Transatlantic Media

During Barack Obama’s visit to Europe, several European media outlets took issue with the coverage of his trip by the U.S. media. But while American pundits were debating whether the U.S. media were too biased in favor of Obama, a number of European journalists found their American counterparts excessively cool toward him.

“Obamania? Not in America,” read the headline of a commentary by Dieter Schnaas in the German weekly business magazine WirtschaftsWoche July 25. Schnaas claimed that Obama’s foreign tour had been viewed “in the U.S. media as ‘fake evidence’ of his foreign policy experience.” Similarly, the British daily the Independent reported July 26 that “the world has been bewitched by his [Obama’s] tour. But Americans are less impressed.”

An article in the German center-right daily die Welt July 25 accused the U.S. media and the American people of not paying enough attention to Obama and the election – a strange claim in view of the unprecedented media circus that has surrounded the campaign, and particularly Obama. The article reported that:

“The euphoria which greeted Barack Obama in Berlin has not reverberated to the U.S., and the media coverage of Obama’s speech in Berlin was only moderate.”

Furthermore, according to die Welt, most Americans are vacationing at this time of the year, and are paying little attention to politics or to Obama’s foreign trip:

“This Sunday only 100 days will be left until the Presidential election, but in the U.S. it is still vacation time. Barack Obama’s foreign trip was the latest hurrah in this three week long period, in which Americans forget about politics.”

The die Welt piece cited a report from Paris by Steven Erlanger in The New York Times as evidence of the negative American reaction to Obama’s Berlin speech, intended as a major foreign policy statement. Erlanger wrote that the speech was “vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy.” According to European politicians and pundits Erlanger interviewed, Obama would have to move beyond rhetoric and provide more substance if he became president.

Die Welt and other European newspapers interpreted Erlanger’s article as criticism of their favored presidential candidate. A dispatch from the Norwegian news agency NTB, which ran in Norway’s biggest daily Verdens Gang, used the Erlanger article and a report by Fox News to portray the American reception of Obama’s speech as negative and skeptical. Obama’s speech was “met with skepticism in the U.S.,” and American commentators thought Obama was “clever with words, but vague on issues,” according to Verdens Gang. Similarly, an article by the Swedish press agency TT, printed in the daily Sydsvenskan, reported that “Barack Obama’s Berlin speech was hailed by the Germans, but received cool reactions in the U.S.”

Try Reading the Article
It should be noted, however, that the reporters who used Erlanger’s piece as proof of a negative American reaction to Obama’s speech had clearly not read the article properly. Erlanger was reporting from France on the European, not the American, reaction. And it should be no surprise to anyone that the conservative-leaning Fox News would be less than ecstatic over Obama’s performance.

This post was written by Ola Ulmo, Transatlantic Media Network Intern

Marco Vicenzio, Director of the Global Strategy Project in Washington, DC and Fellow of the Foreign Policy Association recently published an article titled ‘Diplomacy in word and deed’ in the July 28 edition of the Boston Globe. He points out that the major objective of Obama’s trip to Europe was to emphasize his ability to appear ‘presidential’ at home and abroad and to demonstrate his ‘preparedness’ in foreign policy. Therefore

‘avoiding rhetorical missteps or policy errors was a key concern, as was providing the diplomatically correct and responsibly rhetoric, sufficient enough to distinguish himself from Senator John McCain, but not deviating or implying any radical departure from mainstream policies.’

Interestingly, according to Vicenzino, by the end of the trip, due to his efforts to remain ‘diplomatic’ and ‘politically correct’ the result was a further diminishment of any substantive differences in foreign policy between the two candidates.

While much of the European media is consumed with insatiable ‘Obamamania,’ Christoph von Marschall, bureau chief of Berlin’s daily Der Tagesspiegel, describes how the foreign media has been almost completely denied access to the candidate. He writes:

‘As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad. This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections.’

But Von Marschall also suggests another reason for Obama’s evasiveness:

‘Perhaps Obama considers members of the foreign media a risk rather than an opportunity. His campaign learned the hard way how comments to foreigners can resonate at home – recall adviser Austan Goolsbee’s hints to a Canadian diplomat that Obama’s critique of NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric, or former aide Samantha Power’s “monster” remark about Hillary Clinton to the Scotsman.’

Power, of Harvard University, had to resign as one of Obama’s top advisers following her indiscreet remarks to the Scotsman, a leading Scottish newspaper that is not read widely in the United States.

Marschall’s punch line comes from an Obama campaign adviser, whom he quotes as saying, “Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?”

In response, Régis Le Dommier, the U.S. bureau chief of Paris Match (a French magazine specializing in human interest stories, European royalty and glamorous celebrities) and Laura Hamm, U.S. correspondent for Canal Plus (a French television station) wrote to the Washington Post saying they had interviewed Obama in January but had been denied further access since then. Their main point:

‘Foreign journalists covering the U.S. presidential election should have the same access to the candidates as American journalists have. This historic election campaign is being watched all over the world. It is not just a question of who votes in the election but also of who cares about the result.’

‘Snubbed by Obama’ Washington Post, July 20, 2008
‘Obama and the Foreign Media’ Washington Post, July 25, 2008

A surly New York waiter seeks to promote his forthcoming book, “Waiter Rant,” by accusing the British of failing to leave proper tips in a blog run by the British daily, the Guardian. John Murray fingers a retired couple from Leeds in Yorkshire, whom he describes as “wonderful people” and “polite and well mannered.” He then berates them for leaving a “horrible tip” of $7 on a bill of $73.23, which the couple almost certainly viewed as extremely generous, given the difference between British and American tipping habits. Murray claims that even British waiters in the United States ‘cringe’ when they hear English accents, which invariably presage “bad tips.” In a bid to sugar the pill, Murray adds:

“Trust me, I don’t like being right about this. I love Great Britain. It’s the home of the Magna Carta, William Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, James Bond, Page 3 Girls and [TV chef] Gordon Ramsay. Your “sceptred isle” heroically stood alone against the darkness of fascism, gave us the Beatles, and took Madonna off our hands. I love the UK and hope to visit that ancient and majestic country one day.”

He then concludes:

“But if I get another bad tip from a British person - I’ll nuke the country from space.”

An outpouring of comments on the blog run heavily against the waiter, and the American system that obliges waiters to rely on tips, not salaries, for a living. Murray has probably lost more British readers than he has gained for his book, due to be released August 7. It will be interesting to see how he promotes his opus if it is ever published in French.

A commentary in the left-of-center British daily, the Guardian, July 21 struck a salutary note of caution amid all the frenzy surrounding Barack Obama’s tour of Europe. It warned that, while transatlantic relations are likely to improve under the next U.S. administration, Washington’s demands on Europe will almost certainly increase -regardless of whether Obama or John McCain occupies the White House. In the words of Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier:

“Ever since the end of the cold war almost two decades ago, Europeans have been uneasy with American power. They have either feared that America would be too stingy in using its influence . . . or worried about the consequences of American “hyperpower.” . . . the next US president will give Europeans something they have long wanted, offering reassurance and establishing a great deal of goodwill.

But make no mistake: a president Obama or McCain will expect something in return. If Europeans really mean what they say about putting the transatlantic relationship on a stronger footing, they have to start thinking now about how they can help the next president get what he wants on the three toughest issues he inherits - withdrawing from Iraq, negotiating with Iran and successfully prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. That message should not get lost amid the excitement about America’s presidential campaign trail extending across the Atlantic.”

There is unfortunately not much evidence that Europeans are considering these issues, as the commentary correctly recommends. On the contrary, in recent years Europeans have tended to believe that the best way to achieve transatlantic unity is for Washington to adopt European policies, rather than for Europe to move toward the United States.

‘What the next US President means for Europe’ The Guardian, July 21, 2008

This post was written by Reginald Dale, Transatlantic Media Network Director

Earlier this year a dramatic accident at an illegal street race in a Washington DC suburb killed eight people and sent five others to hospital. The reaction of local law enforcement? A crackdown on illegal street racing. In the Polish city of Lodz, police have taken precisely the opposite approach. They have co-opted illegal races, making them monthly public spectacles. The New York Times reports on the phenomenon it a recent article “Where Racing is Fast and Police Aren’t Furious.”

Whether American or British journalism is “better” is a complex and probably unanswerable question that would require many thousands of words to address exhaustively. Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs writer of the Financial Times has a crack at it in a 900-word column July 15 (“American journalism, still a model”), and doesn’t much like the answer he comes up with. Among his conclusions:

“The Americans are stuffier and more cautious. But they are also more careful and take the idea of journalism as a civic duty much more seriously. Much as it pains me to say this, I fear the Americans are closer to being right than the British.”

Rachman focuses mainly on a relatively small and dwindlining segment of today’s media, up-market newspapers. And he misses some of the fundamental differences between the two sides of the Atlantic. Thus he writes, correctly:

“American journalists, I realised, regard themselves as members of a respectable profession – like lawyers or bankers. Their British counterparts generally prefer the idea that they are outsiders.”

But he does not explore the reasons for this observation, which are to be found in two main areas. The first is the huge American nexus of journalism schools, foundations dedicated to journalistic ethics, and journalism awards, which has no equivalent in Britain. This nexus actively promotes the concept of journalists as tribunes of the people and reserves its prime accolades for those who triumph in holding government accountable, as in the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. (The unfortunate side-effect of Watergate was that it led to a surge in “gotcha” journalism that still distorts the motivations of many American reporters today).

The second fundamental divergence stems from the differing constitutional arrangements in Britain and the United States. In Britain, at least theoretically, the prime minister is accountable to the people via their elected representatives in Parliament. In the United States, the President never submits himself to questioning on Capitol Hill and is accountable to the people via the media - most specifically through presidential press conferences. American journalists have thus acquired a kind of quasi-constitutional status that gives them a much greater sense of self-importance than their British counterparts, many of whom regard journalism as basically a game.

This self-importance reaches its apogee in the White House press corps, which Americans outside Washington often find irritating, and Rachman is certainly well aware of the general tendency of American journalists to pontificate. He says:

“A lot of American newspaper journalism strikes me as self-reverential, long-winded, over-edited and stuffy.”

The only thing wrong with that assessment is the word, “over-edited.” Much of the self-reverential and long-winded reporting to be found in the Washington Post, for example, is the fault of under-editing. Serious U.S. journalism lacks the brutal tradition of Fleet Street in which editors throw back stories at writers and insist they cut them drastically and get to the point.

It is to some extent true, as Rachman states, that another famed Fleet Street tradition, cheerfully making up stories, “has brought British journalism into disrepute in the United States.” Many former Fleet Street operatives in fact work for the tabloid scandal sheets that shout from the racks in U.S. supermarket check-out lanes. On the other hand, there is a still a great deal of respect in America for the BBC - even if not all of it is justified.

This post was written by Reginald Dale, Transatlantic Media Network Director

Perhaps this is no more than proof of the old adage that journalism is a career for young people, who necessarily have less in their memory banks than their elders.

In a dispatch July 16 (”Crises force Bush to embrace intervention“), the Financial Times quoted the following words as told to the Washington newspaper Politico by Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee:

“The top financial officials of George Bush’s administration have come before the public and said ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.’”

The FT report would have had more impact if it had explained the derivation of Mr. Frank’s remark. In one of his most celebrated witticisms, President Ronald Reagan used to say:

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

This post was written by Reginald Dale, Transatlantic Media Network Director

In a report July 8, the Washington Post took on the easy target of EU food regulations, ridiculing rules such those defining the bend in Class 1 cucumbers, the size of onions, and the ripeness of peaches. Such seemingly absurd regulations are frequently derided in the media, especially in Britain, but supported by a majority of EU governments, which want consumers to know what they are buying. Mariann Fischer Boel, a sensible Dane who is European Commissioner for Agriculture, wants to reduce regulations on fruit and vegetable marketing standards from 34 to ten, but faces an uphill and probably losing battle.

The story’s dateline, Paris, once again betrays the legendary unwillingness of American journalists to report on EU matters from Brussels, the EU headquarters, which is just 1 hour 22 minutes north of Paris by train.

There is no doubt that many EU regulations could be simplified. Indeed the current Commission President, José Manuel Barroso of Portugal, has frequently promised to do so. One problem is that the demand for regulations, for example making vegetables easier to package, often comes from businesses in the member states, which put pressure on their governments which in turn put pressure on the Commission.

The Washington Post report, ‘Europe Debates Perfection It Demands of Its Produce,’ concedes that some consumers, including an American expatriate who was interviewed, find the produce classifications useful for buying. But it adds:

…for others, the efforts to regulate produce have simply gone too far.

Let’s consider the onion for a moment, and the E.U.’s “Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 of 28 July 1983 laying down quality standards for onions and witloof chicory.” You would think that the 10 pages of standards and the 19 amendments and corrections made in the 25 years since the regulation’s enactment would leave little doubt about the required size, shape and color of an onion, and the amount of peeling, bruising, staining, cracking, root tufting and sprouting that is permissible. You would be wrong.

In January 2007, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture issued a report in which it took 29 pages to explain “quality standards for onions,” complete with 43 photographs.

In the interests of fairness, one might note that the story contains an element of the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who tries to navigate the thousands of regulations covering the marketing and labeling of food in the United States will quickly find themselves ensnared in a similar jungle.

Charitable Americans cooking home-made jelly for the church bake sale might think twice if they were aware of the following:

“The law requires jelly to be 45 parts by weight juice to 55 parts by weight sugar. To determine the weight of the single strength juice when using a concentrate:
I. Check the Brix (% sugar) or soluble solids (using the refractometer) of the fruit juice or concentrate. For instance: apple concentrate (three-fold) at 40o Brix.
II. Multiply the percent solids by the weight of the ingredients and divide by 100. For instance 100 lbs apple concentrate at 40% solids.
(100 x 40) /100 = 4000/100 = 40
III. Subtract any added sugar solids for a sweetened or capped concentrate or juice.
IV. Multiply by the factor in Table 1
40 x 7.5 = 300
This means your 100 lbs. of 40o Brix apple concentrate was equal to 300 lbs. of single strength juice. Added sugar solids may be no higher ratio than 55/45 or 1.22 times the weight of the single strength juice:
In this case we have the equivalent of 300 lbs. of single strength juice.
300 x 1.22 = 366 lbs. of sugar solids may be added
The advantage of not diluting the concentrate to single strength is that cooking time may be regulated by judicious addition of water. The above combination would be only about 61% solids and the excess water must be “cooked off” until 65% solids is reached. The sugar ingredient may be added as a syrup and its water can be taken into account in the formulation.”

This is a game that U.S. bureaucrats can play just as well as the famous Eurocrats of Brussels.

This post was written by Reginald Dale, Transatlantic Media Network Director

An article in the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende on July 4 again demonstrated how parts of the European media are struggling to present a non-biased picture of the U.S. presidential election despite their support for Barack Obama. The article sought to analyze the most important battleground states and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the two main candidates. However, with the headline “Obama’s Most Important Battlegrounds” and the assertion that “If Obama is to win, three areas of the U.S. where he has a realistic chance will be vital,” the article, perhaps unwittingly, painted a picture of the election from Obama’s viewpoint. The three battlegrounds analyzed by the article (Ohio, Florida, and the triangle of New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado) are, of course, just as important to John McCain.

The article also began with an interesting reference to the Fourth of July celebrations: “The Americans today celebrate their constitution: they raise the Star Spangled Banner, wear their flag pins, and grill marshmallows.” The predictable caricature aside, the article contains two errors in the same sentence: The Fourth of July holiday, of course, celebrates not the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence, and the Star Spangled Banner is the national anthem, not the flag.

‘Obamas viktigste slag (Obama’s Most Important Battlegrounds)’  Bergens Tidende, July 4, 2008
This post was written by Ola Ulmo, Transatlantic Media Network Intern