuse to start WWIII.

I suspect there will be an avalanche of apologies from Germany's government in the next couple of days...

(* Left: (most likely) the Iranian national soccer team; right: the 'Bundeswehr' (German military). The cartoon's text: "Why we definitely need the 'Bundeswehr' at the soccer world championships")

Update: According to this report, the caricaturist has received several death threats. He moved out of his home for security reasons. Also, the Iranian embassy in Germany requested an apology from Tagesspiegel. The story is developing...stay tuned. (For the time being we have decided not to correct this posting's headline.)

Update #2: Michelle Malkin is on the case.

Tagesspiegel on Davids Medienkritik: Beware the Reactionary "Krawallos"

(By Ray D.)

It seems that Davids Medienkritik has done it again: We've deeply upset and irritated yet another respectable member of the German media. This time it is Malte Lehming of the "Tagesspiegel," who, sadly enough, is leaving Washington, D.C. after four years as his publication's "Amerika-Korrespondent." Mr. Lehming is returning home to Germany to take-over as the chief editor of Tagesspiegel's opinion section, a part of his newspaper often confused with the news section.

In an article written to commemorate his departure from the United States, Mr. Lehming surprisingly goes out of his way to mention Davids Medienkritik. He describes our blog with a degree of charm, sarcasm and tact matched only by SPIEGEL ONLINE. The following is an excerpt:

"Or the (US) media: The ascension of the reactionary "Krawallos" began during Ronald Reagan's era. The first was Rush Limbaugh with his talk radio. He created that which one could call a populist-radical counter-society. It has made the smoky backrooms presentable. Since that time, almost all TV news programs allow themselves an arch-conservative commentator. To this day, America's right-wing determines the topics and sets the tone. The intellectual potential of even the neoconservatives is high. The liberals, by comparison, seem uninspired and uninspiring.

And speaking of media. In the USA the blogger culture is blossoming. Bloggers very often run a very strongly opinion-filled internet forum. And with that, they create an influential public alongside the traditional press. Some blogs are read more daily than some daily newspapers. Bloggers also unearth scandals. Not so long ago, they brought down CBS star moderator Dan Rather and the news chief at CNN, Eason-Jordan. In Germany there are only a few interesting blogs. One of them is "Davids Medienkritik." All those who are convinced that Bush is a super president, Guantanamo is not bad and the German media is very deeply anti-American cavort there. Meanwhile, among German USA correspondents, "Davids Medienkritik" is regarded as a form of quality control: Whoever is not beaten-up now and then for his comments there is doing something wrong."

You got us Malte-man...checkmate...you are simply too clever for us...the game is up folks: We admit it. We really are part of a vast, right-wing, "arch-conservative" conspiracy to take over the media. Our cavorting readers are really all just a bunch of "reactionary, populist-radical, counter-society Krawallos" who love torture, pray to George W. Bush five times a day kneeling towards the White House and constantly obsess about how we can collectively condemn the fair and courageous German media's coverage of the United States. It's just too bad that our paychecks from the CIA still haven't turned up yet now that we've been exposed...

Oh, one more thing: Just so that our undereducated, neo-conservative, counter-society American readers know: "Krawallo" is a slang term for a volatile, riotous trouble-maker derived from the German word "Krawall" which means "riot" or "ruckus."

Malte Lehming: Paragon of Objectivity

And since Mr. Lehming was so polite to mention us in his article, we thought we would give our readers a little sampling of one of his finer works:

Forgive and Forget? Transatlantic Relations after Iraq

by Malte Lehming
October 17, 2003

Punish the French, ignore the Germans, forgive the Russians: this was the White House's motto shortly after the Iraq War. At the time, the U.S. government was still bursting with self-confidence. Today it is more subdued. Things did not develop quite the way the administration had hoped. Resistance to the American occupiers is mounting rather than abating, the costs for reconstruction skyrocket upwards with every estimate. To sum it up in layman's terms - the situation is a total mess. Now those who opposed the war face a choice: Should they punish, ignore or forgive the Americans? Their answer is: all of the above.

The official statements sound gracious. This is necessary. They stress how important it is to forget the disagreements, bury the past, take charge of the future's problems together. This, however, is just a little bit feigned. Nothing has been forgotten. The wounds are too deep. That is why most Europeans house two souls in their hearts. One wishes fervently that the Americans would be taught a lesson in Iraq; the other fears that the situation will spin out of control. Should the U.S. troops pull out without having achieved significant improvements, leaving the country to its fate, i.e. chaos, the uproar would be deafening. No, they should kindly stay there, preferably a long time, and preferably without achieving success in the near future, as permanent proof, so to speak, of the folly of war.

Ah yes. More fine European nuance. We can see that Mr. Lehming has better transatlantic relations at heart: America should stay and fail in Iraq, lose as many troops as possible, be bled white, Iraqis must die and die and die and terror must continue to reign on indefinitely. Why? So that Mr. Lehming and other magnanimous, lucid, generous, peace-loving Europeans can tell the overbearing, arrogant Americans how really, really right they were and are. Because, after all, there is nothing more important to people like Mr. Lehming than being right, and it doesn't matter how many people have to die and suffer so long as that is the end result.

But who are we to criticize. Let's not forget: Lehming is the true centrist, we are the Krawallo, reactionary blogger extremists...

Dangerous Blogger Counter-Culture: "Krawallos 'Я US"

And now that we have been exposed as extremists by Mr. Lehming, we just wanted him to know that being labeled "Krawallos" is almost as flattering as being branded "the Conservative Click Guerilla" by SPIEGEL ONLINE in 2004. It must have been difficult for him to pack so much name-calling and innuendo into just one article. Truly a masterpiece of German campaign journalism...

Achtung: Highly Motivated Pro-US, Pro-Israeli Blogger-Krawallos in Mainz

We can see now why Tagesspiegel has decided to promote Mr. Lehming to the position of chief editor of the opinion section. Apparently, he has given them exactly the sort of coverage they expected from their "Amerika Korrespondent." His new position will certainly ensure that nothing changes at Tagesspiegel when it comes to the German media's objective coverage of the United States.

Davids Medienkritik: Cavortion Center for Reactionaries

But in closing, we have to ask ourselves: Why would Mr. Lehming bother to mention us at all? Why do we matter so much to a major editor at a large German newspaper? Why does he go out of his way to bunch us together with people he labels "reactionary Krawallos" who are part of a so-called "populist-radical counter-society"? Why does he find it necessary make such sweeping generalizations about our blog?

According to Lehming, our site is a cavortion-center (not to be confused with an abortion-center...just a clarification for all of our arch-conservative, reactionary readers) for "all those who are convinced that Bush is a super president, Guantanamo is not bad and the German media is very deeply anti-American." Yet anyone who has ever visited our site and skimmed through our lively comments section knows that we have never condoned abuses in Guantanamo or anywhere else, never said we are "convinced Bush is a super president" and never said that the entire German media is "deeply anti-American."

Let's Get Serious

So, again, we have to ask, why does Mr. Lehming go out of his way to mention (and pan) us?

Could it be that we got under his skin...maybe just a little? Could it be that what we have to say really isn't extreme at all? Could it be that our opinions have touched a raw nerve because they challenge the conventional wisdom in the German media? Could it be that Malte Lehming and his "Amerika-Korrespondent" friends hate the idea that someone else on the German media landscape could have an intelligent viewpoint that challenges theirs? Could it be they are just a little worried that blogs like ours might succeed in Germany as they have in the USA?  Could it be that Mr. Lehming and his colleagues dread the thought of being called to account for writing passages on the United States such as the following?:

"No, they (the United States) should kindly stay there (in Iraq), preferably a long time, and preferably without achieving success in the near future, as permanent proof, so to speak, of the folly of war."

Could it be that Mr. Lehming is the true reactionary? Could it be that he is the true extremist?

Well, we hope we don't worry Mr. Lehming too much...(especially since he seems to have some worrisome issues with plagiarism already.) In the final analysis, our goal is to improve German journalism and to call for more fairness and objectivity in reporting. That is something we hope that all journalists have a common interest in. Hopefully though, our critics will actually address our ideas in the future instead of just trying to smear us...

(Note: Emphasis ours in all quoted passages)

Update: Just for the record - this is the original quote from Malte Lehming in German:

"Zu Ronald Reagans Zeiten begann der Aufstieg der reaktionären Krawallos. Der erste war Rush Limbaugh mit seinem Talkradio. Er schuf das, was man eine radikalpopulistische Gegenöffentlichkeit nennen kann. Sie hat den Stammtisch hoffähig gemacht. Inzwischen leisten sich fast alle TV-Nachrichtensender einen erzkonservativen Kommentator. Amerikas Rechte setzt bis heute die Themen und bestimmt den Ton. Das intellektuelle Potenzial etwa der Neokonservativen ist hoch. Die Liberalen wirken vergleichsweise uninspiriert und uninspirierend.

Apropos Medien. In den USA blüht die Blogger-Kultur. Blogger betreiben ein oft sehr meinungsstarkes Internetforum. Damit schaffen sie eine einflussreiche Öffentlichkeit neben der traditionellen Presse. Einige Blogs werden täglich mehr gelesen als manche Tageszeitung. Blogger decken auch Skandale auf. Unlängst haben sie den CBS-Starmoderator Dan Rather zu Fall gebracht und den Nachrichtenchef von CNN, Eason Jordan. In Deutschland gibt es nur wenige interessante Blogs. Einer davon ist „Davids Medienkritik“. Dort tummeln sich all jene, die überzeugt davon sind, dass Bush ein prima Präsident, Guantanamo nicht schlimm und die deutsche Presse zutiefst antiamerikanisch ist. Unter deutschen USA-Korrespondenten gilt „Davids Medienkritik“ inzwischen als eine Art Qualitätskontrolle: Wer dort nicht ab und zu für seine Kommentare verprügelt wird, macht etwas falsch."

Additionally, for those of you who missed it, Jeffrey Gedmin of the Aspen Institute recently had a scrape with Mr. Lehming as well. Looks like we are in good company...

Warning Labels for Biased Articles?

What a great idea: Warning labels for biased articles! Jeffrey Gedmin of the Aspen Institute in Berlin made this hilarious suggestion in an article published in Germany's daily WELT. (The cartoon on the left added by us.)

(I should mention that we now can offer the original English version of Jeff Gedmin's WELT article that was sent to us by the Aspen Institute Berlin. Many thanks to them and to Hartmut Lau who provided the English translation of the first version we presented).

This is Gedmin's article:

I hate over-regulation, but I wonder whether journalism needs what the food industry has. I like being able to read the label to know the ingredients in my juice or tomato sauce. Why shouldn't I know more about the news I am consuming?

I think about this when I consider much of the one-sided reporting on Iraq. The United States is no exception. I came across an interview recently with Rod Nordland, the Baghdad bureau chief of Newsweek magazine. Asked why we should be optimistic about democracy in the Middle East, Nordland says, "Who's optimistic?" Asked why Bush cares about the people of Iraq, Nordland says, "Who says he cares?" Nordland has strong opinions. Me too. But Nordland is in the news business, so why not disclose in his by-line, "Mr. Nordland opposed the Iraq war, thinks Arab democracy is an illusion, and believes George W.  Bush is heartless and cynical." At least there would be no pretending about neutrality and objectivity.

I think about this when I consider the one-sided reporting in Germany about the United States. Take the Berliner Tagesspiegel. The paper's correspondent writes for the news section and publishes columns on the opinion page. I often find it hard to tell the difference between the two. Sometimes the news stories are so opinionated I yearn for a label, like "Malte Lehming thinks that the president of the United States is a war-mongering ayatollah whose conservative-religious revolution is destroying American democracy."

Columns and documentary films should be no exception. Why not have a box score, like in American baseball? "Jeffrey Gedmin was batting 300 in 2004"-that's being right one out of three times. Maybe a second line could attest to the accuracy of the facts that underline our arguments.
This should apply to political documentaries, too. The most notorious in this business is America's Michael Moore. He preferred Saddam Hussein in power. Last year he was cheering the Iraqi insurgents to kill as many Americans as they could. That's free speech, however repugnant. But then there are those things we call facts. In Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore asserted that the White House approved special charter flights for bin Laden family members to leave the US, without being interviewed by the FBI and while US airspace was still closed. But none of this turned out to be true. Moore also asserted that the Carlyle Group, a business with ties to the Bush family, profited from September 11th because it owns United Defense, a military contractor. But United Defense's jewel project of the time, an $11 billion artillery rocket system, was cancelled by the Bush administration. Maybe a label should warn, "this product could be dangerous to your mental health."

Maybe journalism should have something akin to a driver's license.
Break enough rules, endanger public safety, you get your privileges revoked. Ok, free press is a right. I oppose all forms of censorship. You're safe, Michael. You can run those red lights and still drive on the side walks.

In truth, though, the rest os us could police ourselves a bit more. I recall a journalist from a top daily once telling me he was struggling with a story about Jürgen Möllemann, because he found it so hard to keep his own views out of the story. For news, that's surely a model. Until then, why not stick a label on the by-line of that next Iran story, "John Doe thinks American foreign policy is neo-imperialist and personally does not understand why the Mullahs should not have nuclear weapons."
___________________________

Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute Berlin, gets not a dime from the U.S. government, but wishes someone in Washington would reconsider.      

I should mention that Malte Lehming of Tagesspiegel is no stranger to this blog:

...you need to have a deeply ingrained anti-American sentiment to become Washington correspondent of a German media outlet. Credentials as a journalist? Well, let's not be too demanding... Malte Lehming is definitely superbly qualified for the job.

Update: When searching for a warning label image at Google I found this beautiful cartoon. I thought you'd like it too:

Items of Interest from the German Press

Our friend David L. has compiled an overview of some America-related reports in the German media:

FAZ, Sueddeutsche and Tagesspiegel reported that in the controversy over consular assistance for foreigners who were arrested in the United States, Washington no longer wants to comply with future rulings of the International Court of Justice. The papers cited State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan as having said these measures should "protect the United States from future rulings of the International Court of Justice." Financial Times Deutschland wrote that the U.S. move is another sign of the United States accepting rules of international law only as long as they do not impede the U.S. scope of action.

Sueddeutsche carried an editorial saying this decision "is extremely stupid and wrong." It also said that Secretary Rice will again nurture all the prejudices that exist abroad about the arbitrariness of U.S. justice authorities. Stefan Kornelius also wrote that "this decision provokes a response: The majority of Americans will certainly not like it if they can no longer rely on the protection of U.S. consulates during their trips abroad."

In a report on the release Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena, ARD-TV's current affairs magazine Panorama reported that the brutalization by U.S. soldiers in Iraq is increasing and presented as evidence a video in which U.S. soldiers, cheered on by other U.S. soldiers, pulled a dead Iraqi out of a car and kicked the corpse. Panorama commented on the film, saying these are shocking pictures, showing that everyday life in Iraq is "turning young soldiers into Sadists." (See ARD online)

Condi. Clear and Articulate / Condi: Klar und deutlich

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

Condoleezza Rice is currently visiting Germany.  In an interview with the Tagesspiegel about the abuse in Iraq, she defended the US Administration's position:

Tagesspiegel:  The torture accusations are not new.  The media were reporting about them in January. There have been investigations, but only now that the pictures have shocked the entire world, have there been criminal proceedings.  Was the US too slow to react?

Condi Rice:  No, I think it was a remarkably quick reaction.  General Kimmit acted officially on the reports in January.  The relevant people were long ago indicted.  There is also the other side of the democratic constitutional process.  The accused must be permitted to answer the accusations against them; we must act on the assumption that they are innocent, not on the assumption that they are guilty.  These are regulated proceedings. We also can't permit that the guilty party go unpunished
because the prosecution was poorly prepared.

Tagesspiegel:  The administration has announced new rules for the examinations.  Were the previous ones unclear?

Condi Rice:  Clearly something has gone wrong.  That's why it's important that they are meaningful, to make sure that the instructions are unambiguous. The USA has clearly stated that the Geneva Convention applies in Iraq. After the sequence of events, we all must be reminded of what
that means.

That is what pleases me about the Americans: the straight forward style, the admission of mistakes, and the willingness to change.

Recommended for Germany.

(Translated by Michael)

Tagesspiegel's Washington Correspondent: Superbly Qualified...

Kid Charlemagne made some interesting observations in the comment section of this blog on today's Tagesspiegel - and I'm delighted to post his comment:

More ridiculous off-the-cuff distortions from Malte Lehming in the Tagesspiegel today. He starts his article by describing Mubarak's Egypt in negative terms - autocratic, backwards, socialist - and then mentions that the U.S. gives Egypt 1.3 billion dollars a year in aid. Why this apparent discrepancy? Because Mubarak is a close friend of Bush's, of course! Never mind the Camp David Peace Accords of twenty-five years ago, signed by Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat, Lehming makes it sound like this money has only been coming because Mubarak shmused with Bush and made some secret deal with him.

Malte Lehming is not a journalist. He just makes things up as he goes along, explaining the world to us according to his fancy. The Tagesspiegel would do well to get a new U.S. correspondent.

Hmm... as I have said before: you need to have a deeply ingrained anti-American sentiment to become Washington correspondent of a German media outlet. Credentials as a journalist? Well, let's not be too demanding... Malte Lehming is definitely superbly qualified for the job.

Bush Memo: German Media Distort Facts

The August 6, 2001, memo did not refer to a planned attempt to fly planes into skyscrapers. All it says is:

- Bin Laden since 1997 wanted to "bring the fighting to America".

- "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists."

So he planned hijackings of airplanes to press for the release of his underlings - hardly a pretext for flying these planes into buildings.

- "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Note, that these are alternatives in the memo: "preparations for hijackings" and "other other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." There was no suspicion that the hijackings could lead to the destruction of buildings. Actually, the perceived threat to "federal buildings in New York" was based on the observation of tourists taking pictures of buildings in New York:

"...the information relating to the possible surveillance of federal buildings in New York, which was later determined by the FBI to be consistent with tourist-related activity..." (Fact Sheet, Press Office of The White House)

And here are headlines of German media reporting on the August 6 memo:

AFP: Bush Knew of Attack Plans in August 2001

N24: Newspaper: Bush Knew the Terror Plan

WELT: Bush Knew of Attack Plans

FAZ: Press: Bush Knew Al-Qaeda-Plans

stern: Contradictions - Bush In Fact Warned Before 9/11 of the Terror Attacks?

Tagesspiegel: Protocol Feeds Doubts About Rice’s Testimony: Did Bush Know of a Concrete Danger before August 2001?

Al Jazeera: Memo contradicts Rice on al-Qaida threat

(Oops, Al Jazzeera is not a German media outlet, but the well know anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbollah Arab news organization. Don't know why they fit in here...)

While it is true that the actual reporting in the above-mentioned German media moves away from the impression given in the headlines, it's the headlines that stick in people’s minds.

My forecast: within a very short time the German media will regularly quote the "fact" that Bush already knew in August 2001 about the planned destruction of the WTC. And after a bit more time has passed - probably right before the election in November - there will be reporting in the German media indicating a conspiracy between neocons (Bush himself?) and Al Qaeda to destroy the WTC in order to ... (please choose one) create new jobs in the New York construction industry / grab Iraqi oil / undermine Saudi Arabia / throw Russia and France out of Iraq.

Anything's possible in the German media, if it fits into their anti-Bush agenda...

Update: I swear I hadn't seen this Cox & Forkum cartoon when I wrote the last two paragraphs...

Source

(Hat tip Gabi)

(Translation by Ray D.)

Update: This is the transcript of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on April 8, 2004.

A Muslim in Germany Warns Of Islam / Ein Muslim in Deutschland warnt vor dem Islam

(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)

A muslim in Germany warns of Islam - an unusual, but welcomed position.

Tagesspiegel:

I'm ashamed to be Muslim! Why we should not trust Islam in Europe by M. Walid Nakschbandi

(...) A peek into a mosque in Cologne-Müllheim, Berlin, Neukölln or Hamburg-Altona during Friday prayers is enough to see that hate sits deep within these groups and that nothing can be achieved by arguing with them.

That is where the not exactly peaceable writings of the (Maulawis), the so-called Islamic scholars, are
pushed into the community. That is where schoolbooks with radical contents are distributed for free. We
all used to believe that these were the confused thougts of a handful of illiterates. How naive! We
finally comprehend that they want to destroy us and our ideals. Even here, in Germany ...

We must ask ourselves what is more important in these exceptional circumstances: to temporarily limit our freedoms and strike a blow for the survival of our society, or to fall victim to terror with our rights intact.

Muslims in Germany must comprehend that the misuse of belief, conscience, and freedom of belief for fanatics and their followers cannot continue. In the meantime, Muslim fanatics and their sympathizers have made it such that reasonable, enlightened Muslims are ashamed. Like me.

(Translation by Erik)

(Hat tip Michael Schmidt)