< Previous Post | Next Post >

Sunday, December 23. 2007

European Press Articles on the US and Transatlantic Relations

Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, December 23. 2007

World Meets US translated the following French and German articles:

• Le Figaro: American NIE on Iran Nukes 'a Fake' Designed to 'Save Face: "This [NIE] is deliberate American disinformation. ... the publication of this NIE is a further example of the politicization and manipulation of American intelligence."

• Nederlands Dagblad: America Unfairly Blamed for Climate Obstructionism: "The proceedings at Bali were taken hostage by Europe's antagonism toward the U.S., enabling Al Gore to score in an open goal."

• Financial Times Deutschland: 2008 a High-Stakes U.S. Election Year for Europe: "A Democratic President or a woman President would be seen as a symbol of change. But if a Republican wins the U.S. election of 2008, the long-term Atlantic rift will be insurmountable... One must assume that when in doubt, Republicans will try anything to awaken resentment in the white men of the American republic - against the reign of a woman or the son of an African."

• The Times: 'Poodle' Blair takes role in White House video: "For a man derided by his critics as "Bush's poodle", it is perhaps brave of Tony Blair to appear in a White House video featuring the US President's pet dogs."

Comments (17)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Pamela - #1 - 2007-12-23 22:36 - (Reply)

One must assume that when in doubt, Republicans will try anything to awaken resentment in the white men of the American republic - against the reign of a woman or the son of an African."
---------------------

You know, it's really odd. I read the FT every day, and this gem, explicitly stating that the Republican party and white American men are racist, somehow never made it to the English language edition.

My guess is that the editors are just gutless bastards.

Comments ()

SC - #1.1 - 2007-12-24 03:35 - (Reply)

Gutless bastards perhaps, Pamela; but an interesting window into the mindset of the editors and what they presume to be the mindset of their German language readers, wouldn't you say?

Is this partly what you had in mind,Zyme?

Comments ()

Zyme - #1.1.1 - 2007-12-24 16:22 - (Reply)

Yes it is.
Reporting in a positive way of something american is almost an antagonism. One should only do it here if you want to confuse your audience. But I think it is not true that americans have the monopoly on this role in the german press. Reports about Britain, Poland and China are hardly ever positive as well.

So I think traditional rejection plays a major role here.

Comments ()

Don S - #1.1.1.1 - 2007-12-26 21:27 - (Reply)

Good point. I once felt the problem lay with the media but I am not so certain these past few years. It's the primary reason I don't bel9ieve that the US and Germany are fated to be allies for many more years.

If you're people are convinced that the people of another country are irredemably evil, agressive, and ignorant slobs - why would you wish to ally with them? Or keep your covenants with the 'ally' if you happen to be?

Germany hasn't. QED....

Comments ()

Zyme - #2 - 2007-12-24 00:05 - (Reply)

I wondered about the same thing. And I am not surprised to hear that this will not be found in the english edition. So this is a beautiful example that it is not only the media shaping the people, but also the other way around.

Comments ()

John in Michigan, USA - #3 - 2007-12-24 02:35 - (Reply)

What is the reputation of Financial Times Deutschland? Is it a tabloid, a business newspaper that rarely comments on non-business issues, or a reputable general-purpose paper? Is it known to be partisan, or does it aim for objectivity?

In other words, why is it not surprising that FT would do this?

As to the issue of race and sex...yes, it would be Historical with a capital "H" if Obama were elected; it would be historical but possibly less so if Clinton were elected, since we wouldn't know how much was due to her husband's shadow. But in either case, credit would be due to the candidates, not the Democratic party.

Last time they were in power, for 8 years Democrats didn't put a non-white or a woman anywhere near the line of succession, whereas the Republicans, in time of war, with a Vice-President whose health is imperfect, put an African-American and separately, a female African American fifth in line for the Presidency, and no-one even blinked.

Only recently did the Democrats make Nancy Pelosi, a white woman, Speaker of the House which is 3rd in line (while puyying Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, in 4th place).

I would laugh, very hard, at the FT if the Democrats themselves end up defeating Obama and Clinton before they even face the Republicans. Would they pretend they never said it, or would they be consistent and say "when in doubt, [i]Democrats[/i] tried everything to awaken resentment in the White men of the American republic -- and succeeded"?

Democrats talk a lot more about promoting minorities and women, but so far haven't performed very differently than Republicans.

Finally, who seriously believes that electing a non-white or a woman would be both necessary, and sufficient, to repair the Atlantic rift? If that's all it takes, it can't be much of a rift...

Comments ()

Kevin Sampson - #3.1 - 2007-12-24 16:18 - (Reply)

'Last time they were in power, for 8 years Democrats didn't put a non-white or a woman anywhere near the line of succession'

Actually, yes they did. 'Mad' Albright, Sec. of State.

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #3.1.1 - 2007-12-24 17:34 - (Reply)

As all the Cabinet postions are in the line of succession not only Sec. Albright(as noted above) but Janet Reno, Donna Shalala and Hazel O'Leary. A giant, a midget and someone right in between.

Comments ()

John in Michigan, USA - #3.1.1.1 - 2007-12-24 18:58 - (Reply)

@Kevin and @Pat:

Oops...I completely forgot about 'Mad' Albright in 5th place...and Janet Reno as Attorney General would have been 8th place. The other women and minorities in the Clinton cabinet are so far down the line of succession, I don't consider them relevant to my argument. I still have a tiny point in that it was the peaceful 90's, so people were thinking much less about succession than today. And, there are still no non-whites anywhere near the top of the line of succession during the Clinton presidency. In the case of African-Americans, this is especially bad, considering that they vote 90%+ Democratic, they ought to get more for that, instead they are taken for granted.

But, I have to admit my main point, with regards to women, was not nearly as strong as I first thought.

Thanks for your help.

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #3.1.1.1.1 - 2007-12-24 21:15 - (Reply)

No problem, but if we did need to go that far down the bench then whether it was a man or a woman would have been the least of our problems. At least we knew that AG Reno had no problem having her fellow citizens shot.

Comments ()

John in Michigan, USA - #3.1.1.1.2 - 2007-12-24 22:16 - (Reply)

On the topic of Democrats and race, there is a great op-ed just posted by Bruce Bartlett of the Wall St. Journal, a very respectable paper whose editorial page is conservative. Read [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110011033]Whitewash[/url], "The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget."

The first 2/3 of the article is quotes from Democrats from before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But be sure to read the bottom of the article, some of which contain recent quotes from Democratic politicians who are still today in high office.

To be fair to my friends on the other side of the Atlantic, I think most Americans don't realize how little difference there is between the racists in the Democratic party, and the racists in the Republicans.

However, the Democrats have done a much better job at talking about the Civil Rights issue. My main objection to Democrats on race is, they are taking the race issue in a sectarian direction (a racial spoils system) rather than in a race-neutral direction.

@Pat: AG Reno was disgraceful. I wonder how much of the supposed low morale of the Justice Dept under Alberto Gonzales is due to hangover from the Clinton/Reno years.

Comments ()

Zyme - #3.2 - 2007-12-24 16:29 - (Reply)

"What is the reputation of Financial Times Deutschland? Is it a tabloid, a business newspaper that rarely comments on non-business issues, or a reputable general-purpose paper? Is it known to be partisan, or does it aim for objectivity?"

Hardly surprising its focus is on economical news in Germany and abroad, including political developments that naturally influence economical parameters. It is leaning towards conservative and economically focused parties (CDU/CSU and FDP). So its audience lies in the center of the society.

Comments ()

joe - #4 - 2007-12-24 17:20 - (Reply)

Europeanized-U.S. policy

I am not really sure what that means other than talk loud and do nothing.

But if it means not stepping up and sharing the burdens, then I am all for it. Europe can defend its own interests and the US can defend its interests.

Think of it as the post NATO world.

Comments ()

joe - #5 - 2007-12-24 17:43 - (Reply)

Seems the Times missed or did not consider it germane to the story that Mary Bomar the current director of the National Parks Service also played a staring role in Barney’s video. She is a naturalized citizen from the UK. Then again M$M does have it template.

Comments ()

Anonymous - #5.1 - 2007-12-24 19:40 - (Reply)

Mary Bomar another British poodle.

Is Blair getting US citizenship at least for all the loyalty?

Comments ()

joe - #5.1.1 - 2007-12-24 20:46 - (Reply)

I think Mr Blair is proud to be British. I am sure if he chose to become an American he would find himself welcome.

The same cannot be said about the russian whore

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #5.1.2 - 2007-12-25 03:28 - (Reply)

Mary Bomar received her citizenship because she applied and ultimately was naturalized. She was hardly given her citizenship.

PM Blair could receive honorary citizenship except that no one has introduced a bill into the House calling for this honor. Only six people have received honorary citizenship; Winston Churchill, Raoul Wallenberg, Wlliam and Hannah Penn, Mother Theresa and General Marquis de La Fayette, and as much as his original call for regime change in Iraq(before President's Clinton and Bush) is appreciated it remains to be seen if he deserves to be in that select group.

Comments ()


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA
 
 

Contact Us

Email Joerg Wolf and Kyle Atwell at:

ar-team AT atlanticreview.org

We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.

Subscribe and Follow

Welcome!
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.

Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.

Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.

AddThis Feed Button

Sponsor

SUPPORT THIS SITE

Use these links to shop at Amazon USA or Amazon Deutschland:
 

 

Blogroll

Recommended Blogs
 

Hot Topics

Click on one of the following links to see all Atlantic Review posts about this topic in a chronological order with the latest post on top:

















Click here for the full list of all topics.
Follow transatlantic on Twitter