the Greater Nomadic Council

Well, someone's learned how to post photos.

Well, it's true that the Bush administration wasn't forthright leading up to the Iraqi war. However, that said, I've noticed that most Europeans also have somewhat skewed perceptions of America. It's rather mainstream over there to bash nearly everything about America without moderation or regard to the facts. This has been going on for much longer than the Bush administration, too. I heard plenty of it last time I was in Europe during the Clinton administration. Anti-americanism is a fashionable knee-jerk reaction. I'm not claiming that there's nothing to criticize and certainly not defending the rationale for the Iraq war, but even someone considered moderate in Europe can be a rabid critic of the US. Personally, I discount most extremists on any topic, this one included.

Obviously I agree with you about the intellectual quality of Anti-Americanism, but what I'm getting at is that their mainstream magazines have practically the same standards (if not in some cases higher standards) then ours. This is not just some conformist on the street mouthing off. This is conventional wisdom backed up by journalistic evidence. Even if the conservatives were in power, it wouldn't make too much difference (for proof, look at France).

My point is 2-fold. First of all, Bush's foreign relations are a historic failure. It is inconcievable that Stern would have ever even come close to attacking Clinton in this manner. Second, in the real world (that is, the entire globe) the opinions presented in this piece are not extreme at all. On the contrary. And it's time Americans became aware of this. If our answer is that the rest of the world is simply stupid or deluded, then we better be able to back that up with evidence.

Also--as I'm sure you already know, Germany (at least West Germany) is historically a VERY pro-American place. There are of course few who actually hate Americans (otherwise, why would they get their info. from M. Moore?)--certainly fewer than France, Spain, etc. But the number of people who would say "America is a great danger to the world" or "America is not a force for good" or "America is out of control" has increased dramatically since 4 years ago when I was here.

In other words, this cover is news. This cover is historic.

Do many Americans actually think the rest of the world still loves us though? You seem to assume that they do, but I'm not sure that's correct.

Sure, most Americans realize Anti-Americanism and the far more ubiqitous Bush-hatred is out there, but it doesn't really hit them or affect them. If they were really confronted with this-if they actually had to look at this cover-then it would matter. I think most Americans really are concerned if the mainstream press in other democracies believe our government is corrupt.

The kind of psychological explanations or lies (the Germans wanted to make money in Iraq!)commonly employed by the Right to explain this sort of thing wouldn't pass the bullshit test for most Americans. People know from day to day experience that the opinions of friends and colleagues does matter, that you can't be self-righteous all the time.

Incidentally, a shortened version of this argument ("we've got to stop disrespecting other countries") was included in Edwards' stump speech. It's simple and very persuasive. Kerry should pick it up.

I don't remember hearing that Germany was interested in Iraqi oil, just France and Russia, but the details are a bit fuzzy to me now, so maybe I've just forgotten that part of it.

I agree that we should be more concerned about whether other countries view us favorably or not—it's crucial to the success of many of our international goals—but I'm not convinced Americans care about it except in an off-hand way. We're pretty isolationist for the most part.

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself and your readers by calling Stern an "ideologically moderate, mainstream German magazine".
Stern is left-wing, and dedicated to often hate filled reporting on Germany's conservatives.

But dBush is Stern's enemy number one. Here's an excerpt (our translation) of an editorial on the Iraq invasion:
"148,000 Men against Saddam Hussein
To bring him to justice appears to be more important for the 148,000 Americans in uniform than caring for the mistreated people, also more important than justifying a questionable war at this late date whose official justification was constructed out of lies that collapsed with a bang. But Bush just wipes the dust off of his outfit and gives in to the all-powerful feeling that immunizes him from every form of self-criticism."
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/12/the_davids_medi.html

Scott, I challenge you to bring up one piece of unbiased reporting of Stern on the Bush administration. If you Americans develop feelings of guilt because of the rantings of a biased, partisan German magazine - well, that's just sad.

We have translated parts of the current Stern issue on Bush over at
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/stern_how_ameri.html

What's next? Michael Moore a moderate, mainstream American?

David, I think Scott's point was that Americans don't develop any feelings of guilt whatsoever about the US's world reputation. I'm not sure "guilt" is even the proper word for what he's going for. He's simply stating that American citizens should recognize and, to the extent that they are reasonable, respect the opinions of our allies. Personally, I think our allies' opinions of the US are important only in order to further American goals. We need strong support from other nations to make our goals easier to achieve and to further world peace and all that jazz. I would love for countries like France to love America as much as I love Europe, but there's only so much you can do to influence other's opinions be they individuals or nations. At some point, you simply have to do what you feel is right.

Of course, this is all assuming a more benevolent, competent government than we currently have. I think most of the rational criticisms of the Bush administration, whether they're native or foreign, are justified. Plus, from what I understand, most Europeans make a distinction between the American people and our current government.

Thanks for the further information on Stern, by the way. Your site seems to be timing out though, so I'll have to check out those links later.

David,

Thanks for dropping by. Let me again express my admiration for your website.

You may find Stern left-wing, but when I say that Stern is "moderate" I mean moderate in in the context of German print media. Or are you suggesting that Stern's editorial or Stern's readership consider Stern a self-consciously left-wing publication? Obviously you're more of an authority on this than me but after reading your comment, I've asked a number of Germans I know about this today. As expected, none of them believed Stern is left-wing. Some even called it right-leaning. It would certainly be a suprise to learn all these people are deluded.

Similarly, I'm sure you could find plenty of people in the US who think "Time" (probably the closest American counterpart to Stern) is left-wing, but that doesn't erase the fact that conventional wisdom and the population at large still considers it moderate and mainstream.

As for the article in question, I stated above that I think it is biased (although I have less doubt about the evidence they cite). But I would stake a claim that prior to the Iraq War, the German media (with some exceptions, of course) had a different attitude. There has been a definite shift. As a frequent reader of Spiegel over the years, I have seen this shift with my own eyes.

Still, when the content doesn't have to do with Iraq, they still produce plenty of unslanted articles, like this one below (produced after a quick search to meet your challenge. I grant you most of their current articles seem to be biased. It would of course be a lot easier if their archives extended back before the Iraq War. I wouldn't be suprised if they did a sympathetic photo-op of Bush's inaugaral Ball)
http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/index.html?id=520169&q=george%20bush

My point in all this is the public needs to be aware how dramatic this media shift is. Bush-hatred has grown out of proportion and out of control. And this was and is not necessary. Bush-hatred has been based on and encouraged by both the actual duplicity and disrespect shown by the admin as well as their demonstrated indifference to international public relations. I don't think I have to explain why this makes all of us less safe.

While you and other German media critics are right to be upset about this cover, I, as an American, have to look at those responsible on my side for the current state of affairs. And this points directly to Bush and how he blew off international solidarity following 9/11 and allowed himself to become the international bogeyman--a rallying point for Anti-Americanism of all stripes. And as you point out on your website, a new rallying point for fascism.

All you have to do is look at the continued international popularity of Tony Blair to see that Bush might have even had his foolish war without the necessity of alienating the world.

im so sick of these fuckn magggets..
america helps more then any other country thier is . i think of every other country a 3rd world . even when thier not . tired of the jealous fuckn maggets. they needa worry about thier selfs ., and get off USA's nuts

Hmm.. you present a dense, yet well-reasoned argument, gyea. However, I must disagree. I do not think the "maggets" are envious of the US as you implied when you wrote "get off USA's nuts". Instead, I would suggest that they are appalled at the current administration's disregard for the need to build an international consensus before launching unnecessary wars justified by lies and exaggerations. It is possible that a certain amount of anti-Americanism is a result of feeling impotent in the face of American power, but I think it's more plausible that it's due to the perceived misuse of that power, not simply the fact that the US possesses it.

Mallarme, I see that you chose to use the alternate spelling of "maggets." As gyea clearly indicated in his first sentence, "magggets" is the primary signifier.

Oh, you're right. Silly me. I must labour to use the primary spelling henceforth.