Well, while some of the Spiegel Online articles are indeed quite dubious, your website is utterly preposterous. No need to remove the ) at the end of the URL, this rubbish is probably not worth reading.

Good Catch!

The right parenthesis got in the way. The link should be:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/

Please don't get me wrong, I glanced over some of the things on this website. Hope you read reputable newspapers beside this featherbrained lampoon.

Immer der selbe Schmarn! Einseitige und voreingenommene Medienberichterstattung kann ich ignorieren, auch wenn sie mich vielleicht aufregt. Kritik an einseitiger und voreingenommener Medienberichterstattung kann ich unterstuetzen. Aber einseitige und voreingenommene Kritik an einseitiger und voreingenommener Medienberichterstattung geht mir einfach nur auf den Sack!

@Holger

I took your advice and avoided reading the blogger's comments, instead I only checked out his links, but it all kind of speaks for itself, I think!

@Rachel

Intersting site. They seem like a bunch of Republican cheerleaders for sure, but they're obviously not making up their source material.

Your example of Anti-American bias in the German mainstream media is pretty weak, though. There are a lot of links on the Medienkritik site that do a much better job of proving your point, like this one, where the Stern so succinctly sums up the history of America and its people:

"The History of the USA: No nation has ever dominated the globe like the USA. And its people could care less about the rest of humanity." (Huh! I thought they just didn't like bush)

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/...

Here's another little gold nugget from the same page about US recent history from 1981 to the present, entitled "Rambo wants to rule the world" ('81 to the present? Wait a minute, that also includes the Clinton years!) :O

WTF?!?!

Or this one, where the "bloodsucking" American (no doubt the "Heuschrecke" from Spiegel's often-referenced "Heuschrecken-Alarm") :o ) has a big hooked nose and gold tooth (Goebbels lässt Grüßen!). And the worst thing is that it's from IG Metall, which is Germany's biggest union. I was in Germany at the time that was magazine supposedly printed, and where was the outcry!

You don't have to be a Bush-loving republican, or a even a fan of that blog (they're too angry), to find this kind of stuff just plain wrong.

Here are a couple of things that I found on my own recently on the Spiegel website:

http://www.spiegel.de/dossiers/

George W. Bush: Der Albtraum-Präsident

or this one

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/0,...

where "Bush declares himself Master of the Universe"

With an attitude like that, can you trust anything that they print about Bush from now on? These are Germany's number one and two-selling news magazine, people? If you can't get the straight dope here, where are you going to turn next? The Bild Zeitung?

Of course, you really don't need this blog to tell you about any of this stuff if you follow the German newsmedia on a regular basis. I just don't get what they're trying to accomplish with this. Are they doing anything productive except angering the few Americans, such as myself, who have actually taken the time to study their language? Does it really make them feel better about themselves to keep running the US into the ground with half-truths and attack journalism? Does is solve any of Germany's problems to tirelessly construct this Feindbild? Do they really think it has any effect on anything going on inside the US? When I'm in the States and folks ask me "Why do does Europe dislike us", I tell them to just forget about it, since people on the other side of the pond were never getting an honest appraisal of our country in the first place on which to base their (pre)judgements. And while I'm on the topic of fair appraisals of my country, if you want an honest German assessment of the US, go to Milan Obradovic's "Living in America" blog, which is linked to the www.stern.de website (of all places). It's amazing how much the opinions of actual Auswanderer differ from those propagated in the big print rags and state TV stations.

My only consolation when reading this kind of junk is the knowledge that Germans treat themselves this badly as well. Bitching and moaning is the German national pastime, at least according to the Spiegel article on Germans entitled "The German National Pastime: Whining, Bitching and Moaning". Well, at least they don't hate us anymore than they hate themselves!

And with that statement I am shutting down my laptop and running away from it before I blow the entire day!

In case your laptop is still on, and if you didn't really realise it yourself, the nose is meant to be the mosquito's proboscis.

Oh, and by the way, if you liked that, take a look at the lovely Bush and Tony cartoons in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/...

Perhaps you're right. I had assumed it was supposed to be a locust, since American businesses are sometimes referred to as "locusts" in the German media. I thought they had mandibles. Can't say I find the caricature any better because of this, though.

I'm just remembering that while reporting on the US blackout, the German experts claimed that a blackout to that extent could never happen in Germany...

Denkt von Euch eigentlich niemand ueber die Redakteure nach?
Schaut mal, die verdienen ihr Geld mit dem Schreiben von Artikeln.
Die sollten sich aufregend aber weitgehnd neutral anhören.
Schwer genug.

Also tippseln die Jungs mal eben ihr paar Zeilen Text.
Verdichten den dann zu einem richtigen medialen Reisser und stellen den online.
Rechtschreibkorrektur gibt es dort nicht, inhaltliche Korrektur .. könnt ihr gern mal raten.

Demnach philosophieren wir alle 4 gerade über die hintergruendigen Bedeutung eines Textes, bei dem dessen Redaktuer froh war, ihn nach nur 12 Minuten fertig und online zu haben. *aehm*

remembering .. kann ich nur zu sagen .. das wir ein weitverzweigtes stromnetz haben .. das sehr modern ist (nicht umsonst zahlen wir die hoechsten strompreise in europa:) .. und sicher eine Menge stiller Reserven auf diversen Kraftwerken (die arbeiten halt normal mit ca 80% Last)

In Deutschland sollte man alle bunten Nachrichtenmagazine (Stern, Spiegel, Focus) mit großer Vorsicht genießen. Sie sind wesentlich einseitiger und verfälschender als die Tageszeitungen. Obwohl auch bei denen die allgemeine politische Tendenz von links bis rechts deutlich wird (taz, Frankfurter Rundschau, SZ, FAZ, Welt), herrscht hier noch nicht dieselbe Verlogenheit wie im Hochglanz"journalismus".

@remembering
I had rubbed that in my German father in-laws face on sunday, and he just said: "But it wasn't out as long"

@Trobert: I have to korrekt something. It is NOT "American businesses" that are referred to as locusts. It is the businesses that are buying and bleeding out other companies that are referred to as "locusts".

That, of course, implies that the acquired companies would have been profitable otherwise.

@remembering: Actually, we can have pretty impressive power outages. But only the massive mast-collapse in 2005 caused outages of more than 12 hours, AFAIR. Even there, the THW managed to have the critical installations running again after some hours.

@lala: Für "80% Last" haben aber beeindruckend viele Kraftwerke die Last abgeworfen.

trobert, the Americans can do it themselves, too. Taking the example of power cuts, here's Greg Palast's take on it:
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-al-capone-of-el...
(on the same site, there's an interview transcript where Greg and another American complain about the "European obsession with American foibles" - but they're talking about the UK. So it's not just a German bias.
Salon.com is also a good antidote to that site Rachel recommended...

Hab' ich nicht Sonntag immer wieder gehört, Auslöser sei das Abschalten einer Höchspannungsleitung über die Ems gewesen (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/80582)?

@Rachel: I don't quite get your point. As it seems, the power failure was rather short, the people affected most were those traveling by train. And the discussion about the power industrie and their responsiblity for a stable supply is triving.

If American newspapers would bother with event in Europe, they'd probably produce the same kind of headline.

According to the report I read on the BBC website on Sunday morning, the problem started in Germany!

Joe,

wofür das "!" ?

To me, it's just another case where the rest of the world is more concerned with what goes on in the United States and feeding their own anti-Americanism (which is gladly served up by the media) than they are about their own affairs. Nobody cares that in 30 years Europe is going to look a hell of a lot different than it does now and that there are going to be serious problems unless they are addressed NOW. It's more important to bash Bush. Nobody cares that Austria can't even form a government right now (bring in the US Supreme Court for Chrissakes...or the CIA ;-)). It's more important to blame America for everything that's wrong in the world.

My point? The USA is the Microsoft of nations. Everybody hates them, but take them away, and everything gets worse.

it could also be a sign of inverted chivalry, as in: if it is wrong to kick someone when they're down, it must be right (if not obligatory) to kick someone when they're up...
But I would hate to be an American avid newspaper-reader in Europe, too.

Just do bad all the bull**** Bush and the american industry do affects us Europeans more than any sh*** our gouverments do affect them. If it didn't affect our life adversly, we wouldn't give a damn about Bush and his cronies.

@trocco:

Ich weiß ja nicht, welche europäischen Zeitungen Du abonniert hast, aber die europäischen Zeitungen (zugegeben, überwiegend deutsche), die ich regelmäßig oder auch nur sporadisch lese, berichten immer noch ausgiebig über nationale und "europäische" Themen.

Richtig ist, dass amerikanische Medien - mit wenigen Ausnahmen - praktisch nur über inneramerikanische Themen berichten, außerdem noch über "internationale" Themen, in welchen die USA unmittelbar involviert sind (z.B. Auslandsbesuche amerikanischer Politiker, "Frontberichte" aus dem Irak etc.).
Ich habe diese Tatsache während meines 5-jährigen USA-Aufenthaltes sehr bedauerlich empfunden und halte sie auch heute keineswegs für ein "Positivum".

Ich glaube nicht, dass "alles schlechter" würde, wenn die USA sich außenpolitisch etwas mehr in Zurückhaltung übten.

Und: wenn es Microsoft plötzlich nicht mehr gäbe, würden Linux & Co die Lücke schnell füllen.

liebstes trocco:
Könnte es aber sein, dass aufgrund des liberalen Wettbewerbs in Amerika, die Firmen sich vorallem um ihre Gewinne kümmern.
In Deutschland gibt es dazu sogar ein Gesetz, das von Energieversorgern eine stabile und verfügbare Stromversorgung verlangt.

Es ist daher für mich kein Anti-Americanismus mich über die amerikanische Stromversorgungsprobleme zu amüsieren, es hat eher was mit Ironie zu tun.
Aber, ich darf dir versichern, in .de würde es nicht anders aussehen, wenn die Energieversorger nicht diesen kleinen Gesetzestext zu beachten hätten.

Und: wenn es Microsoft plötzlich nicht mehr gäbe, würden Linux & Co die Lücke schnell füllen.

Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, nieder mit Microsoft!!!!!

@Ulrich05
I also get very disappointed when I go back to the states and the International/World news is over in two minutes.
And how illiterate many are when it comes to world news.

Nun, ein hämisches Grinsen konnte ich mir nicht verkneifen, weil die "Experten" gar so überheblich einen großflächigen Stromausfall für Deutschland sogar ausgeschlossen haben, hier nur einige Beispiele:
http://www.3sat.de/3sat.php?http://www.3sat.d...
http://www.winfuture.de/news,10422.html
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,...

Das Land der Zuverlässigkeit wurde ausgeschaltet durch eine geplante Abschaltung einer Hochspannungsleitung. ... Ein Land der Dichter und Denker zwischen Schein und Sein - in Anlehnung SPIEGEL TV mit Beobachtungen aus einem Land, dem das Licht ausgegangen ist

Die Menschen, die ihren Verstand auch benutzen, haben schon damals an den Selbstlob-Orgien der hiesigen Stromindustrie (bei uns kann sowas auf keinen Fall passieren) gezweifelt.

Was mich erinnert: Was war jetzt eigentlich die Ursache für den Fast-Gau in Skandinavien vor ein paar Monaten? Man hört ja gar nichts mehr...

Interessante Gedanken zu Stromausfällen
http://quality.blogg.de/eintrag.php?id=343

und zum Fast-GAU in Forsmark
http://quality.blogg.de/eintrag.php?id=331
http://quality.blogg.de/eintrag.php?id=333

@disappointed: I'm intrigued. How does Bush's policies and American industry directly affect you? Do they cause the high unemployment, jobs moving to the East, debt, etc.? Please explain.

@Ulrich05: I agree that most news in the German press is usually about Germany (or Austrian for Austria). But at the same time, there are always reports about the United States doing this, that, or the other. Even our elections are covered extensively over here. My point was only that there are so many pertinent issues that affect Europeans here and now that are being "swept under the rug" as it were while distracting them with stories about the crazy Americans, for example.

I also don't think it's good that the American press reports so little over what happens in the world. I've been in AT for five years now and only read US news online so I can only say what it was like 5 years ago, but there really appears to be a knowledge deficit about the world in America. At the same time, a lot of what I hear about America over here from people apparently "in the know" is bogus - whether it's about American culture, politics, business, or anything else. So I wonder if it's better to be completely ignorant of other countries or to be completely or somewhat misinformed about them.

About foreign policy, we could probably have a very long, serious discussion, but that exceeds the scope of this thread. Maybe in another ... stay tuned! ;-)

Oh yeah: Microsoft. Sure Linux and co. would fill the gap, and then think of all the mass confusion around the entire world as everyone tries to find software that's compatible with everyone else's. Eventually it would settle down, but there would be business chaos in the near term (even OpenOffice SpreadSheet was different enough from Excel to give me trouble, and I'm not very computer illiterate).

@la.ktho: I don't know much about competition between energy providers in the United States, but I do now that competition by defintion drives prices down. So the people in the United States might have been without power for a day, but competition (among other things, I'm sure...like I said, I'm no expert) allows them to pay less than over here. If blackouts would continue to happen, competition would dictate that somebody else would come in and do the job right.

Eben, wenn Microsoft endlich ihren Source Code, oder wie sich das auch immer nennt, von Windows endlich mal bekannt geben würde, hätten wir das Problem nicht.

@Trocco


" At the same time, a lot of what I hear about America over here from people apparently "in the know" is bogus - whether it's about American culture, politics, business, or anything else. So I wonder if it's better to be completely ignorant of other countries or to be completely or somewhat misinformed about them."


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

As its not the cosumer who counts, but profits, the US lead a trade war forcing genetically engeneered products into the european markets (not to mention the beef and milk contaminated with hormones strictly illegal over here).
The software and idea patents that make it impossible for small companies to work as they can't afford the international patent lawyer who can check if the idea wasn't already made a patent by Mircosoft et al.
All in the name of free trade.

His stupid war in IRAK makes the whole world more dangerous as it generates terrorists. Also it seems to prove that its better to HAVE the atomic bomb if you don't like the US, as the risk of beeing invaded is higher if you don't have it. So the scramble to get it will be faster and any atomic bomb in anybody's hand is a risk to everybody.

Bush and the US haven't ratified and don't conform to the Kyoto protocol but emit more and more CO2. And its German and Holland coasts and islands that go under (not to mention a lot of islands in the south sea).

I could go on for some time, but why bother?

Und die Quintessenz ist gleich:

Bush Sucks

@Disappointed

Wow, thanks for the fresh insights.

As I have mentioned before, I get a large proportion of my news from the SPIEGEL, the Stern and German state television, so I really never had the opportunity to see things that way you just described them. I'm sure that I speak for all of the Americans on this thread when I say this. Thanks for opening our eyes.

"As its not the cosumer who counts, but profits, the US lead a trade war forcing genetically engeneered products into the european markets (not to mention the beef and milk contaminated with hormones strictly illegal over here)."

Yes, in the US, corporations get rich by giving the customers what they don't want. Customer satisfaction levels, indeed, are the inverse of the a company's potential for generating huge profits.

@trocco:

- I can't confirm your observation that "...many pertinent issues that affect Europeans here and now are being 'swept under the rug'...". In the contrary, my impression ist that European media - definitely more than American media - are quite investigative, critical and thorough when reporting about questionable moves of European governments or politicians. (When I say "...more than American media...", this refers to American media reporting about the American government resp. American politicians, of course)

- One can say a lot of things about the United States of America - but one cannot say that they aren't powerful. Which makes it only logical that they are watched more closely than - e.g. - Nepal or Fiji.

- And: have you ever wondered if the "negative press" the U.S. are currently (i.e. in recent years) getting might have anything to do with their current government? A government that certainly doesn't give much thought to the idea of cooperating with countries they call "partners", let alone asking them for their opinions about what to do where and when. A government that thinks that its citizens are "better" than all other countries' citizens (or why else is it that the U.S. still refuse to acknowledge the international court in The Hague?). A government that neglects the Kyoto protocol (although already signed by the current president's predecessor, Bill Clinton, when still in office as U.S. president). A government that just claimed "ownership" of outer space (hello?) a few weeks ago...

- And regarding Microsoft/Linux: I personally know two companies that switched all their computers (roughly 200 in one case, more than 500 in the other) from Windows to Linux. It took them about six weeks, and the transition was made without any majorproblems. I am sure that, if under pressure, switching from Windows to Linux could be done much quicker.
(Note: Besides these two, I know of several other ones that have also switched to Linux or are in the process of doing it)

"As its not the cosumer who counts, but profits, the US lead a trade war forcing genetically engeneered products into the european markets (not to mention the beef and milk contaminated with hormones strictly illegal over here)."

The USA imports very little meat products from Europe and likewise Europe import very little meat products from the US. If you were to listen to the reasons why you will hear the same tired argument coming from both sides: BSE, GM, growth homones.... It's a load of hogwash (pun intended) on both sides of the pond.

On a similar note, regarding the USA only being in Iraq for its oil; I bet it would come as a surprise to most Germans who are always screaming "Kein Blut für Öl!" that the USA does not import very much oil from the Middle east. According the the DOE only 19% of US oil imports from the Persian Gulf and most of that is from Saudi Arabia which the US never invaded. Most US oil imports are from Canada and Mexico. Europe gets and always has gotten far more of its oil from the Middle East than the US ever did or currently does and probably ever will. Appeasement is in Europe's best interests for this very reason.

http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oi...

@trocco:
I don't know much about competition between energy providers in the United States, but I do now that competition by defintion drives prices down. So the people in the United States might have been without power for a day, but competition (among other things, I'm sure...like I said, I'm no expert) allows them to pay less than over here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/business/23...

(log-in required, I *think* that is the article I read recently)

> If blackouts would continue to happen, competition would dictate that somebody else would come in and do the job right.

No, not necessarily. The problem is that to the energy company, the risk of a blackout is mainly in externality, so don't they don't necessarily have the incentive to do the job right. Competition can have only a very limited effect here anyway, since as long as you're connected to the same grid, a blackout will affect you no matter what supplier you choose.

Corrections, sorry: an externality; so they don't

Rachel, der Spiegel - vor allem online - lässt laufend Objektivität vermissen, ob in Amerikafragen oder sonstwo. Und ich glaube auch gerne, dass in manchen Medien die Berichterstattung über die USA übertrieben kritisch ist.

Aber der von dir angeführte Vergleich ist in keiner Weise geeignet, diese These zu untermauern, denn er ist äußerst unfair.

Hier werden zwei einzelne aus dem Zusammenhang gerissene Passagen aus völlig unterschiedlichen Quellen gegenüberstellt. Das eine ist ein kurzer Artikel aus der Tagesberichterstattung (Europa), das andere die Werbung für eine Spiegel-TV-Fernsehsendung. (http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0,1518,261...) Du erwartest nicht ernsthaft in einer knappen Werbebotschaft objektive nüchterne Berichterstattung?

Warum werden nicht die beiden wirklichen Artikel auf derselben Webseite zitiert statt dieser Werbebotschaft? Sie lauten folgendermaßen:

Stromausfall : Jagd nach dem Kurzschluss-Teufel
Nach dem größten Stromausfall in der Geschichte Nordamerikas suchen die Ingenieure fieberhaft nach der Ursache. Erste Anhaltspunkte förderten sie nun zu Tage.

NEW YORK AM TAG DANACH
"Ich warte auf meinen Chef"
Nach dem katastrophalen Stromausfall entspannt sich die Situation in New York. In einigen Gebäuden laufen bereits wieder die Klimaanlagen. Bei geöffneten Fenstern - damit sich auch die Passanten ein wenig abkühlen können. 

Jetzt vergleichen wir das mal mit dem folgenden Text, auch aus dem Spiegel:

"... doch mangelnde Energie war am Wochenende keineswegs das Problem. Die wahre Schwachstelle ist das Übertragungsnetz. Ein Geflecht aus Höchstspannungsleitungen überzieht den Kontinent. ... Sie sollen den Lebensfunken der modernen Industriegesellschaft fast überall in beinahe beliebiger Menge verfügbar machen. Eigentlich.

Doch nach Angaben des Verbandes der Netzbetreiber (VDN) stößt Deutschlands internationaler Stromhandel an allen Grenzen zu Nachbarländern auf Engpässe. ... Es mangelt an Übergangskapazitäten zwischen den Staaten. Es ist ein Flaschenhals im 23 Länder umfassenden Verbundnetz UCTE ("Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity"), das von Dänemark bis Griechenland, von Polen bis Portugal reicht.

Wenn ich hier den gleichen Vergleich ziehen würde wie du oben, dann müste ich zu dem Schluss kommen, dass der Spiegel über die USA nur nüchtern berichtet und offensichtlich unter starkem "anti-European bias" leidet.

Jetzt warte nur noch ab, was in ein paar Tagen veröffentlicht wird, wenn die Redakteure genügend gesammelt haben - dann wird der Spiegel auch hier einen Riesenartikel bringen, der darlegt, was in der europäischen Energieversorgung alles im Argen liegt.

Ach ja, und noch was: Der Stromausfall in Europa traf 10 Millionen Menschen und war binnen einer halben Stunde wieder vorbei. In den USA und Kanada waren es 50 Millionen und man brauchte in vielen Gebieten bis zu fünf Tage, um das Netz wieder ans Laufen zu bekommen. Das ist schon eine andere Größenordnung.

What I find interesting about the Medienkritik site is that they do not seem to make up the information they present as it is all cited. The site does a fine job of pointing out what is being reported in Europe, particularly Germany, regarding the USA. I often get the impression that anti-Americanism has become the new national pasttime in Europe. As an American it is not hard to spot just how blatantly onesided and cynical the German media has become in the past few years. One image that particularly caught my attention in this regard was a montage of fairly recent "der Spiegel" covers:
http://www.medienkritikonline.com/covers1.JPG

I can't see how the editors of a publication that expects to be take seriously can get away with presenting such rubbish to its readers. It is hard to take the German media seriously when so much of what they report is of such tabloid/Bild quality.

@AM

So what? 15 of the 20 title pages refer to Irak and the hapless war the USinflicted on it. It all depends on how you judge the motive for occupying Irak and the 'success' the US are having establishing security and democracy.

Seems that even in the States people are beginning to understand what their President got them into. Seen the latest title page of the New Yorker?

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/N3/NYR/self_051103...

Of course, if you see Bush's policy as a beacon of democracy and human rights, then you will indeed have problems with German newspapers and magazines. By the way, with about 80 percent of non-american newspapers, Polish ones might be a possibility though.

Yes! Sign me up for a subscription to The New Yorker magazine.
Please select one of the following:

47 issues (one year) for only $47
94 issues (two years) for only $77

Puffin, vielleicht könntest du den Nichtregistrierten hier mal kurz darlegen, was die Registrierten sehen, wenn sie deinem Link folgen.

Ansonsten: Diese Titelbilder beeindrucken mich nicht? Was würde TIME alles abbilden, wenn Europa in einen Krieg zöge, denn die Amerikaner nicht wollen?

Im übrigen hat der Spiegel seinen Status als seriöses Magazin bei mir schon vor einigen Jahren verloren. Er lebt noch von dem Ruf aus den guten alten Tagen, aber die Berichterstattung ist zu ALLEN Themen oft einseitig - ob USA oder China oder Japan oder - Deutschland. Wo kein Skandal ist, da macht man sich eben einen.

Das ? sollte eigentlich ein . sein ... tschuldigung!

[Sophil, du mußt die Zeitung nicht kaufen - das Titelbild, um das es puffin ging, siehst du links auch so (auch wenn's ziemlich klein ist)]

Um mal zum Thema zurückzukommen - in meiner Stadt (Mülheim an der Ruhr) waren offensichtlich nur bestimmte Stadtteile betroffen. Ich habe jedenfalls ohne Unterbrechung Thomas Gottschalk gesehen (meine Mutter in Essen übrigens auch). Die ganze Sache ist, meiner Meinung nach, von den Medien sehr aufgebauscht worden.

@ hinweis: Danke, damit habe ich nicht gerechnet. :-)

Wolfman, ich wohne auch in einem der angeblich betroffenen Gebiete. Am Montagmorgen durfte ich dann erstmalig aus der Zeitung von dem Stromausfall.

Here's the title of a Spiegel-Forum today:

"Wird Amerika wieder demokratisch?"

I'm sure that they didn't notice the double meaning of this question.

The first poster had a good response:

"Soll diese Fragestellung etwa nahelegen, daß Amerika jetzt undemokratisch ist?
Oder wurde sie nur so formuliert, weil eben die Demokraten das Repräsentantenhaus gewonnen haben?
Jedenfalls wüsste ich nicht, wann in einem nichtdemokratischen Staat die Regierung wahlen verloren hat."

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who perceived the bias.

Trobert: Viele in Europa, einschließlich mir, halten die derzeitige Regierung nicht für demokratisch legitimiert, daher gehe ich davon aus, dass die Doppeldeutigkeit sehr wohl beabsichtig war.

Wir Deutschen sind überwiegend amerikakritisch - wenn es um die politische Seite und den Lifestyle (z.B. FastFood/Diätwahn, Plastikfake etc.) geht. Aber wir mögen die Musik, finden die Landschaft(en) fantastisch, kennen jeder mindest zwei supernette und intelligente "Amis" ;-) und würden dort jederzeit Urlaub machen.

@Markus

Really? So according to your logic, I can refer to you as "democratically illegitimate" as well because I disagree with you. That there is no further evidence to prove my point somehow doesn't matter, I guess.

@Markus: Na ja, demokratisch legitimiert ist die Regierung ja wohl (zumindest in dieser Legislaturperiode war das Wahlergebnis ja unstrittig, oder?).

Allerdings ist - ähnlich wie bei von der Lippes Hemden oder Gottschalks Anzügen - die Frage durchaus berechtigt, ob hier die beste Wahl getroffen wurde... ;-)

Die bloße Tatsache, dass es bessere Alternativen gegeben hätte, macht den Selektionsprozess bzw. das Land noch nicht "undemokratisch".

Ein Zyniker könnte sagen: "Jede Demokratie wählt die Regierung, die sie verdient". Aber das wäre rund 49 Prozent der (US-)amerikanischen Wähler gegenüber ziemlich unfair.

I apologize to everyone for leaving the discussion early yesterday...the weather was turning nice, and there ain't much good stuff left...

I have to respectfully disagree with nearly everything written by disappointed.

@Ulrich05: Hmm...as far as being investigative, etc., I think the Americans have got it alright. It was, after all, two journalists who brought down the Nixon administration 30 years ago. Between now and then, enough opposition newspapers exist to point out every discrepancy, miscue, bungled words, etc. made by anyone in the other party...not to say that Europe doesn't do the same thing. Simply open up a NY Times to see all the Rep. mistakes or a Washington Times to see all the Dem. mistakes.

Whether people agree with the United States' policies or not, it should not be reflected in real journalism. Negative press (or positive press for that matter) by definition needs to be relegated to the editorial page only, not to the front page.

And lastly, I'm sure that it's not too big of a problem to switch over 200 computers here or 500 computers there, but I'm thinking about e.g. UPS switching over all their computers, requiring thousands of man-hours and generating problems with suppliers, etc. who have yet to make the switch. I would venture to say that it can't always come off as easy as you make it out to be.

As to everything else, I apologize for now and hope I can get back to it soon. But the weather is only gonna be nice for the next couple hours and I want to get out and enjoy it. Have a great day, everyone!

das kann auch für mehr als 50% der US-amerikanischen Wähler unfair sein, da durchaus über 50% der Wähler für einen Kandidaten wählen können, aber trotzdem ein anderer Kandidat gewinnen kann. Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, aber ich glaube das war auch für die Vorletzte Präsidentenwahl in den USA so.

@Richi:

Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die aktuelle amerikanische Regierung mit einer knappen, aber unstrittigen Mehrheit gewählt. Letzteres traf auf die vorletzte Präsidentenwahl nicht zu.

Die derzeitige amerikanische Regierung (nicht die der vorhergehenden Legislaturperiode) wurde also von rund 49 Prozent der amerikanischen Wähler nicht gewählt.

Nicht dafür verantwortlich, dass die derzeitige amerikanische Regierung derzeit im Amt ist, sind also 49 Prozent der amerikanischen Wähler.

Dass auf Grund des amerikanischen Wahlsystems durchaus der Fall eintreten kann, dass die siegreiche Partei nicht gleichzeitig auch die Mehrheit der Stimmen erhält, ist kurios, aber korrekt und war bei der ersten Wahl, die von George W. Bush gewonnen wurde, auch der Fall (hinzu kam, dass damals Unregelmäßigkeiten bei der Stimmenauszählung in - zumindest theoretisch - durchaus wahlentscheidendem Ausmaß festgestellt wurden, die dem damailgen Wahlergebnis einen "Beigeschmack" verliehen).

@trocco:"Negative press (or positive press for that matter) by definition needs to be relegated to the editorial page only, not to the front page."

Says who?

Are you seriously implying the American press was/is limiting the contents of their front pages strictly to facts (rather than interpretations and opinions) when reporting about, for example, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, 09-11 - or even German chancellor Helmut Schroeder after he had stated that Germany wasn't going to join the crusade against Iraq several years ago.?

The newspaper you describe, if it ever existed, doesn' exist anymore. Neither in the U.S. nor in Germany.

And regarding the "...enough opposition newspapers {that} exist to point out every discrepancy" - that may have been the case in the days of Woodward and Bernstein (which was before the time I dare to claim to have closely followed {US-}American politics), that mostly still was true in the eighties (which is when I resided in the U.S.) - but it certainly has dwindled to a rather "moderate" (to say the least) level since the beginning of the "George W. era".
(I prefer to refrain from speculating about the reasons, as I don't want to repeat other people's speculations)

Wie eine Amerikanerin mal über die US-Amerikanischen Medien sagte:
"If Aliens invaded Quebec they'd give it two paragraphs in the entertainemnet section."

@trocco: Natürlich wäre es schön, wenn sich journalisten wieder auf journalistische Tugenden besinnen würden und Kommentar und Bericht trennen. Aber willst Du uns weißmachen, dies sei eine Deutsche Verfehlung? Das ist eine internationale Unsitte.

@Trobert:
I agree with Markus de on this one - I too do not regard the present President as being democratically elected, since it wasn't a plebiscite of the people that decided whether Bush or Gore was elected, but a court of law, and lawyers, who deemed that the dubious results of the electronic vote should be accepted.

So I don't see where Markus' disagreeing with you can be equated with his being 'democratically illegitimate'.
And the whole farce concerning that election was covered in very good detail, and, in opposition to such media empires as CNN or Fox, in admirable neutrality. The opinion of most European media was that the Bush administration was legally elected, but not democratically

@cj de: As someone who has worked on newspapers before, every single one of my editors would never let anything subjective, flowery, overstated, understated, etc. appear in the news section. Ever. Bias belongs somewhere else.

If you can look at the two examples posted by Rachel from the Spiegel and tell me that there's no difference between them as regards reporting (embellishing) facts, then we'll just have to disagree.

@Ulrich05: I'm guessing I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant by negative and positive press was simply that there should be no bias at all in a *news* story. Most stories in most reputable newspapers, even conservative ones, were fair when it came to Saddam Hussein, his "alleged" weapons programs, speculation, etc. They reported what government officials said, not what they themselves believed. This they saved for the editorial pages, where it belonged. I can't speak for European papers on this subject, unfortunately. But most journalists in the USA take their vows of reporting objective truth seriously. In fact, it's supposed to be their highest law.

And if you think that GWB doesn't have his detractors, I would encourage you to read just about anything having to do with him in the NYT, Washington Post, or LA Times (the latter is reportedly getting "better"). Remember the "7 words" included in the State of the Union address? Every left-leaning paper ripped his administration apart on it, and editorials there are NEVER friendly to him. Which is fine, if it's in the right place (the editorial page). Oftentimes, it is not.

If you require further evidence, maybe check out www.timeswatch.org for perceived liberal bias by the NYT.

@odondon irl: Without fighting the 2000 election all over again, it was a lot more complicated than I think many Europeans would appreciate. I myself have forgotten many of the details, but it first came down to which counties should be recounted. Then it came down to what constitutes a vote (the whole hanging chad thing), which is entirely subjective and, in the eyes of some, completely unfair. When something is deemed unfair, it is challenged in court. And the appeals process in the USA eventually saw the case (for right or wrong, it's definitely arguable - state vs. federal) reach the Supreme Court, which eventually decided in favor of Bush. It was definitely a messy election, but it wasn't the "lawyers" who decided the election; it was the judges, each appointed by sitting presidents and confirmed by the Senate. Presidents and senators are chosen through elections to make decisions that affect the citizenry, including who the justices on the Supreme Court should be. In this sense, the 2000 election was still democratic, even if it didn't follow the normal democratic path, in the same way that impeachment is democratic in that the representatives who call for it are themselves elected officials.

@trocco: Interessant. Wann war das? Vor 20 Jahren? Vor 20 Jahren war der Spiegel auch noch seriös.
Aber Du willst mir nicht erzählen, daß amerikanische Fensehsender bei ihren Nachrichten Nachricht und Kommentar trennen, oder?

@trocco - I agree on the complexity issue, and this isn't a forum with enough space to discuss it in all detail, which is why I stuck to a (placative) short version - hoping not to offend anyone!

And I've no problem taking back the 'lawyers' bit, sorry about that.

I read a lot of print material about the case, both the run-up and the case itself, by both conservative and liberal European newspapers in four different languages, covering GB, Italy, Germany and Holland (therefore covering countries with a range of different basic attitudes to the USA and their politics) and found the basic theme to be that the court case was only the end of a long chain of incidents, each of which in itself would have led to a mis-election in Germany, for example, but were considered only borderline in the US. I've always admired both the sense of democracy Americans have, and the fact that their institutions and media have always been enlightening examples of how to maintain these standards, but the lead-up to this case in the US, especially as it was covered by the above mentioned TV-stations shocked and disturbed.

But, being an American yourself: please prove me wrong!!
:o)

@cj de: I'm not sure what you're referring to as being 20 years ago. Objectivity and fairness? And although I was referring strictly to print journalism, I readily admit that cable television news in the US blends news, opinion, and entertainment. However, if you turn on any local 6 o'clock news report nearly any place in the country, you'll usually just get news and news only.

@odondon irl: Heh, I was glued to the couch for weeks to the detriment of my classes at university ;-)...

It's possible that any number of the mishaps might have caused a mis-election in Germany, but the law in Florida was clear in stating that the election returns needed to be certified by some certain date (Dec I think). There was no changing that date. And for some reason that I can't even understand, the fact remains that ballots are lost or not counted in every single election. I think Chicago had some thousands in that election that didn't even get counted.

Either way, I'm sure it wasn't the US media's proudest moment, but I'm not sure what you find shocking or disturbing. I think they did a halfway decent job in the confusion of at least telling what was going on. And that really is their job. And since the law was unclear (at least unclear enough to be argued about), it's only fair to not expect reporters to know what to expect next.

I do know that Fox News "analysts" were incredulous about Al Gore and Warren Christopher. I also know things have been said about how Florida initially got taken away from Gore by some producer at Fox News (relative of Bush), but I'm flaky on that whole story, too. Like I said, certainly not a shiny moment...analysts from both sides of the aisle were going nuts, along with most of the country, too. It was certainly the most emotional election that I've ever experienced and possibly ever will again.

@trocco:

- ob die Kritik an der (eigenen) Regierung in den maßgeblichen amerikanischen Blättern in den letzten Jahren an Substanz und Häufigkeit abgenommen hat, sollten wir mangels geeigneter objektiver Beurteilungskriterien "offen" lassen. Mein Eindruck ist, dass dies deutlich der Fall ist. Und dieser Eindruck stützt sich auf durchaus nicht seltene Lektüre amerikanischer Zeitungen, darunter auch die NYT.

- Die NYT, die ich damals las, beschränkte sich in ihrer auf der Titelseite plazierten Meldung zur Absage des deutschen Kanzlers Gerhard Schröder, an der Seite der USA gegen den Irak in den Krieg zu ziehen, keineswegs darauf, diese Tatsache nur zu berichten. Es wurden eifrigst Vermutungen angestellt, welche Gründe dies wohl haben könnte und welche Konsequenzen sich daraus ergeben könnten. Und "bewertet" wurde diese Entscheidung des deutschen Kanzlers sehr wohl.
Nichts Anderes geschieht/geschah in der europäischen Presse, wenn George W. kundtut, dass - z.B. - der Internationale Gerichtshof in Den Haag für amerikanische Staatsbürger nicht maßgeblich sei, dass das Protokoll von Kyoto ihn nicht interessiere oder dass die Situation und rechtliche Behandlung der Häftlinge in Guantanamo den Rest der Welt nichts anginge.
Ich bezeichne das als "negative Presse" - und ich sehe diese Ursache-Wirkung-Beziehung weder überraschend noch unangemessen. Es bleibt Dir unbenommen, dies anders zu sehen.

- CJ des Anmerkung zur Sachlichkeit amerikanischer Nachrichtensendungen kann ich im Übrigen nur unterstreichen.

@trocco:

ich habe soeben Deine Erwiderung auf CJ des Beitrag gelesen - "... if you turn on any local 6 o'clock news report nearly any place in the country, you'll usually just get news and news only."

Da ich keine amerikanische Fernsehstation kenne, auf die diese verwegene Behauptung zutrifft, muss ich annehmen, dass wir in verschiedenen Universen leben. Ich gehe daher auch davon aus, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, die ich kenne, nicht jene sind, von denen Du sprichst. Somit erübrigt sich aus meiner Sicht eine weitere Diskussion.

@trocco:
Ich muss meine Vorredner hier unterstuetzen. Ich habe eine Hochachtung vor den Amerikanern, dass sie trotz ihrer Medien eine Demokratie aufrecht erhalten koennen.

Die Kritik an der Einseitigkeit/Voreingenommenheit des Spiegels gegenueber den USA ist durchaus berechtigt (wenn auch in ihrer Form vielleicht ueberzogen). Die Titelbilder des Spiegels zu innerdeutschen Themen sind z.B. weder objektiver noch weniger aggressiv. Deiner Behauptung, dass die amerikanischen Print- und lokalen TV-Medien ein Musterbeispiel objektiver Berichterstattung darstellen sollen, muss ich allerdings doch heftigst widersprechen.

@Ulrich05: I see your point, plus it's getting harder for me to condemn the German press for showing too much bias when every major newspaper in the States generally does so as well. What I was trying to say is that good journalists *should not* put bias anywhere, period. That it happens is unfortunately true.

What I meant with the 6 o'clock news was a bit different. In every town I've lived in (and it's been a lot), the *local* 6 o'clock news dealt with national issues for about 3 minutes before delving into local issues, which didn't usually even merit enough importance to be biased one way or the other. Then came the weather, then came sports, then a local human interest story, and that's it. Next time your in the States, check out the local 6 o'clock news. I know for a fact it's still around in most communities ;-)....

@hein: I agree. What I think I was trying to get at is that there's not much analysis of the opposing point of view in any newspapers over here. It's all well and good to criticize Bush if you don't like his policies, but I'm not really sure that the average European over here is knowledgeable enough (or cares enough) about American politics to know, for example, that Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol knowing full well that the Senate would not accept it; or that one reason the Protocol is damned by Republicans is because of a perception that it's unfair by not including China, the world's second largest emitter of CO2 gases. A civil argument can really only take place if both sides know the facts, and in many cases, I don't think Europeans appreciate American points of view or want to learn them (and vice versa...don't get me wrong!). A final example to illustrate my point:

If an American commented on Germany's high unemployment without understanding anything about the economic model, history, etc. used over here, his statement would rightly be judged as ignorant. How is it any different for a European who scratches his head about all the *awful decisions* made by Bush, but who really isn't interested in pursuing the background about why those decisions were made in teh first place. And with magazines like der Spiegel, etc. reinforcing misconceptions, what does one expect but to think that all Americans are gun-toting lunatics who drive SUVs and make war at the drop of a dime (at least when a Republican is in the house).

Don't get me wrong. This ignorance is more alive and well in my own America probably than it is over here. I'm too salt-of-the-earth to think that there should be a test before people are allowed to vote, but sometimes I wonder. So many times I've encountered people (mainly Americans) who really have NO idea what a particular issue means (not even that I disagree, they are just clueless about e.g. terrorism, drilling in ANWR, immigration, etc.). And these people vote. Everyone is certainly allowed an opinion, but I just wish there were more of an informed opinion, both in the US and in Europe.

Didn't mean for this to turn into a rant about stupidity and misconceptions, but it did. Sorry for that. Have a great day, everyone!