Fish in a Barrel

Another good example of Davids Medienkritik going off the deep end: This recent post about a Katrina-one-year-after story in Der Spiegel. Ray D. , who just got a teary send-off from Medienkritik readers after three years of pounding the keyboard, counters Marc Pitzke’s reporting about poverty in America with paragraph after paragraph of different figures, from other sources, then says “See! SPIEGEL ignored all this other information! You see how anti-American they are?” Actually, what he wrote was, “little will change as long as cynical hacks like Marc Pitzke continue to pollute the media landscape with their hackneyed tripe” (emphasis Ray D.’s) — which might sound like a dire temper tantrum but amounts to a normal day at the races for Medienkritik.

What made me spit my oatmeal, though, was a line about ideology. It seems Ray D. and everyone else at “the best blog on German politics” (Andrew Sullivan) think the Federal Republic of Germany is just a timid step to the right of the old DDR. “This is not about reality,” writes Ray, trenchantly enough, “it is about ideology. Not the ideology of President Bush, but the ideology of Marc Pitzke, his editors in Hamburg, and the readers back home in SPIEGEL-land. It is an ideology of activist Socialism that can only survive if it can convince its captive audience that life is much worse outside the prison walls.”

Riiiight. Either Ray D’s a fine comedian with a wonderful flair for exaggeration, or a dull ideologue with no sense of proportion. “An ideology of activist Socialism” at Der Spiegel? Bombard Marc Pitzke’s reporting all you like — I don’t know the guy — and lacerate German blindness about the United States, something we’ve engaged in here at Radio Free Mike. But if you really think Der Spiegel’s yuppie newsrooms are full of activist Socialists (with a capital S!) then you’re just another gullible idiot living on a tinkling rosy cloud with flying sheep, like those hardened realists over at Pajamas Media, who believe the news from Iraq has been terrible because the mainstream media phoning in their reports from Baghdad have conspired to “break the will” of Americans and end the war. (Scroll down to Buck Smith’s comment.) Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.

     posted 24 September 2006 by Michael Scott Moore

  1. I’m curious who these Davids Medienkritik guys are. Back once upon a time, the answer would have been self-evident: spooks. Even after the Wende, there were spooks here, and I met several of them. But now? Is someone funding them? Who?

    — Ed Ward    Sep 25, 04:18 pm    #

  2. Thank you. Your title sums up DMK. Those guys remind me of the creationists who ‘prove’ intelligent design by finding problems with evolution. That’s called, um, a logical fallacy. But why don’t they just come clean and call it Davids Spiegelkritik? I believe there are a few other German media outlets to critique beyond Stern, Der Spiegel and Die Welt. Rinse. Repeat.

    — Ben    Sep 26, 12:15 am    #

  3. I agree; what’s the motivation to stretch your arguments so far? Either ideology or money. But don’t understimate ideology in the blogosphere. My point is, Medienkritik’s influence is ridiculous compared to the site’s actual understanding and expertise.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Sep 26, 12:35 am    #

  4. It actually has influence? Where? On whom?

    — Ed Ward    Sep 26, 01:27 pm    #

  5. There’s a whole generation of bloggers in the US who seem to get their ideas about Germany and the German press from Davids Medienkritik. Just look at the blurbs in their right-hand column—the guy from Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, who admits he knows nothing about Germany, thinks they’re authorities. I met an otherwise intelligent and mature man at a Fulbright dinner last night who took them seriously. And at least one guy from Medienkritik has been known to pop up on the lecture circuit in the United States. You may think that sounds like a joke; but no.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Sep 26, 02:11 pm    #

  6. @ Michael,

    Wow, what is this, bash Medienkritik week here on the site? I guess it isn’t particularly hard to take cheap shots now that I am taking a break from blogging. That must have taken a lot of bravery Michael.

    Anyway Michael, if you were paying attention, the point of the piece you rip out of context was that SPIEGEL ONLINE makes it sound as if poverty in the US is really terrible and that Bush is to blame and just doesn’t care and is a big liar. Our point was that poverty isn’t significantly better or worse than it is in Germany, and the numbers clearly back that up. If you can disprove that point, be my guest. As far as Socialism goes, we have never said that the situation in Germany today is comparable to the DDR in any way. Here is another example of you taking our ideas out of context and misinterpreting them. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to deny that many at SPIEGEL and throughout German media share an affinity for large, activist “social” states. Are you telling me that the folks at SPIEGEL are all committed laissez-faire capitalists now? Who are you trying to bullshit here? As far as Marc Pitzke goes, maybe you ought to get to know his work, it frequently appears on the SPIEGEL ONLINE homepage. And then you tell me that I lack expertese when you don’t even know who the hell Marc Pitzke is? Ouch…

    Beyond that, you have very little to offer your readers beyond mud slinging and gutless cheap shots at our site. Do you actually have anything concrete to criticize or contribute to the conversation? Not only does the Fulbright scholar you mention respect our site, but so do a great many German journalists, political figures and American foreign service officials. So I guess they must all be stupid as well and you are the only one who really knows what he is talking about.

    BTW: If you want to talk about stupid conspiracy theories, just look that the laughable comments above this one. David is a German citizen and high school teacher and I am a graduate student with dual US-German citizenship. We just happened to get fed up with the bias in German media. If you ever expect to gain respect as a blogger, let me give you a little piece of advice: Respect others, even if you don’t agree with them.

    As far as you talking about my tearful fairwell, talk about a cowardly cheap shot. When you have blogged for three years and had the level of success we have had, then you can talk to me about our level of expertese. Maybe it just bothers you intensely that we have put a mirror up to the disgusting slander and bias that has passed as journalism in German media for the past several years. Instead, maybe you ought to worry a little more about the harmful impact German media are having on millions of Germans’ percpetions of the United States.

    — RayD    Oct 1, 12:02 am    #

  7. Ray,

    Thanks for the advice. I’ve already got a fair amount of respect as a blogger, thanks. My point is that your site has to sling mud on a daily basis and has to stretch (or even make things up) to do it. It’s a form of blog-populism that works like red meat in the States — as I guess you’ve noticed, judging from your “level of success” — and it mirrors the anti-American populism you loathe in the German media. Since there isn’t enough on the Web about exactly what you guys get wrong, I thought it might help to put some howlers on the record. “Activist Socialists” was one. There will be more.

    All I said about Marc Pitzke is that I don’t know him personally. Of course I know who he is.

    And (sorry, cheap shot): “Expertise.”

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 1, 11:27 am    #

  8. Oh, and my point here was not to defend Pitzke’s piece, since I don’t have time to go through both it and your post point by point, but to show where you guys go off the deep end. I mean, come on. The bit about convincing a “captive audience that life is much worse outside the prison walls”? That’s not DDR imagery?

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 1, 02:13 pm    #

  9. @ Michael,

    You make a lot of claims with very little supporting evidence. Why don’t you tell us what Medienkritik has “made up?” It is really interesting that none of our thousands of readers and dozens of commenters have noticed any of what you have noticed up to this point. You’d think they would have said something if our site was truly littered with mistakes and falsehoods. But I guess you must know something that we all missed (other than the spelling of “expertise”).

    I think it is rather telling that you haven’t been able to address the basic questions I raise in the comment above.

    As far as our success, I would attribute that to the fact that we actually challenge the outrageous populism and bias that infects far too many publications and media outlets and we don’t pull any punches.

    As far as your interpretation of our “imagery,” I would have to say that I totally disagree as the author of the text in question. I was referring to a media environment and culture that seems to think that it is dealing with a captive audience. And while I certainly would not compare today’s Germany with the DDR, I do think that the Socialist mindset and way of doing things is much stronger in Germany than it is in the United States and elsewhere. Do you contest that or do you honestly believe that the German media and government are populated with conservative, neo-con laissez-faire capitalists? Get real.

    — RayD    Oct 1, 06:21 pm    #

  10. When did I ever suggest that the German media or government was populated with conservative, neo-con laissez-faire capitalists? That’s a perfect example of something you just made up. The bit about Malzahn being a token pro-American is another. Your swaggering assertion about capital-S socialists is another. The idea that German journalists think they’re “dealing with a captive audience” is another. Most German journalists I know, even if they fall back on old German biases, can grasp how much their countrymen travel. Your conjectures and innuendo have a real (and unfortunate) influence in the American blogosphere.

    To me, as an American, Germany’s love for bureaucracy and rules and expensive central government is hard to understand. But there are good historical reasons for Europe to look so red in the years after World War II — having to do with post-Hitler stability — and just because the people now in charge aren’t “conservative, neo-con laissez-faire capitalists” doesn’t mean they’re doctrinaire, old-fashioned Socialists. I think you have a black-and-white problem over there at Medienkritik.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 1, 07:11 pm    #

  11. @ Michael,

    Common now Mike, I was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth. As far as Malzahn and Broder go, do you know many more other people at SPIEGEL who share their opinions? Can you give us examples or names?

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion on my analysis of the influence of Socialist ideas on German society. But again, it is your subjective opinion. That’s it. Here’s the bottom line: I never claimed that most German media or politicians are old-fashioned, doctrinaire Socialists in the DDR-mold. That is your (mis)interpretation of my use of the term “Socialist.” I think you are getting far too hung-up by the fact that I am using a capital “S.” It would help if you understood what I was talking about before you criticize. If, on the other hand, you want to deny that Socialist ideals play a significant role in German society, media and politics, then that is your argument to make and defend.

    As far as the German media goes, it is clear that there are fewer sources of alternative media in Germany than in the United States. The blogosphere is tiny by comparison, there isn’t much talk radio, there aren’t as many contrarian conservative views that get major play, especially when it comes to reporting on the USA and the national government has a much larger sway than any of us might be comfortable admitting. To me, it is clear that some (but clearly not all) German journalists think they are lecturing a captive audience. If you look at the level of stupidity evident in some of the reporting on the USA, for example, this is abundantly clear. But the point is that many Germans do travel and many are leaving the country because they realize that things are not what they could be, precisely because of the love of expensive central government and bureaucracy. Many more realize that their media is not giving them the full story or even an accurate story.

    — RayD    Oct 2, 03:10 am    #

  12. @ Ray

    Good. Now we’re working with a much more civilized tone. Most of my answer is over here, but you have to admit that I got hung up on your capital S because you kept using it. What “activist Socialist” means to the average reader is “activist member of a Socialist party.” That’s what I was objecting to, and I’d be surprised to find even one person like that at Spiegel. Unless you call the Social Democrats “Socialists,” in which case you’d have to explain to an American audience that the SPD isn’t even Marxist anymore.

    What you call German journalists believing they’re “lecturing a captive audience,” is nothing but provincialism. Which is unfortunate but not sinister. Both your prison-state image and your line about Socialism serve mainly to rile Americans up. It’s populism, like the anti-American populism you deplore.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 2, 11:55 am    #

  13. I don’t like Spiegel. There is a lot of Anti-Americanism in the German media. The German media is much more than Spiegel, Stern, Sueddeutsche and Panorama and other favorite targets of Medienkritik. I don’t know anybody who only reads Spiegel or only reads Stern, because those are weeklies.

    It is good to have a watchblog re Anti-Americanism. DMK partly serves that purpose, but they exaggerate in their conclusions. They are not just a watch blog like Bildblog. They are advocating conservative viewpoints. Fine. Of course that is their right. I just think mixing a watchblog mission and conservative advocacy don’t go together very well.

    David’s Medienkritik repeatedly accused German journalists of suffering from “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, while they themselves might suffer from a “Schroeder Derangement Syndrome” which does not help their reputation and in effect makes their valid criticism of the German media less credible for many Germans. Likewise the many comparisons with Goebbels.

    I think, DMK would be more succesful in reducing Anti-Americanism (I think that such a reduction is their goal, but I know many folks, who suspect your goal is something else), if they would be perceived as more credible among Germans and Americans. Germans should be DMK’s primary audience, but most readers seem to be Americans. Less exaggerations in the conclusions about “the” German media and a less emotional style of writing would make DMK more credible for more Germans and they would take DMK’s criticism more seriously. Such a change would probably mean that DMK would lose many American readers. Therefore DMK will probably not change. Anyway, that is my friendly and well meaning advice. If anybody thinks that is arrogant or I should rather worry about the small readership of our blog (“small” compared to DMK), so be it. Our readership is growing. And like Michael said in the comments in the related threat , we are also happy with our readership and consider it successful.

    Ray, I sort of spoke in the third person to you here: Saying “DMK” and “they” rather than “you”, since you are taking a break from blogging. Or should I still say “you” and blame you for things you are not partly responsible for anymore? :-)

    How was the response to the publication of your “insight report”? Did any of the interviewed journalist responded to the comments? Or any other journalist or representative of a paper or TV station?

    I will probably linkt to Ray’s insight report and to Mike’s post next week.

    Ray, you have suggested that Mike should criticize German media outlets with a bigger audience than your blog with a smaller audience, because many German media folks are doing more harm to transatlantic relations than you could be doing or you said something similar. I am paraphrasing due to lack of time to read the many comments again. Okay, I should not be sloppy: This is what you wrote : “And why are you so down on Medienkritik? If I were you, I’d be far more worried about the impact of the German media, which reaches tens of millions, in terms of transatlantic relations.”
    Mike is free to focus on what he wants. Besides, I think we all feel some kind of “bond” in the blogosphere, i.e. we are interacting with each other in our own global village. We live in the blogosphere and spent an insane amount of time at the computer. Many bloggers live online rather than in the real world. Bloggers are correcting each other etc. Thus it makes sense to Zuerst vor der eigenen Tür kehren.

    Besides, Mike is an American. And many Americans get their news and commentary about Germany from Davids Medienkritik. Thus he is addressing his countrymen, when he criticizes Medienkritik, I think, but as always I could be totally wrong and I should really get back to work and then try to get back to the real world and get some fresh air. ;-)

    — Joerg (Atlantic Review)    Oct 2, 04:47 pm    #

  14. Just to clarify the first paragraph in the last comment.

    There is a lot of Anti-Americanism in the German media, BUT the German media is much more than Spiegel, Stern, Sueddeutsche and Panorama and other favorite targets of Medienkritik.

    The papers with the largest ciruclation are not publishing many anti-American articles at all.

    — Joerg    Oct 2, 04:54 pm    #

  15. Joerg, yes, most of my readers are American; about a third are free-thinking Germans.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 2, 06:19 pm    #

  16. You make a lot of claims with very little supporting evidence. Why don’t you tell us what Medienkritik has “made up?” It is really interesting that none of our thousands of readers and dozens of commenters have noticed any of what you have noticed up to this point.

    Ask and you shall receive, Ray:

    In 2004 Alice Schwarzer made a stupid comparison of the pictires from Abu Ghraib to those of a concentration camp, and David Kaspar went berserk and claimed that the German media in general were behind the comparison.

    Here’s my post on this:

    Grotesque distortions

    — Ralf Goergens    Oct 2, 08:14 pm    #

  17. Michael –
    It is interesting that you call out a post from Medienkritik that deals with the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. I remember being appalled by the racist comments on Medienkritik in the aftermath of Katrina.

    In fact, I blogged about it here

    These are the same semi-literate American commenters one encounters at sites like Michelle Malkin or LittleGreenFootballs

    — DavidV    Oct 2, 11:21 pm    #

  18. @DavidV

    Exactly. Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs and Instapundit are part of the same phenomenon. This is the broad ideological wave that swept the US into catastrophe in Iraq. I should know, since I made up a small part of it.

    @ Ralf

    Why is the comparison with a concentration camp unfair? The US, after the Nuremberg trials, was supposed to be the nemesis and moral opposite of Nazi Germany. Any lurch in the other direction deserves international notice. (Not that it excuses the Holocaust, at all.) In any case I can only repeat the litany of things Ray D has made up: “The bit about Malzahn being a token pro-American is another. Your swaggering assertion about capital-S socialists is another. The idea that German journalists think they’re ‘dealing with a captive audience’ is another.” These things — and others, which I’ll get to — pass for fact in the United States, which is sad.

    If Greens count as Socialists, and the SPD, then so does George Bush’s Republican party. Ray D’s definition would need only a little bit of tailoring: “Those who consistently favor a large, activist state with extensive social welfare programs, more bureaucracy and more taxes could fall into this category.”

    Under Bush, it’s corporate rather than social welfare, and “fewer taxes” — except that Bush is just leaving his war and his bureaucracy and his corporate welfare for another administration to pay for. The war, in fact, is nothing but catastrophic American bureaucracy imposed on a foreign people. I wish it were more impressive, but it’s not.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 3, 02:27 am    #

  19. “Why is the comparison with a concentration camp unfair?”

    And with the conversation and any progressive thought slips into a coma after hitting a new all time low. Is there any brain signal there? Seems not.

    — Doughnut Boy Andy    Oct 4, 02:46 pm    #

  20. No one’s arguing that the scale or the circumstance is the same, Andy. But Abu Ghraib was a lurch in the direction of brutal totalitarianism by a country I love, and intelligent comparisons aren’t impossible.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 4, 03:20 pm    #

  21. Andy, how about Prinz Albrechstrasse? Would that be a better comparison for you?
    I’m not aware that the majority of the people who are being held in Guantanamo have actually been charged in a court of law yet. They are also being kept under conditions which don’t exactly match up to the Geneva Convention.
    Why? Because they’re “subhuman” in the eyes of the people who imprisoned them? If they’re there because they are terrorists, where is the evidence? Why aren’t there trials? If the Bush Government is justified in keeping these people banged up, why aren’t they open about their legal reasons for doing so?

    — Bowleserised    Oct 4, 05:11 pm    #

  22. It’s also worth noting that those people who are first to cry foul whenever the (stupid) Hitler/Bush or concentration camp/Abu Ghraib comparison is brought up are also often the first to talk about the “Goebbels school of journalism” and similar crap when referring to Der Spiegel or other German publications.

    — influx    Oct 4, 05:14 pm    #

  23. Well, if you’re someone who can easily read any criticism of the Israeli government as the first step towards rabid anti-semitism, the return of the pogrom and a re-run of Shoah, then you can probably make the mental leap required to see Guantamo/Abu Ghraib as part of the same continuum as Ravensbruck and the Gestapo.

    — Bowleserised    Oct 4, 06:16 pm    #

  24. Anybody questioning the fact that being poor in America is much harsher than being poor in Europe is an agent, they might not know that they are an agent but they are an agent. They’ve perhaps so internalized the propaganda of whatever interest group who’s service they’ve come to Europe in the service of (and you couldn’t of made it alone you’re sort of big welfare babies your own selves) that it’s become the absolute truth and anyone who questions it is to be demonized. America the land of opportunity where poverty doesn’t exist the ultimate level playing field (when you yourselves are evidence that the game is rigged, even for Americans living overseas).

    — James Nowlan    Oct 5, 08:46 am    #