The “Teufelskreis” of anti-Americanism

Others, including ZDF Bureau Chief and Correspondent Eberhard Piltz, felt that ideology was a major impediment to quality coverage of the United States. Piltz spoke of “prejudice” and described it as “an intellectual arrogance that thinks that the American way of life, feeling, taste and thinking is inferior and not authentic.” He complained that many journalists see “the U.S. through an ideological lens,” and that “most of them grew up with the leftist, socialist dream and now they look for scapegoats.” Stern magazine correspondent Michael Streck agreed with Piltz’s statement and worried “that populism goes over the line quite often.” Deutsche Welle Bureau Chief for North and South America Ruediger Lentz also expressed deep concern that “populist” ideology and views often “resonate the public mood” when it came to coverage of the United States.

The attitude of the mainstream German press toward the covering of America in an irrational, emotional manner has been quite pronounced in the past decade, and especially so toward the United States after 9/11. Medienkritik uncovers what even some heavy hitters in the German language press have found unethical and biased in it.

One could easily suspect that the overraught and tasteless coverage of any matter as it relates the United States is even painful for the press doing it to maintain a reader and viewership. For many, that indeed seems to have been the case. That it appears to be a systematic demonization of not just the US government administration’s policies, but also any feature of American culture is quite plain: according to the repeated impressions made by the German press, all American urban dwellers are impoverished and angry black men or put upon women, all believers, including Mr. Bush is a religious fundamentalist no different than the violent Taliban and al Queda.

None of it is true. Mr. Bush is a mainstream Methodist, a church that seems more obsessed with inclusion and diversity than celebrating the faith. For the editors back home in Germany, which have a near monopoly on the news given the lack of German speaking populations outside of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the view their readers form of events can be scripted. It also needs to be noted that the German press lacks breadth and range of opinion since any outlet with a diverging point of view is either an upstart or part of a industry of trade publication.

Medienkritik:

Cornel Faltin put it best: “Some colleagues already have stories in their suitcases.” In Faltin’s view, some correspondents working in the United States are influenced by pre-existing views. One interviewee stated anonymously that many journalists come to the U.S. “with preconceived bias.” Eberhard Piltz concluded that, “they tend to look at America with their European, German eyes.” He added that, "stories that make Bush look bad were requested all the time." According to Piltz, one would only have to "wait by the phone for the editors." Piltz also stated that the editors were those who "went in the streets and cried for Ho Chi Minh" at an earlier time and many still viewed the United States as "the spoiler of their dreams." Piltz was of the opinion that Spiegel and Stern magazines were in the forefront of "Bush bashing" and cautioned that it was often difficult to separate "Bush-bashing from anti-Americanism." He described anti-Americanism as a "larger phenomenon" that reaches back to at least 1917.

Another factor that has contributed to “predetermined” reporting is the excessive reliance on so-called “Leitmedien” or leading media. Martin Wagner explained that many “editors at quality papers read The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Der Spiegel and have stories and ideas all ready before the day starts.” This game of follow-the-leader reduces the number of issues that actually reach the German news consumer. Wagner stressed that many examples of good journalism were ignored because they did not relate to “hot” topics.

All of it whipped up by a press struggling to maintain its’ circulation against sources available on the internet, and against apathy itself. If only their ‘robust’ solution to this challenge was to have a broad range of views, and stick to more incisive accuracy, they might achieve this. As it has always been well known, throwing red meat to the mob only works as long as they remain hungry and angry. Sooner or later even the least inquisitive among them get exhausted by it.