Transatlantic Media

With a flood of U.S. election-related reporting all over the world, it’s not often that particular pieces stand out from the mainstream. But, for German-speakers, it’s worth a look at this post ‘Obama Wins?’ from the weblog of Handelsblatt, the leading German business newspaper. While not the most brilliant example of European coverage of the American election, it does try to point out a difference between German and British/American election reporting.

Blog author Georg Watzlawek suggests that in German journalism there are ‘(at least) two taboos’ - endorsing political candidates and predicting election winners before the results are final.  He says that by endorsing Barack Obama, the Financial Times has compromised its journalistic independence. It seems, however, that when it comes to his own German blog, all rules are out the window as Watzlawek does indeed endorse Obama.

Research contributed by Transatlantic Media Network intern Cecily Boggs

The Times of London reported in this article as news that Sarah Palin has linked her electoral success to Kenyan pastor whom Palin ‘says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.’ While her connection to Muthee is far less significant than that of Barack Obama to Reverand Wright, its interesting to point out that the British papers have not only joined the American one’s in the muckracking expedition into Sarah Palin’s life, but have beaten them to the punch insofar as this story.  For now, it has not appeared in any major American media, exception the Comedy Central satirical ‘initiative’, ‘Indecision: 2008.’

While some Americans questioned whether Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin could hold high office and simultaneously look after five children, an article in the New York Times, ‘Wage Gaps for Women Frustrating Germany’ examined the difficulties faced by German women who want both a family and a high-flying career. The article blamed sexist attitudes and a general tendency for women to be passed over for promotion once they have children – and often choose flexible, part time hours, partly as a result of inadequate public child care facilities.

The article could have made its case more strongly by pointing out that the most powerful woman in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel, has no children. On the other hand, the article also fails to mention that Ursula von der Leyen, the well-known minister for family affairs, has managed to succeed in politics despite having seven children – two more than Mrs. Palin.

The article reports that German women complain both at lack of promotion and at gender inequality in wages, although it does not go into the issue of whether German women are paid less than men for exactly the same work.

Although Germany offers some of most generous maternity (and paternity) leave in Europe, the lack of child care seems to be a major reason why German career women are reluctant to have children. Minister von der Leyen has introduced plans to finance private child care and make more places available in kindergartens.

That, however, is unlikely to be enough to alter a deep-seated German cultural belief that women ought to stay home and have children, rather than seek professional success – a phenomenon to which the article might have paid greater attention, particularly as it reflects a view also expressed by some American critics of Mrs. Palin.

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 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

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

As this blog has documented, Barack Obama has received extensive, and mostly positive, coverage in Europe. Just as he is planning a trip to Europe, however, many in the European media are for the first time strongly criticizing some of his policy pronouncements, particularly those seen as signaling a move to the political center for the general election.

After Obama criticized the Supreme Court for ruling against the use of death penalty for child rapists, Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported June 28 that Obama was falling out of favor in Europe:

German media took Obama to task in several editorials over the weekend, but some also urged their readers to see Obama for what he is, “a short-lived darling of the European political salon,” as the Düsseldorf Rheinische Post described the candidate’s fall from favor.

The Berlin-based newspaper Tagesspiegel appealed to Germans and Europeans in general to wake up from their Obamania trance and recognize the truth behind the Democratic candidate’s comments.

“So often Europeans told themselves: we are not against America only against George W. Bush. Now that the left-leaning Obama has removed his mask to become a president-in-waiting, many in Europe are beginning to realize that the negative aspects they eagerly attributed to Bush are in fact deeply embedded in the land itself: the death penalty, gun ownership, moral conservatism and a dogmatic belief in its own righteousness.”

‘Germans Disappointed in Obama’s Stance on Death Penalty’, June 28, 2008, Deutsche Welle.

Obama’s support for the death penalty was not the only policy stance to be criticized in the European Press. There was a flurry of adverse reactions to his decision to opt out of the public campaign financing system, his support of gun rights after the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a handgun ban in Washington DC, and his pledge to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that Jerusalem would remain undivided in any Middle East settlement.

In a commentary for the German Daily Handelsblatt, Washington correspondent Markus Ziener wrote that Obama’s pivot to the center looked opportunistic, and that Obama was in danger of being labeled as exactly the kind of calculating politician he often criticizes. Ziener gave as examples Obama’s apparent shifts of position on NAFTA, Israel, and wiretapping.

Similarly, in a surprisingly critical op-ed, Halvor Elvik of the Norwegian leftish daily Dagbladet wrote that with his refusal of public campaign funds “the political god Obama shows that he is just like other politicians. If he sees an opportunity for a political advantage he will take it, even if it means going back on earlier promises. The last days have seen a spur of these broken promises - on the death penalty, gun control and surveillance.”

Some commentators questioned whether Obama had abandoned all his original values for political gain. In Britain, Dominic Lawson, a columnist for the Independent, asked how anyone could continue to believe in Obama’s lofty calls for a new way of politics after his recent U-turns. “How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny – and, of course, his conscience?” Lawson asked. The same question was raised by Washington correspondent Reymer Klüver in the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. In a July 4 article, Klüver wrote that “The charismatic Democrat wants to become president at any price, and has abandoned previously held positions and stressed conservative values. That raises the question: What does Obama really stand for?”

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

The New York Times reported in an interesting article from Paris June 17 that Barack Obama’s political success in the United States is helping to give hope, and a new sense of identity, to blacks in France. The report erred, however, by referring twice to incidents of vandalism and rioting in France with the clear, but mistaken, implication that they were perpetrated by blacks.

In the first instance, the report mentioned recent vandalism “in a poor minority suburb of Vitry-le-François,” but did not explain that it concerned Arab immigrants. The article later described rioting in a poor French suburb three years ago as a “watershed” in the revival of black consciousness, without specifying who was involved.

At the time, the NYT itself reported:

“Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. Youths in the neighborhoods say second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part.”

“For Blacks in France, Obama’s Rise is Reason to Rejoice, and to Hope” The New York Times, June 17, 2008

An op-ed by Roger Cohen in The New York Times June 9, ‘The Good American and Monsieur Obama,’ also touched on the French love affair with Obama and his rising appeal in African neighborhoods.

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