Free Speech in the West

There’s a good essay about the pope flap up at Spiegel Online. It’s by Claus Christian Malzahn, and it should please even the droning bores over at Davids Medienkritik, who have the reputation in the US as sharp critics of anti-Americanism in German journalism. In a big blurry way, of course, it’s true that a lot of German journalists are irritatingly kneejerk and Amerikaskeptisch, but the guys at Medienkritik need fodder every day, and sometimes they just speculate like old ladies leaning out their windows in a little European town, passing on offenses to their prejudices as if they were experts, or even well-informed.

Here’s a classic from last year:

Claus Christian Malzahn must stick out like a sore thumb at SPIEGEL ONLINE. Along with Henryk Broder, he is perhaps the only America-friendly voice on the magazine’s entire staff. You could say he and Broder are the publication’s two token pro-Americans. And make no mistake: They are both highly intelligent, eloquent representatives of a viewpoint rarely heard or voiced in Germany.

This is amusing. Malzahn does stick out like a sore thumb around Spiegel Online’s Berlin office, where I sometimes show my face, because he’s the boss. He’s not a “token pro-American” — he hires the degenerate America loathers that Medienkritik seems to have unearthed on the German staff.

Instead of spinning conspiracy theories of anti-American masterminds in the Spiegel Magazine megacomplex littering the staff with the odd pro-American to foil Davids Medienkritik’s fun, they ought to congratulate Malzahn for hiring people who don’t think in lockstep with him. But that would be, as they say, off-message.

Submitted to the Carnival of German-American Relations

     posted 20 September 2006 by Michael Scott Moore

  1. That’s hilarious. Did he hire you as well, or was that someone else’s call?

    — Indri    Sep 21, 05:59 pm    #

  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ41DXTrEkw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy2pjLZxhEI

    The Daily Show on Denmark and those cartoons. Essential viewing.

    But there was a point to this post apart from just brown nosing the boss, surely? After all the text isnt that great, it just shines out from the rest of the crap in the German media that still sees this cultural imperialism of the west and the military arrogance as the cause of these cultural misunderstandings, rather than the Iranian power playing they probably are – after all the muslim world (or at least a few hundred nutcases here and there) only seem to be inflamed at incidents that take place when Iran has missed an atomic deadline again. In the German media Papa Ratzi got an easy run because he is a German, sorry I meant because he meant no offence and apologised – not a right wing Danish racist editor feuling the fire as part of a neo-con agenda.

    Oh I remember the second point of the post: bashing Medienkritik. Yes Medienkritik are wrong but I disagree as to why. They as a small group (tiny tiny tiny group) of liberals and conservatives who support democracy, feel that Germany is being fed drivel by a left wing German media. They are correct here: The media is amazingly one sided and any other opinions are basically little more than token comments to look open. But I dont see that this is a problem with the facts about your boss, after all as i understand he writes columns but also manages a magazine that he has to sell to the Germans…. and here our capitalist friends at Medienkritik forget their own beloved laws of supply and demand. As Germans thankful to the democracy they enjoy and aware of their responsibility to Israel and their gratitude to the allies, they forget that most Germans dont see it that way. The major selling newspapers, magazines and popular TV shows are churning out the same crap written by a bunch of journalists with little critical thought or ability – not because of some left wing conspiracy but because that is exactly what the Germans want to read. However good your boss is at writing and putting across a inteligent viewpoint, if he had all of his staff doing that then sales would drop drastically. Scape-goating, pathetic calls to defend an non existent peace, strong centralised government, anti-American hysteria, pro European toss, multi-culti BS and anti-Semitic rubbish mixed with a new strong image of a peaceful and tolerant Germany sell because it is an essential part of what German society is all about, an essential part of the German idea – Das Volk! Critcism is not wanted and neither are different opinions.

    So yes Medienkritik I agree are wrong but not as you think. They are, despite some strange views and wierdos there, a pretty good force in German politics, a ray of sunshine. Perhaps their media conspiracy crap is annoying, perhaps it does appeal in the wrong way to the wrong Americans in your eyes but even if they dont criticise German society properly, even if they are not willing to accept that its not all a left thing but a Volk thing and not even really left wing but just German, even then they are quite cool. When thousands rally in Germany for a Bush visit and hold up banners saying Bush = Hitler or at least tolerate this, i take my hat off to the 10 or 15 people who wave the stares and stripes and welcome him. And if anyone on this continent and especially in this country is willing to support Israel on the streets then i will gladly march with them – and if they get some popularity in the States from people I probably wouldnt want to have a drink and a politics discussion with, then so what?

    But now I see the last bit again:

    “they ought to congratulate Malzahn for hiring people who don’t think in lockstep with him”

    So it wasnt about MK at all, just the boss. Well I like your articles and your style and they always get me worked up in agreement or disagreement so yes, he should be congratulated for at least one of his appointments. Just hope he reads this then….

    Sorry I couldnt make it yesterday. TeBe played and my flat mate celebrated his birthday in. Hope you all had fun.

    — Doughnut Boy Andy    Sep 21, 08:53 pm    #

  3. Sorry you couldn’t make it too, Andy. Good to hear from you again.

    Malzahn’s the boss of the German site; I don’t answer to him and I hardly know him. I just freelance for the English pages, which are less related to the German half than people think. (Topic for another post.) If anything this little twitting of Medienkritik will irritate my editors. I’m just having fun.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Sep 21, 09:21 pm    #

  4. Oh man, Anti-Germans. The only time I hear anyone speak about “Das Volk” is when I’m near them (or neo-nazis, for that matter). Funny, none of my German friends seem to think twice about being German, they really couldn’t care less. I remember that crappy techno version of “Ten German Bombers”. The anti-Germans got all giddy when they got featured in the English press, like high-school girls bragging about being asked out on the prom by the school bully. If only anyone in Germany had cared. I remember articles in the English press about how surprising it was to see Germans running around in English football jerseys, as if they expected to see their hatred of Germans being mirrored by equally strong anti-British German sentiments.

    As far as I remember, most of the German press also defended the Danish cartoonists, just like they defended the pope’s freedom of speech. But I guess it’s hard to remember when all that “anti-American hysteria, pro European toss, multi-culti BS and anti-Semitic rubbish” and the “muslim world” is taking up so much headspace. But of course, anti-war rallies and pro-EU sentiments are all about “das Volk”. I mean, really, it’s the same thing, being for the EU and for “das Volk”. Faultless logic, hats off.

    — influx    Sep 22, 11:54 am    #

  5. Good point about “das Volk.” Along the same lines, the only time anyone has ever remotely accused me of anti-Semitism is on this blog. On the Internet, it seems, if you question Israeli military policy or write about Rachel Corrie, strangers will find their way to your blog and suggest that you want Jews to die. Again with the logic problem.

    Which explains the attack on Medienkritik: They may be a “tiny” group, but they have loads of readers, and their mindset is the trendy dominant “Instapundit” one in the US right now, with disastrous consequences in Iraq. I don’t plan to take prisoners.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Sep 22, 01:22 pm    #

  6. @ Andy,

    The major selling newspapers, magazines and popular TV shows are churning out the same crap written by a bunch of journalists with little critical thought or ability – not because of some left wing conspiracy…

    Bild is the best selling paper and they are pro-Bush…

    German idea – Das Volk! Critcism is not wanted and neither are different opinions.

    What do you think of this:
    Warum Amerikaner (Briten, Kanadier) nicht sagen, was sie meinen « USA Erklärt
    “Jetzt kommt der Teil, der einigen interessierten Lesern nicht unbedingt gefallen dürfte: Die gerade beschriebenen Prinzipien gelten ganz besonders für das Verhalten von Angelsachsen im Ausland, also in unserem speziellen Fall für das von Amerikanern in Deutschland. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything, schärft man den Kiddies ein und so halten sie im Urlaub oder beim Austauschprogramm den Mund: Kritik am Gastgeber ist so ziemlich der Gipfel der Unhöflichkeit.

    Und deswegen ist es so gut wie unmöglich aus Amerikanern oder Briten oder wem auch immer herauszubekommen, wie es ihnen in Deutschland wirklich gefällt. Wenn sie gut erzogen sind, werden sie immer sagen, dass es toll ist. Einfach super. Total spitze. Alles andere wäre ein Zeichen einer katastrophalen Kinderstube, nur knapp weniger schlimm als das Schnäuzen mit dem Tischtuch oder die ausgedehnte Ohrreinigung mit dem Eßstäbchen.

    Für Deutsche ist das frustrierend. Wenn jemand einige Zeit in einem Land verbracht hat, gehen sie davon aus, dass es Dinge gibt, die einem nicht gefallen haben – natürlich. Es gilt als “ehrlich”, diese anzusprechen und eine “differenzierte” Meinung als ein Zeichen eines kultivierten, kritischen Geistes. Wer alles toll, super und spitze findet, gilt als dumm, leichtgläubig, oberflächlich – letzteres ist nicht umsonst eines der häufigsten deutschen Vorurteile über Amerikaner. Aus US-Sicht ist das in gewisser Weise ein Kompliment.”
    See USA Erklaert

    On Medienkritik:
    They are, despite some strange views and wierdos there, a pretty good force in German politics, a ray of sunshine.

    I think they serve as a good and necessary Watch Blog. My problem with them is just that they exaggerate in their conclusions. They are not just a watch blog like Bildblog.

    Perhaps their media conspiracy crap is annoying, perhaps it does appeal in the wrong way to the wrong Americans in your eyes

    This is what I wrote recently: “David’s Medienkritik repeatedly accuses 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.”
    Read the full post in Atlantic Review

    — Joerg    Sep 22, 03:33 pm    #

  7. As I said in my previous comment, I respect and appreciate Davids Medienkritik for the Watchblog function they serve.

    The German version of Spiegel is anti-American. Not just amerikaskeptisch.

    The journalists are probably not ideologically anti-american, but it sells well.

    In the English version, Anti-americanism does not sell so way. Thus the do it differently.

    Mahlzahn for example wrote an awful article after Katrina for the English version: Spiegel

    This article wasn’t publish in German, was it?

    Medienkritik linked to that article, if I remember correclty.

    If Medienkritik would care about journalistic ethics (i.e. only criticize the German media out of interest for the greater good as Watchblogs usually do), then Medienkritik should not have linked to that article.

    Lautgeben has written an excellent and much linked post about Malzahn’s Katrina article:

    — Joerg    Sep 22, 03:44 pm    #

  8. @ Joerg: Malzahn doesn’t write in English, so that piece must have appeared in German. Nobody writes “exclusives” in German for the English side. This might be the link, but there’s a pay wall.

    I don’t like everything Malzahn writes, and I’m not here to defend everything Spiegel does. But the matter of Spiegel-auf-deutsch vs Spiegel-in-English will be covered in another post.

    My problem with Medienkritik is that they have an influence way, way beyond their intelligence and expertise. They belong to a trend, or a bubble, and bubbles need to be popped.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Sep 22, 04:13 pm    #

  9. @ Michael,

    Well Michael, I hate to burst your bubble, but Medienkritik has just published a report on German journalism featuring some rather shocking first-hand admissions from German journalists on the state of their own profession.

    If Medienkritik is so “out there” and into “conspiracies”, then how do you explain this piece?

    http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/an_insiders_vie.html

    So are all of the German journalists interviewed also part of the vast conspiracy now? 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.

    If you want to talk about Der Spiegel, you really don’t have to look much beyond the cover pages over the past five years to determine that they are anti-American. They essentially speak for themselves. One of their staff essentially admitted that they publish the stuff to “please their million readers.” As far as intelligence and expertese go, what qualifies you to judge Medienkritik from on high? You make it sound as if you are far more intelligent than anyone else in the room. Your blog’s (lack of) success, however, would seem to contradict that assumption. Just slinging mud at more successful sites like Medienkritik isn’t going to get you a larger audience or a better reputation in the long run.

    — RayD    Sep 30, 11:37 pm    #

  10. Ray,

    You haven’t burst any of my bubbles. I agree that there’s an anti-American populism at work in German media. But the way you go after it is fanatical, sloppy, and panders to an anti-European populist bias in the States.

    Radio Free Mike is doing just fine, by the way. It doesn’t need a big fancy readership like Davids Medienkritik, and “audience” isn’t the reason for the bombardment. Believe it or not.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 1, 11:33 am    #

  11. Well Michael,

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. And that is all that it is: Your opinion.

    The fact that you see those who oppose you or have a different point of view as fanatics speaks volumes.

    On your other point, I think that the populist German media (which reaches tens of millions daily) has already done so much to enflame anti-European populism in the United States that it is absurd to claim that Medienkritik, with its modest audience of around 1500 daily, is to blame for the problem. Let’s get a real sense of proportion here.

    BTW: If you want to give me examples of our “sloppy” work, be my guest. I know quite a few German journalists who strongly appreciate the fact that we have chosen to stand up to business as usual in German media.

    — RayD    Oct 1, 06:08 pm    #

  12. I’ve done nothing but point out your sloppy work. My two main points so far—about Malzahn being a “token” pro-American, and the nonsense about activist capital-S Socialism on the Spiegel staff—you’ve been unable to argue down. And every time you post a comment here you provide more evidence of sloppiness, including the slip about Pitzke (my English was not unclear), the idea that I claimed Medienkritik was “to blame” for anti-Europeanism in the States (I said you pandered to a bias), and the wonderful proposition that I think you’re a fanatic simply because we disagree. Far from it. I disagree pleasantly with loads of people, but I’m launching this assault because I think you’re a fanatic.

    Most of my readers are smart enough to see for themselves that you’re one of those internet bulldogs who goes around savaging any stray offense to your politics, and sputtering smears whenever someone dares to challenge you. If you can get all hot over something as silly as the date Berlin tore down the Checkpoint Charlie Memorial — July 4, probably not meant as an insult to the United States, which didn’t keep you from feeling insulted — then I’ll argue with some justification that you’re a fanatic. I thought, at least, you could get as good as you give. But — surprise! — no. Instead you turn pious as a choirboy and argue for more civility. As if Medienkritik owed its success to showing “respect.”

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 1, 06:51 pm    #

  13. @ Michael,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was not exactly the one who went out of his way to bash the other blogger. I don’t see any articles on my blog bashing your site Mike. Not one. I see two articles in just the past two weeks that bash my site right here. So who is smearing whom? You tell me. I don’t think your readers will have any trouble determining that. The fact that I am trying to defend my work in your comments section is hardly bullying. If I wanted to be a jerk and bully you, I could do so much more effectively on my website, but that is not what I’m about.

    On your other point, I think you misinterpret my use of “Socialist.” I don’t see those I criticize as old-school DDR types. I do see much of the SPIEGEL staff, for example, as leaning towards the left and in some cases the far left of the political spectrum in Germany. I’m certainly not alone in my analysis. Furthermore, I think it is entirely appropriate to label Marc Pitzke’s writing as Socialist or Socialist-leaning. That is my opinion and I’m sure others will agree and disagree with me on that. There is no way that I can “argue down” another person’s subjective opinion on that other than to point to Mr. Pitzke’s writings. As far as I’m concerned, intelligent people can disagree on matters of interpretation and definition without labelling others fanatics.

    As far as Malzahn and Broder go, can you name others with similar opinions on the USA at SPIEGEL ONLINE? If Malzahn and Broder are not “tokens”, they are certainly lonely supporters of the USA at their publication. Call them “tokens” or call them wailers in the desert. The fact remains that they represent a tiny minority in terms of opinion at SPIEGEL and we were absolutely correct to make that point.

    As far as Checkpoint Charlie goes, we certainly were not the only ones upset by the destruction or the date. Several veterans and political groups protested along with victims of the former DDR and leaders of the Berlin CDU. I never claimed that the date was intentionally selected as an attack on the US, but it was an unfortunate display of insensitivity nonetheless.

    As far as you “launching an assault” on our site. I won’t be losing any sleep over that. Good night, good luck and no hard feelings.

    — RayD    Oct 2, 03:40 am    #

  14. No, you didn’t go out of your way to bash me, but your tone in comments and posts across the Web over the last few years has not been respectful, any more than the German media has been neo-conservative.

    Your slip about Pitzke was in misinterpreting my clear English: “I don’t know the guy.” Meaning: I don’t know him personally, I’m not offended by attacks on his work. You managed to misconstrue that and accuse me of lacking “expertese.”

    I didn’t misinterpret what you meant by capital-S Socialist. From reading your site an American would be surprised to hear that the SPD had rejected doctrinaire Marxism decades ago. But even Marxism is different from Communism, and my DDR remark was a bit of sarcasm about your ridiculous image of Germany as a prison state (even in the minds of journalists). Germany’s a different culture — people here are further to the left than people in the US partly because they’ve had such a bad historical experience with the right (see Günter Grass), and partly because Communism first took root here. I think that’s interesting, even if I don’t agree with it. In any case none of this smoke you’re blowing changes the fact that “activist Socialists” — activist members of a Socialist party — are hard to find among the media careerists on the Spiegel staff. You wrote and posted something that was not just false but absurd, and people in my country believe it.

    As for Malzahn and Broder, how many writers like them would Spiegel need, in your view, to be politically correct? This argument dodges the point, which is that you were wrong about an objective fact, namely that Malzahn was just a “token” loose cannon in the Spiegel Online office, when really he’s in charge.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 2, 11:32 am    #

  15. Interesting discussion here.

    And over at the Fish Barrel

    I commented over there , but some points refer Ray’s statements in this comment thread

    — Joerg    Oct 2, 04:50 pm    #

  16. @ Mike

    Well, I’m not going to get into a deep debate on the various definitions of Socialist, Communist and Marxist. It is clear, however, that I have a softer threshold for labeling someone of Socialist persuasion than you. I do believe many in the SPD and Green parties are Socialist (which I would distinguish as less extreme than a Communist or Marxist) or sympathize with Socialist ideals. We are arguing about how to define a political spectrum here. I happen to think that you don’t have to be a Trotsky wannabe or a committed Leninist or want to bring back the DDR to be a Socialist. Those who consistently favor a large, activist state with extensive social welfare programs, more bureaucracy and more taxes could fall into this category. I totally agree, by the way, that the German historic experience is a part of what differentiates Germans from Americans. I actually address that in my report.

    The bottom line is this: I don’t think it is absurd to assume that a significant number of those working at SPIEGEL are members of the SPD, Greens or even PDS nor do I think it is absurd to assume that many of them sympathize with the Socialist ideals I mention above or are left-leaning.

    As far as sloppiness goes, I never characterize Germany as a prison-state. I do think, however, that some in media think they are talking down to a captive audience based on the stupidity, bias and inaccuracy of their work.

    As far as Schroeder goes, we hardly mention the guy anymore, though I think it is clear that we don’t feel he was a great friend of transatlantic relations. So I’m not quite sure why Joerg thinks we suffer from any syndrome about that. Rudiger Lentz of Deutsche Welle himself told me that he was of the opinion that Schroeder had no character. Does he suffer from SDS as well?

    — RayD    Oct 2, 10:24 pm    #

  17. You sort of blamed Schroeder for Tagesthemen’s 9/11 commentary, as I explained here

    — Joerg    Oct 3, 12:24 am    #

  18. @ Ray

    I’m sorry, but “sympathizing with Socialist ideals” really is not the same as being an “activist member of a Socialist party,” which is a fair translation of your “activist Socialist” line. Voting Green or SPD is not the same as working actively (in or out of the newsroom) for a Socialist party, and you know as well as I do that suggesting a magazine has activist Socialists on staff rings alarm bells in the States. Please admit that you’re just describing a bias — which nations and magazines are allowed to have — not flushing out closet Pinkos.

    — Michael Scott Moore    Oct 3, 01:10 pm    #

  19. @ Joerg,

    I don’t blame Schroeder, but I do think that Luetgert is still kissing up to the old red-green government.

    — RayD    Oct 4, 02:14 am    #

  20. Why should he kiss up to a former government?
    I think he just expresses what most Germans think about the SPD-GREEN vs. the CDU positions on Iraq in 2002. Do we all kiss up to Schroeder? I think while many Germans did not like how Schroeder opposed the Iraq war, they (we) appreciate that he kept Germany out of it and they (we) think that Stoiber or Merkel would not have done so.

    I don’t think Luetgert’s following quote can be characterized as “kissing up to the old red-green government”:

    “As time increasingly passes, the accomplishments of the previous Red-Green (Schroeder-Fischer) administration, which distanced itself from this disastrous and unspeakable President, as the majority of Americans now do, are becoming increasingly evident. The current Union (CDU/CSU) administration under Angela Merkel should not be spared the reminder that it took her far longer.”

    In most of his commentary, Luetgert criticizes the Iraq war. The supporters of the red-green government were not the only ones opposed to the Iraq war. The CDU claims that they would not have sent troops either. These days the FDP is even opposed to a German participation in the Lebanon mission. Ergo: Luetgert would have said the same, if Stoiber had won the 2002 elections.

    I think you did not need Schroeder to open a post about an outrageous Tagesthemen commentary. Luetgert was absolutely nuts. That was obvious to anyone. And I have said so on our blog. I called him not only Anti-Bush, but also Anti-American. Some readers wrote in emails and comments that he was not Anti-American. Though I stick with it. I also described him as someone, who does not understand the Middle East at all.

    My understanding of Schroeder Derangement Syndrome is just like Krauthammers definition of the Bush Derangement Syndrome that DMK quoted in another post: “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.”

    DMK wrote “German correspondents in America are a special breed. With a few exceptions they are mostly victims of the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (BDS)”

    Hold on: In your insight report you write that the editors stopped the correspondents from sending postive article and TV-reports… I need to read it again to see whether the correspondents are deranged or whether the bad editors don’t want postive stuff from the good corrrespondetns. Or did you only speak to the exceptions, i.e. those who don’t suffer from BDS?

    Please don’t get me wrong: Of course, I am not saying that you personally are deranged in any sense. All I am saying is that Medienkritik suffers from SDS. I assume you don’t consider the German journalists personally deranged either. If the German media sufferes from Bush Derangement Syndrome, then Medienkritik suffers from Schroeder Derangement Syndrome. If SDS is okay and justified, then BDS should be as well, especially since Bush is still in office, while Schroeder has been out of office for a year.

    “As far as Schroeder goes, we hardly mention the guy anymore”

    DMK mentioned Schroeder three months ago, when Airbus announced a delay and DMK brings up Schroeder again today.

    Endnotes:
    a) Even if German democracy would be a presidential democracy like the US, I would find this obessesion with Schroeder an exaggeration.

    b) I think you and David Kaspar are one of the very few Germans, who use the term “Socialism” to describe SPD and Green members/policies/ideas/opinions/whatever. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but I usually roll my eyes, when I see the term “socialism” applied here.

    c) What do you think about mixing watchblog and conservative advocacy as described in this part of my comment at the Fish Barrel:
    “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.”

    — Joerg    Oct 5, 01:58 am    #