Checked out any American movies, lately Helian?

How about “the Green Mile” or “the Shawshank Redemption.” Based on novels by Stephen King, who is arguably the most popular writer in the United States.

What do we learn from these films? In the United States, prisons are full of kind, gentle black men who have been railroaded by “the system” and abused by sadistic redneck prison guards.

Seen anything by John Grisolm? Maybe “the Pelican Brief”, where we see the passionate young liberal Julia Roberts persecuted by the sinister dark forces of the evil American government?

They didn’t make those films in Munich.

Americans are stereo typed everyday in the ***American media*** as “gun nuts, prudes, puritanical, warmongering, simplistic, etc., etc.”

Why would you expect anything different from Der Spiegel? They’re only rehashing what we feed them.

I say that’s a tad strong, especially when it’s obvious from the first two lines in the post that Glenn is referring to the German media, not the German people as a whole

That`s more than a tad strong, I went too far there. But “This self-seeking historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war” doesn`t sound as if he only means the German media.

Check out the cover of “Spiegel” for the last year Ralf, if you want to see caricatures of Americans every bit as offensive as anything Julius Streicher ever came up with about the Jews

I don`t buy the Spiegel (not since the early nineties) so I haven`t seen the covers you are talking about.

At your service, Helian. Anyway, I never made any claims that I`m morally superior to anybody.

Tell, me, Ralf, can the corruptible put off corruption, as in the Book of Revelations? I notice that Andrew Sullivan, for example, took back and apologized for a post he had made the day before recently. Was it possible that he was corrupt on the day he made the original post, but “put off corruption” when he reversed himself. Or does one you have first determined to be morally corrupt remain so for all time? More to the point, do you think your ability to so rapidly quantify levels of moral corruption is likely to impress anyone with your debating style?

I`m not religious, so I don`t know anything about the book of revelations beyond what I have read about the “Left Behind” series of novels. And I feltt that the post was a blanket-accusations against Germans. This has nothing to do with my debating-style.

In response to Glenn Reynolds’ post:

“GERMAN MEDIA: Hey, the holocaust wasn’t all that bad! Look what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib!

“This self-seeking historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war. Note to Germans: You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves. And Michael Moore, And Al Gore, And maybe Guido Calabresi.

“In other words, the people who want to be fooled…”

You write:

“Attempts to equate Abu Ghraib with the Holocaust are profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt. The same goes for Glenn Reynold’s post, though.”

I say that’s a tad strong, especially when it’s obvious from the first two lines in the post that Glenn is referring to the German media, not the German people as a whole. On the other hand, Americans are stereotyped every day in the German media as gun nuts, prudes, puritanical, warmongering, simplistic, etc., etc. Check out the cover of “Spiegel” for the last year Ralf, if you want to see caricatures of Americans every bit as offensive as anything Julius Streicher ever came up with about the Jews. Did you condemn the editors of “Spiegel” as “morally corrupt” as well?

It’s interesting that Chicagoboyz have acquired a colleague so exquisitely virtuous that he can conclude based on a few lines in a blog that someone is “profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt.” I will have to come by more often to have my own halo adjusted. Tell, me, Ralf, can the corruptible put off corruption, as in the Book of Revelations? I notice that Andrew Sullivan, for example, took back and apologized for a post he had made the day before recently. Was it possible that he was corrupt on the day he made the original post, but “put off corruption” when he reversed himself. Or does one you have first determined to be morally corrupt remain so for all time? More to the point, do you think your ability to so rapidly quantify levels of moral corruption is likely to impress anyone with your debating style?

And it simply IS true that you will find even more Hitler-Bush or Nazi/US comparisons in the AMERICAN media. Der Spiegel takes what it gets from the wire services and runs with it.

Hildebrandt is not a journalist. I also didn’t say that there are zero cases of people comparing Bush to Hitler in the German media (but there are rather less of such cases than in the American media, I think). I was talking about comparisons of Abu Ghraib with concnetration camps).

He’s also wrong that Däubler-Gmelin is smart, she’s anything but. And as far as Maischberger is concerned: I like her much better.

He defended Däubler-Gmelin and said she should not have left the administration because she had been right and would be a smart and courageous woman. Hildebrandt also said some very nasty things about John Kerry and claimed all American soldiers were stupid, cold-blooded and violent. And then he stressed that he would be no anti-American(!). (Taking us one step further form the “I am only critical of the Bush administration”-argument, I guess.)

Talk show host Sandra Maischberger, being of the most respected of our TV journalists, did nothing to put this in perspective. She didn’t ask a single critical question. She even encouraged his rantings with rhetorical questions and seemed to agree with a good part of them.

It is simply NOT true that you don’t find Hitler-Bush or Nazi/US comparisons in the German media.

1) She lost her job because of this, and nobody coheered her for making that comparison

2) Yes, there are such comparisons, but you won’t find them in the regular (if still anti-American media), and there are no more of them than in any other country.

3) The German media were mostly parroting what American media said about this.

as I replied to Helian, I conflated David’s post somewhat with the posts of bloggers who linked to that post (this is from my reply to Helian):

“You’ve got something (not much, though) of a point here. I didn’t just refer to David’s post, but also to the posts of bloggers who linked to him. I should have made the clearly distinction in this paragraph:

“A feminist who has no more influence in Germany than Susan Sontag has in America writes an op-ed that contains a stupid sentence, and all of a sudden it’s all of the German media and *Germans in general* who are comparing Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz in order to excuse the holocaust”.

The “*Germans in general*” bit indeed isn’t due to David himself, but “The German media are drawing parallels among the American soldiers’ abuses in Abu Ghraib, Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and the Nazi’s concentration camps” (please also note: The crucifixion bit also is from Schwarzer’s article) is right from his blog post, and bloggers who linked to it stated that Germans in general are in on this (Instapundit: “This self-serving historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war. Note to Germans: You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves”). And David doesn’t have a problem
with it”.

And while reading German makes me sleepy, from what I’ve seen, the American media has no reservations about comparing Abu Ghraib with Dachau.

(1) Herta Däubler-Gmelin (former cabinet member in Schröder’s 1998 government) allegedly compared Bush to Hitler. Go google.

(2) Sharon’s policy is often compared to the Nazi’s pogroms in Germany. Go google.

(3) Bush and “his minion” John Ashcroft allegedly transformed the United States into a policestate according to German media. Go google.

All of this has been reiterated and covered in the German press right on front pages in the past 4 years. Countless articles in German op-ed pages basically agreed. Go google.

I does not take a vivid fantasy to interpret Schwarzer’s essay just in the way it was meant. She DID equate Abu Ghraib with Auschwitz. Why? Because she could. It’s so easy in Germany. No one denies that it’s cheap, that it stirs up controversy. Germans are not discussing whether she really wrote it, but whether it is true. That is the real problem in Germany.

David didn’t just say that Schwarzer compared the photograph from Abu Ghraib those from concentration camps, he claimed that German media (in general, not just Schwarzer) are comparing Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz in order to revise history and excuse the holocaust:

“The issue here is nothing less than the revision of German history. Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen,
Theresienstadt and Dachau are all in the same league with Abu Ghraib…”

…

So the pictures taken in German concentration camps remind us of American crimes in our day? Well, we don’t want to compare numbers. Every nation has a few bad boys who get carried away once in a while, doesn’t it?…”

Pointing that out isn’t hair-splitting. I posted the Altavista translation so that readers could see for themselves that she isn’t making any such comparisons in the rest of the article.

Where, exactly, in the article, or, for that matter, anywhere outside your imagination, does David claim that “all of the German media” and “Germans in general” have made this comparison?

You’ve got something (not much, though) of a point here. I didn’t just refer to David’s post, but also to the posts of bloggers who linked to him. I should have made the clearly distinction in this paragraph:

“A feminist who has no more influence in Germany than Susan Sontag has in America writes an op-ed that contains a stupid sentence, and all of a sudden it’s all of the German media and *Germans in general* who are comparing Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz in order to excuse the holocaust”.

The “*Germans in general*” bit indeed isn’t due to David himself, but “The German media are drawing parallels among the American soldiers’ abuses in Abu Ghraib, Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and the Nazi’s concentration camps” (please also note: The crucifixion bit also is from Schwarzer’s article) is right from his blog post, and bloggers who linked to it stated that Germans in general are in on this (Instapundit: “This self-serving historical revisionism pretty much explains the German position on the war. Note to Germans: You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves”). And David doesn’t have a problem
with it.

As to this:

“David is not only a German patriot but very touchy about anything that smacks of condemnation of Germans in general. Your comment is a gross distortion of his attitude towards his homeland and what he stands for”

Well, I’m also a German patriot who is very touchy about anything that smacks of condemnation of Germans in general.

“As Michael Moore and the editors of “Spiegel” and “Stern” know, anti-American hatemongering in
Germany is extremely profitable. The rest of the German media have caught on in the last few years. Hatred of America sells well in Germany. The German media are obsessed with the United States, and the coverage in virtually every significant newspaper and news magazine as well as on TV is more or less
vanilla anti-Americanism” … It’s surprising that you find David’s objection to a comparison of Abu Ghraib with Nazi concentration camps “grotesque,”…”

Yes, most of the German media are anti-American, I never claimed anything to the contrary. But I take objection when accusations of Nazi-apologia are thrown around. Not least when the accusations are routinely extended to Germany as a whole (not by David, but by those who link to him). And once again, there was a (albeit very stupid) comaparison of a photo from Abu Ghraib to photos from concentration camps, but she didn’t say That Abu Ghraib was like a concentration camp.

“…but you have never found anything “grotesque” about the fact that hate-mongering rags like
“Spiegel” and “Stern” have succeeded in posing as “news” magazines for so long in Germany, when, in fact, they are nothing but thinly veiled propaganda.”

If I didn’t have a problem with the reporting by Stern Spiegel etc I would hardly post here, Helian. Anyway, you don’t know me, and you also don’t know what else I do and don’t find grotesque. And by the way, most of the German press is in real financial trouble.

“May I ask how it is that you can work yourself into such a state of virtuous indignation over David’s article, even though you have, no doubt, witnessed the development of gross anti-Americanism in the German media over the last ten years and have not so much as lifted a finger to oppose it?”

I think I explained the reasons for my anger adequately in my post. And my reaction to the rise of anti-Americanism in the press was to stop paying attention to it and, with occasional exemptions, to stop buying magazines and newspapers.

“Two or three little blogs in Germany have the courage to confront the media in that country, and you are trying to convince us that they are the evil bad guys, woefully persecuting the poor, defenseless editors of “Spiegel,” “Stern,” and the rest.”

I did nothing of the kind. I was merely addressing this specific issue. Reread my post if you aren’t clear on this point.

She’s most definitely comparing Abu Ghraib to the pictures of piled corpses from Nazi concentration camps. Auschwitz can certainly be included in that category. Are we really to conclude from your hairsplitting that David’s article is “grotesque?”

Why the altavista translation, for that matter? It uses the acronym “KZ” for “concentration camp,” an association that most Americans are unlikely to make. Based on your posts in Medienkritik, you don’t have any trouble with German, and you know very well that the translation of Schwarzer’s comment on David’s blog is entirely accurate. Could it be you’re trying to obfuscate things?

“He certainly got a lot of mileage out of this one sentence. Get it? A feminist who has no more influence in Germany than Susan Sontag has in America writes an op-ed that contains a stupid sentence, and all of a sudden it’s all of the German media and *Germans in general* who are comparing Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz in order to excuse the holocaust.”

Is this what we’re supposed to consider “grotesque?” Where, exactly, in the article, or, for that matter, anywhere outside your imagination, does David claim that “all of the German media” and “Germans in general” have made this comparison? I don’t know David personally, but my son does, and he knows very well that David is not only a German patriot but very touchy about anything that smacks of condemnation of Germans in general. Your comment is a gross distortion of his attitude towards his homeland and what he stands for. The claim David does make is that the German media has been obsessed with Abu Ghraib as a convenient tool for its America-bashing agenda. This is entirely correct. As Michael Moore and the editors of “Spiegel” and “Stern” know, anti-American hatemongering in Germany is extremely profitable. The rest of the German media have caught on in the last few years. Hatred of America sells well in Germany. The German media are obsessed with the United States, and the coverage in virtually every significant newspaper and news magazine as well as on TV is more or less vanilla anti-Americanism. Indeed, it is virtually impossible for anyone who speaks only German to even have a clue about why so many Americans, for example, oppose Kyoto and the ICC, why so many very intelligent and well-informed people on the left supported the war, etc., etc. It’s surprising that you find David’s objection to a comparison of Abu Ghraib with Nazi concentration camps “grotesque,” but you have never found anything “grotesque” about the fact that hate-mongering rags like “Spiegel” and “Stern” have succeeded in posing as “news” magazines for so long in Germany, when, in fact, they are nothing but thinly veiled propaganda.

May I ask how it is that you can work yourself into such a state of virtuous indignation over David’s article, even though you have, no doubt, witnessed the development of gross anti-Americanism in the German media over the last ten years and have not so much as lifted a finger to oppose it? That anti-Americanism is obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. It is in no way a reaction to Bush or his policies, currently one of the favorite German journalistic fig leafs. It predates them by many years, and was in full swing during the Clinton Administration (remember the descriptions of the UK as a “traitor” to Europe for continuing to support the Echelon system, and the wails about U.S. “espionage” directed at German “panzer secrets” in Spain. The list goes on and on.) I guarantee you it will continue to flourish long after Bush is gone, because people like you, who know better, and are in a position to make their voices heard in opposition to the gross hate-mongering in the German media, choose instead to aid and abet it. Two or three little blogs in Germany have the courage to confront the media in that country, and you are trying to convince us that they are the evil bad guys, woefully persecuting the poor, defenseless editors of “Spiegel,” “Stern,” and the rest. Your article is a joke. You need to get real.

BTW, I assume they used gray for ‘The Gray Lady’ and red for….hmmmmmmm.

He does imply that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is representative of German media. At the very least, that a) it has a wide circulation and b) it is conservative. And if that’s conservative opinion, one can only wonder what the left has to say about it…

I don’t necessarily disagree with David. Gross anti-Americanism is quite common in Europe, most of all in my own country. (One can only ponder the level of ignorant hatred required to repeatedly shower the likes of Moore with awards…). And, to a general extent, I’m afraid he is right. What one can print in a major newspaper is a reflection of the general consensus of what is acceptable.

In the run-up to war, it was quite common for many to question ‘simplistic’ accusation that Saddam was a ‘Hitler’. Only dumb Americans could make such a dumb analogy. Of course, the same people have no issue calling Bush or Sharon Nazis.

Without any data point or information as to the reaction of Germans to such a column, or at least that of its readers, it’s hard to say what Germans in general believe. But on closer look, I’m not sure at all it was David’s intent to make such a statement.

Although others could interpret it that way. Especially if they already have such a bias.

Quite honestly, I don’t think any of this is new at all. Our perception that it is has more to do with the distortions of nostalgia than the cold facts. Unhealthy or not, all I care about is that I have alternatives. And there are plenty. I haven’t watched network news in years and do not miss it.

If they’re not serving their own interests, they’ll change. Clearly, given how old the formula is, it’s working with someone. And there is enough of them to support the business.

As for a distorted view of reality, that’s all you are ever going to get. The pretense of objectivity is my main problem with the media, and most of its critics, for that matter; accept you are biased, admit it and move on. Do we distrust them because they are as human as everyone else ? Or do we distrust them because they constantly pretend to be objective when they obviously aren’t ? If they didn’t pretend and advertised their product as such, would we complain ? Same with serving the interest of wider society. This is largely a self-serving argument.

Moreover, if everybody stopped pretending this is about serving society and being objective, it would make it harder for some to justify the existence of state media and other regulatory shenanigans aimed at ensuring whatever outcomes their own political agenda favors.

Last, you ask why they do it. Competition, pure and simple. With basic information being virtually free and available to all, the emotional battlefield is where it’s at. The thrill. The chase. The fight. The danger. The controversy. The scoop. Live! It’s fact-based entertainment. And it’s a business model that seems to work very well.

In other words, I’m afraid you’re looking for the product you want in the wrong store. You strike me as the kind of guy who won’t be satisfied by anything but something rather high-end and custom made. But here you are, looking around the aisles of Wal-Mart for a Gucci pyjama and cursing the darn company for having such cheap taste.

To some extent, I may sound cynical. I don’t think I am. It’s just that most people I know who are frustrated or disappointed about the media essentially buy into the industry’s advertising of itself and its “mission statements”. I don’t. They’re private businesses selling a product. It’s messy, it’s imperfect, but as long as I have access to the means to deal with it, I wouldn’t have it any other way.