Dialog International

"Stupid American Phenomenon" and the Decline of the US Press

Heribert Seifert und Stephan Russ-Mohl have a piece in the NZZ-Online about the vanishing foreign correspondents working for American newspapers (and television networks).  The paradox is that everyone acknowledges that we live in a globalized world, where a terrorist attack in Mumbai impacts events in the US, yet the big media organizations devote fewer and fewer resources to covering international stories. The results of this cutback in foreign coverage is growing ignorance of the world, which could lead to more disastrous policy decisions like the Iraq invasion:

Philip Seib, ein Experte für internationale Berichterstattung an der University of Southern California, spricht vom «stupid American phenomenon». Die Medien hätten versagt. Die Amerikaner seien nicht mehr hinreichend informiert, um Entscheidungen zu treffen. Je stärker die Auslandberichterstattung abgebaut werde, desto weniger weise fielen die politischen Entscheidungen in Washington aus – eine kühne Hypothese, an der bei näherer Betrachtung aber doch eine ganze Menge dran ist: Ranghohe Politiker erfahren bekanntlich vieles aus der Zeitung – und nicht nur von ihren Geheimdiensten und diplomatischen Vertretungen. Wenn in ihren Zeitungen nichts in Erfahrung zu bringen ist, entscheiden sie womöglich nicht nur schlecht informiert, es fehlt ihnen auch jenes kritische Korrektiv sachkompetenter und meinungsmächtiger Kommentatoren, das in der «guten alten Zeit» öffentliche Meinung genannt wurde, obschon es sich eigentlich um die veröffentlichte Meinung einiger weniger handelte. Zugegeben, das war Kommunikation unter gebildeten Eliten, die sich aber durch das Blabla «demokratisierter» Diskurse im Internet nicht ersetzen lässt. (Philip Seib, and expert on international reporting at USC speaks of the "stupid American phenomenon".  The media have failed. Americans are no longer sufficiently informed for making decisions. As more foreign coverage is cut back, the political decisions made in Washington have been unwise - a bold hypothesis that has a great deal of merit: it is a fact that senior politicians learn a great deal from newspapers - and not just from intelligence sources or diplomatic outposts.  If there is nothing to learn from reading the newspapers, they are apt to make less informed decisions. They are no longer exposed to the critical corrective of knowledgeable commentators with strong opinions on topics, who, in the "good old days" formed the public opinion, even if it was only the published opinion of a few observers. Admittedly, it was communication by an educated few, but preferable to babel of the "democratic discourse" that we get on the Internet.)

Today is seems almost quaint to read the dispatches by Dorothy Thompson at the Berlin bureau of The New York Post, reporting on the rise of National Socialism to American readers. Or the work of William Shirer, who reported from Berlin for the Chicago Tribune on the start of World War II. The Chicago Tribune shut down its foreign news bureaus some time ago. I had a feeling of nostalgia recently when I read Martha Dodd's book Through Embassy Eyes about her time as the US ambassador's daugher in Berlin from 1934- 1938.  The book contains vivid descriptions of the large contingent of  US newspaper correspondents living in Berlin.

Jill Carroll, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor (Carroll was kidnapped in Iraq) wrote a study for Harvard's Kennedy School on Foreign News Coverage by the US Media (pdf) where she documents the decline in foreign bureaus.  Carroll estimates that the number of US foreign correspondents fell from 188 in 2002 to just 140 in 2008.  In 2007 the prestige newspaper The Boston Globe, which over the years won many awards for its international news coverage, shut down its offices in Berlin, Bogota and Jerusalem and recalled all of its foreign correspondents. But Carroll also discovered that the decline in foreign news coverage does not reflect a lack of interest by the public in international stories.  If anything, the demand for international news is greater than ever, but shutting down foreign bureaus is purely a financial decision by the conglomerates and private equity groups that now own most of the major US newspapers:

The declines in coverage and foreign bureaus don’t seem to be because editors or reporters don’t see the value of foreign coverage, but is rather a reflection of the priorities of the financial decision makers at media companies. Those decision makers don’t appear to factor in the non-monetary value great foreign coverage brings a paper when considering the cost of running a foreign bureau.

The private equity groups care nothing about the public mission of the newspapers: to them, it is just an asset that hopefully will throw off enough cash to cover debt service.  A good example is the Chicago Tribune - the paper of the great William Shirer.  The Tribune's parent company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 5.  It's owner lists $13 billion in debt.  Thus a great newspaper has been destroyed by greed.

Georgia Crisis Sparks Anti-American Sentiment in Germany

I know George W. Bush is unpopular in Germany (as he is in the US) but I was unprepared for some of the pro-Putin opinions that have been expressed in the German media and especially in the German blogosphere.  There was considerable Schadenfreude on many German fronts that Russia's invasion of Georgian territory was a blow to the foreign policy of the US, and the conflict in Georgia is viewed by some as a proxy war between Russia and the US, with jubilation that Putin has been victorious on all fronts. But the origins of the conflict itself have been pinned on the US:

Die fremde Intervention und militärische Präsenz der USA auf dem europäischen Kontinent durch ein expansionistisches Militärbündnis an der Grenze Russlands bringt Unruhe und sät Konflikte, die Europa destabilisieren. Polen und die baltischen Staaten müssen an die Leine genommen werden, damit sich ihre Russophobie nicht weiter schädigend auf die EU auswirken kann. (The foreign intervention and military presence of the US on the European continent with an expansionist military alliance on the border of Russia has caused unrest and breeds conflicts that destabilize Europe.  Poland and the Baltic States must be brought back into line, so that the Russo-phobes cannot inflict damage on the EU.)

Then Der Spiegel asserted that Washington implicitly gave the green light for Georgia to undertake military operations in South Ossetia:

Die USA unternahmen einiges, um Georgien ihre Unterstützung zuzusichern: Sie schickten Militärberater in den Kaukasus, nahmen mit tausend Mann an einem Manöver teil, betrieben mit Nachdruck die Aufnahme Georgiens in die Nato - und taten laut kund, dass sie die territoriale Einheit des Verbündeten in der Auseinandersetzung um die separatistischen Enklaven Abchasien und Südossetien unterstützten, ohne freilich ihre Bereitschaft zu zeigen, selbst militärisch einzugreifen. (The US did several things to assure Georgia of its support: it sent military advisors into the Caucasus, participated in military maneuvers with 1,00 troops, insisted on Georgia's inclusion in NATO, and proclaimed loudly that it supported the territorial integrity of its partner with respect to the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abchasia, even though it didn't expressly signal it was ready to intervene militarily.)

So blogs like Duckhome loudly proclaimed that the US wants war with Russia; that was the plan all along:

Tatsächlich wollte Bush diesen Krieg und er wird ihn ausbauen. Dieser Krieg ist gut für Bush. Er schafft Arbeitsplätze in der Waffenindustrie, bringt Europa in neue Abhängigkeiten und vor allem verschleiert er die Probleme die Bush der USA und der Weltwirtschaft bereitet hat. (Bush in fact welcomed this war and he will expand it.  This war is good for Bush.  It creates jobs in the armaments industry, forces Europe into a position of dependency and above all obscures the problems that Bush has created for the US and the world economy.)

And a commenter agrees that, comparing Russia and the US,  "the Americans are the worse epidemic"("die Ami's (sind) die schlimmere Epidemie").

In his blog NachDenkSeiten Albrecht Mueller expresses his fear that the leadership of the German Social Democrats is in the pocket of the US.  The party is missing a huge chance by not rejecting the US "policy of confrontation":

Der Krieg zwischen Georgien und Russland hat nämlich gezeigt, dass wir uns unter Anleitung der USA und einiger Nachbarn Russlands in neue Gefahren begeben. Es geht darum, uns davor zu bewahren, in eine neue Konfrontation mit den „Russen“ und ins Kriegsrisiko gezogen zu werden. (The war between Georgia and Russia has shown that the US and a few neighboring countries to Russian have put us in new danger. We must do everything not to be drawn into a new confrontation with the Russians and the new risks of war.)

In fact, notwithstanding the bellicose noises coming from the neocons and the McCain campaign, the response of the US has been rather measured; military options have been vocally rejected by the Secretary of Defense and others in the Bush administration. Perhaps this is one of the few benefits of having our military capabilities bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It will be interesting to see if the pro-Russia, pro-Putin and anti-American opinion in Germany persists as Russian troops expand their occupation of Georgia and news of Russian atrocities against the population of Georgia leaks out.

UDATE: DerSpiegelfechter: US progressive media "incredibly naive" ( herzergreifend naiv) for not celebrating Putin's invasion of Georgia.

 

Is this satire?

The left-leaning Tageszeitung in Berlin has ignited passions on both sides of the Atlantic with its cover headline Onkel Baracks Hütte (Uncle Barack's Cabin). Even the New York Times picked up the story:

A leftist German newspaper provoked outrage and condemnation for printing what many readers called a racial slur about Senator Barack Obama. The newspaper, Die Tageszeitung, printed a front-page article about Mr. Obama’s becoming the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and used a photograph of the White House and the headline “Uncle Barack’s Cabin,” in German, a reference to the antislavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by Harriet Beecher Stowe, which contains negative racial stereotypes.

True, the term Uncle Tom is usually used in a pejorative sense, often by blacks in condemning other blacks for giving into racism. But over time the actual 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe has largely been forgotten. The book is an abolitionist classic and was read as such in 19th century America. It is no longer read here, but is read by young students in Germany who study American history. Certainly taz (as Die Tageszeitung is called) has been supportive of Barack Obama's candidacy and is known for its strong opposition to racism in all its manifestations. The fact that the word Hütte appears with an image of the White House makes it clear that the editors were attempting satire.

taz editor Bernd Pickert writes:

Wir geben mit der Zeile und dem majestätischen Bild des Washingtoner Machtzentrums dem Triumph Ausdruck, dass Onkel Tom passé ist - in Zeiten Onkel Baracks ist alles ganz anders. Schade, dass das missverstanden werden konnte. (By combining the phrase with the majestic image of the Washington seat of power we are expressing the triumph that Uncle Tom is passé - the age of Uncle Barack things are far different. It is unfortunate that this could be misunderstood.)

Gabor Steingart Mocks Americans in Wall Street Journal Piece

Last year I wrote about how Dow Jones board member Dieter von Holtzbrinck resigned his post in protest of Rupert Murdoch's takeover of the venerable Wall Street Journal. Von Holtzbrinck was very much aware of the business practices of Murdoch's News Corporation, and worried that the WSJ's legacy of journalistic excellence would be destroyed:

"I cannot prove that my worries are right. I can only refer to News Corp. business practices in the past." Von Holtzbrinck wrote.

Well, von Holtzbrinck's concerns were very much justified:  since taking over the Wall Street Journal Murdoch has moved swiftly to transform America's premier business newspaper into a neoconservative rag. After firing key editorial staff, Murdoch has replaced coverage of business with right-wing political commentary:

PEJ examined the Journal's front pages from every other weekday edition between Dec. 13, 2007, and March 13, 2008, to determine if the paper’s agenda had changed, the report said.
Among its findings:
• "Business coverage dropped more than half -- falling from 30% in the months prior to the sale to 14%."
• "In the first four months of Murdoch’s ownership, the Journal has shifted its focus, opting for less business coverage and for more coverage of national politics and international issues."

In his effort to beef-up neoconservative commentary, Murdoch has found a kindred soul in Der Spiegel's Washington correspondent Gabor Steingart.  In his first op/ed contribution on May 10, Steingart mocks Americans desire to have universal health care, similar to the programs offered in Germany, France, and every other highly industrialized country:

When I begin to feel homesick for Germany, I have discovered a cheap and easy way out. I simply turn on the TV and listen to a Barack Obama stump speech.

The promised land of universal health care, secure pensions, a lot of green-collar jobs and stable bridges brings me back to my home country. My grandma, who has worked in a post office all her life, enjoys her pension without having ever observed the stock market. Everyone who travels through the countryside can see thousands of windmills, but never a collapsed bridge. And the best: My mom, my friends and everyone around them have access to first-class medical services.

After telling German readers for months that Barack Obama's candidacy was a "fairy tale", now Steingart tells the WSJ's readers that Senator Obama's programs to improve the lives of ordinary Americans are a fairy tale we can't afford.  Of course, he doesn't mention the $1 trillion price tag of the Iraq War debacle which Murdoch so fervently supports (as long as his own sons remain out of it).

Barack Obama is Murdoch's (and Steingart's) worst nightmare: A charismatic black candidate who wants to end torture, withdraw from Iraq, end the tax cuts for the wealthy and make health care accessible to all.  As the campaign progresses, watch for further hit pieces in the Wall Street Journal on Obama. No doubt many will have the byline of Gabor Steingart.

Does Der Spiegel plagiarize?

I've written about Der Spiegel's Washington correspondent Gabor Steingart and his crusade against Barack Obama.  On Wednesday Steingart continued his assault on Senator Obama, comparing his campaign to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.  Steingart knows nothing about America beyond the Beltway; he derives his knowledge of US politics from lunches with his neocon pals.  But at least he doesn't plagiarize his pieces (as far as I can tell).  He's nearly always wrong in his analysis, but at least his mistakes are his own.

Not so for his protégé Gregor Peter Schmitz.  A reader referred me to this post on BLOGBAR where blogger DonAlphonso discovered that a recent piece of "reporting" by Schmitz was in fact a verbatim translation of a Washigton Post story. Here is just one of the passages that DonAlphonso highlights:

Schmitz writes: "Washington - Im Januar 2007 spazierte Barack Obama vom Senat in Washington drei Blöcke weiter zu einem unauffälligen Bürogebäude. Ein paar Tage vorher hatte er dort ein paar Räume angemietet, die waren noch leer bis auf einige Plastikmöbel. Der Senator zog einen Klappstuhl heran, war in der “Washington Post” zu lesen, und setzte sich Julianna Smoot gegenüber - der erfolgreichen Spendensammlerin, die er angeheuert hatte, um die nötigen Millionen für seine Bewerbung um das Weiße Haus einzutreiben. Smoot blätterte durch die dünne Liste an Spendern, die Obama bislang zusammengetragen hatte."

And here is the Washington Post piece: "On a frigid day in early January, Barack Obama rode the three blocks from the Capitol to a nondescript, four-story, white-brick building where he had rented a spartan office suite. Obama pulled out a folding chair and sat down with Julianna Smoot, the veteran Democratic fundraiser he had hired to raise the millions of dollars he would need for a presidential bid. Smoot thumbed through a thin list of potential donors that Obama had gathered during his 2004 Senate bid in Illinois and as he helped other politicians raise money for elections in 2006."

No quotation marks from Schmitz, a lame reference to the Washington Post, but otherwise the entire piece is a word-for-word translation into German.  Now some bloggers are going back to review all of Schmitz's reports from Washington.

I would even go back further.  Gregor Peter Schmitz did some graduate studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  I taught at Harvard and know of the very strict rules concerning plagiarism: it is grounds for immediate expulsion from the university.  Did this behavior pattern also apply to Schmitz's scholarly activities at Harvard?

But the biggest question is:  what kind of editorial controls are there at Der Spiegel?  Few, if any, it would seem.