...

"Die Welt" is a right-wing paper, btw. Pro Bush Wars and so on. They are known for twisting anything liberal into a bad light and vice vers. It's a sister magazine to the "Bild-Zeitung", which is a cheap tabloid devoid of objective journalism.

In other words, you don't really care about the content, you just look at who speaks the word?

Incidentally, for the sake of other readers, "Die Welt" is not and never has been a "right-wing paper" and the German right-wing, i.e. the NPD and parties like her, as well as the Austrian neo-Nazis have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

Here is a poster by Austrian left-wingers pointing out Austrian "Freedom Party" chief Haider's friendship with Saddam Hussein and Libya's Gadafi:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100035/HaiderPlakat&bgcolor=black

(Caption says "Your governor. Joerg H. We trust him. Because he understand us...")

And so that nobody forgets what "Bush Wars" were about, here again the pictures I took in Iraq of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers for Kurds:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025&bgcolor=black&view=grid

Some of my readers will remember that I also took pictures of a gallery of pictures of gas victims but found them too terrifying to blog about so far.

As for the "right-wing" Bild-Zeitung, it's the work of journalist Axel Springer and his publishing house. Axel Springer was famous for successfully trying to heal the rift between the German and the Jewish people. He was not exactly adored by the German right, unless you count as "right-wing" those opposed to Nazi Germany and the neo-Nazi parties.

The paper is also not "devoid of objective journalism" but is just a bit more honest about its bias.

Nice try, Aroddo, but attacking the messenger won't do it at all. "Die Welt" was merely reporting the facts. They didn't add their spin to the numbers, they just quoted the numbers.

So what can you do if you don't like the facts? Attack the messenger and lie, lie, lie.

It is unfortunate that the German extreme right and extreme left have managed, with the help of the media, to convince so many Germans that George Bush was some kind of second Hitler, but apart from occasionally pointing out what happened in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there is not much I can do to change their view now.

In Iraq George Bush is a lot more popular than in Europe. I sometimes wonder what the man did to Europeans that they hate him so much. Make no mistake: very few people in Iraq want Saddam back and very few people in Iraq did not support the invasion.

The majority of Iraqis are Shiites who suffered greatly under Saddam. They were murdered by the hundred thousands. And in contrast to the allegedly high number of victims of the invasion and the terrorism that followed (all of which is Bush's fault, of course, lest we accidentally blame a terrorist for terrorism instead of celebrating him as a freedom fighter), those deaths were actually real. The bodies were found in mass graves.

The Shiites in Iraq did not want Saddam to remain in power.

And neither did the Kurds, another 20% of the population.

The only ones in Iraq who wanted Saddam to remain in power where the Sunni Arabs who benefitted from his rule. And of those only half, namely those from Saladin province around Tikrit would want him back now.

Outside Iraq there was a lot more support for Saddam and still is.

There are more statues of Saddam now outside Iraq than in Iraq.

Remember the liberal definition of "Hitler" with regards to "Bush Wars":

"Hitler"
noun
Any individual involved in a conflict between America and Arab nationalists except the dictator with the moustache who gases people.

calm down.

if I told you that a news blog site posted proof that Bush ordered the 9/11 attack then you'd never believe it if it came from, say, DailyKos as opposed to the Drudge Report or Fox news.

I don't even understand why you waste your time posting so much bullshit just for me saying that Die Welt is a right leaning magazine.

And regarding the journalistic quality of the Bild Zeitung: http://www.bild.de/

Warning, usually not workplace safe. Usually much titties.

I'd never believe it because it makes no sense. I can believe that Daily Kos might believe it and report it as fact.

You let your ignorance of politics and resultant opinion interfere with your reading. That is never good.

I have other readers, not just you.

Some people appreciate primary sources and learn from them. I don't know about "Die Welt" but I generally found that German media did not cover Iraq very well. I have pictures of torture chambers, why don't they? It should be a huge story.

The idea, coming from a German, that being for "Bush Wars" is somehow "right-wing" is silly. Germany's right-wing extremists were all against the invasion of Iraq and for Saddam. And, incidentally, if you check White Supremacy Web sites you will find that they too were against George Bush.

It's not about right and left, it's about support for fascist dictators and support for democracy. I myself hold many opinions that are left-wing and many that are right-wing, but I will always support democracy over fascist dictatorships, even if it takes a war. And you will never find me on the side of the white supremacists or the German neo-Nazis.

(They wouldn't take me anyway. I am not "white" in their sense of the word.)

A true right-wing news outlet. I noticed a headline about a penis survey.

Our political right is very horny. We europeans are a bit more liberal regarding sexual topics, so naked ladies covering most of page 2 of a DIN A2 sized "newspaper" isn't that big of a deal. Tits are also no indication of left/right political stances. I also didn't state that - I indicated that Bild values tits over content.

By the way, I write newspaper in quotes because Bild was once sued and legaly barred from calling itself a newspaper on behalf of overwhelmingly not following basic journalistic principles (like reporting facts).

I also never mentioned right-extremists - that was something you brought up, as well as the stupid nazi stuff.

Our right wing politicians (mostly CDU - Christian Democratic Union) are not nazis either. Ideologically the CDU is comparable to your democratic party, while our right wing extremist (those focusing on nationalistic topics) are comparable to your republicans.

I'm not saying that to insult your republicans - that's just the way it is.

And it might explain why there are so many instances of europeans calling Bush&Co a nazi.

So is, one can assume, the entire population. I understand Bild has very high reader numbers.

I know that.

So do I.

At least pictures of tits don't steer the readers into a killing frenzy like some articles.

Sounds ridiculous. I read German news papers and they are, like most media, usually devoid of facts and full of opinion (and full of something else, too).

To single out one of them and complain about the lack of facts in its articles seems silly to me, especially when the paper in question features tits and penis articles.

I would be surprised to see a German newspaper that reports more factually than Bild does, to be honest.

Would you have any examples? Like a subject in question and the Bild's and some other paper's take on it?

I just wanted to make it clear whom one allies with if one is against the "Bush Wars" in order to point out that being for the "Bush Wars" is not necessarily a sign of evil.

I can just mean that one opposed the extreme left and extreme right and fascist dictatorships.

You really have little idea of American politics, or German politics.

The Christian Democrats are comparable to the American Republicans. Your right-wing extremists hated George Bush.

The American Democrats are similar to the German Social Democrats, except that Obama is considerably more to the left than the SPD is.

I have met many Germans who don't know anything about the American Republican Party and in their ignorance decide to move them into the NPD/DVU/Republikaner sector of politics (yes, there is a German neo-Nazi party calling themselves "Republikaner"; I guess that makes it difficult for Germans).

In the states you will find right-wing extremists (i.e. white supremacists and the like) in both parties, but more prominently among the Democrats (who have a KKK man in the senate) who were traditionally the party of segregation. (The guy standing in front of the school building not allowing black students in was a Democrat.)

The Republican party also doesn't focus on nationalist topics. In the last elections it was the Democrats who focused on the black-white issue, not the Republicans. And George Bush's policies had absolutely nothing to do with nationalism (which is why he was roundly condemned by white supremacists and German neo-Nazis).

It does explain it. It's sheer ignorance.

You people believe, without knowing much about it, that the Republican party are somehow the same as your neo-Nazis (who are strictly opposed to George Bush's policies), hence, you conclude, Bush is a "Nazi".

I am assuming your definition of "Nazi" might be this:

"Nazi"
noun
A person who sides with Israel against the dictatorships that surround it, with ethnic minorities against the dictatorships that rule them, and with small countries against dictatorships that attack them.

You just can't stop with that nazi shit, can you?

That alone is enough to prove that you don't argue with facts or logic but simply out of ideology motivated spite.

This either qualifies you as terminally uninformed, stupid or just plainly insulting. In any case, this prevents me from taking you seriously anymore.

But to humor you (and others capable of understanding german) i'll provide you with a link to a site that documents Bild inconsistencies since June 2004. Not that I expect you to believe anything I say anymore.

http://www.bildblog.de/date/2004/06/

There's also a really good novel about the journalistic malpractice of Bild from german author Heinrich Böll - The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum.

As long as it is relevant.

If you compare the Republican party to German nationalists you will have to deal with me talking about what nationalists are.

Did I disagree with you again?

If you don't believe that Obama is more left-wing than the German Social Democrats just have a look at Obama's healthcare plan and his attitude towards abortion (which would shock most German Social Democrats if they ever find the time to bother to read about the politics of their new hero).

I am just more informed.

You are, I think, stuck at the point where you believe that Bild report nonsense and that the other papers are "better". They are not.

The major difference is that the publisher of Bild has actually done something useful (work on reconciliation between Jews and Germans) and the other publishers have often just generated hatred.

It should be noted that it has now come to light in Germany that the murders of left-wing students in the 1960s allegedly committed by Bild readers and caused by Bild's articles about the students have in reality been committed by agents in the pay of communist East-Germany.

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Dutschke-Attentat-neu-bewerten-article314415.html

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/meldungen/Dutschke-verdaechtigte-Stasi-article305507.html

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Kurras-bestreitet-Stasi-Spitzelei-article291186.html

Most of the criticism of Bild was always based on its role in 1968.

But let me guess: n-tv.de is a right-wing shill and made these things up just like "Die Welt" made up the numbers in their article on Obama's popularity?

And here is a Web site documenting the other German media:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/

The most unethical reporting I have ever seen in my life was a picture the BBC had taken by one of their journalists of terrorists firing a rocket. NORMAL PEOPLE would try to stop the criminals or call the police. But those journalists made money of it with a great picture.

Bild has never done anything quite like that but the other media who do that look down at Bild.

I think you (and the media) are just looking for someone to look down to to cover up for your own insecurities and faults. Bild is not worse than the others. They are just more open about their bias and more honest about their opinion of regular people.

BTW, I read Boell's book. But I disagree with him.

I wonder if YOU have really read the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Honour_of_Katharina_Blum

depp

It is argued Bild's thirst for sensationalism results in the terrorizing of prominent people (such as TV presenter Charlotte Roche) and stories are frequently based on the most dubious evidence. The journalistic standards of Bild, or the lack thereof, are the subject to frequent criticism by German intellectuals and media observers.

• BILDblog ([1]), a German weblog that when founded was dedicated solely to documenting errors and fabrications in Bild articles, is among Germany's most popular blogs. In 2005, BILDblog received the Grimme Online Award for its work. Since 2007 BILDblog also reports on errors and fabrications in other newspapers from Germany and elsewhere.

• Heinrich Böll's 1974 novel The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, and the 1975 movie based on it, used a fictional stand-in for Bild to make a point about its allegedly unethical journalistic practices. Böll's public words on the Bild's coverage of the Baader-Meinhof Gang activities in the early 1970s were: [what Bild does] isn’t cryptofascist anymore, not fascistoid, but naked fascism, agitation, lies and dirt.

• In 1977 investigative journalist Günther Wallraff worked for four months as an editor for the Bild newspaper in Hanover, giving himself the alias of "Hans Esser". In his books Der Aufmacher (Lead Story) and Zeugen der Anklage (Witnesses for the Prosecution) he portrays his experiences on the editorial staff of the paper and the journalism which he encountered there. The staff commonly displayed contempt for humanity, a lack of respect for the privacy of ordinary people and widespread conduct of unethical research and editing techniques.

• In 2004 Bild was publicly reprimanded 12 times by the Deutscher Presserat (German Press Council). This amounts for a third of the reprimands this self-regulation council of the German press declared that year.

You and I have a different attitude towards how to establish facts.

I look at the facts themselves, hence the pictures from Iraq and my request for actual examples of Bild articles compared with other papers' coverage of the same subject.

You look at what other people, with their own agenda, say about the situation.

No wonder we collided.

Andrew.

Nice to meet you.

See what happens when you run into someone who holds a view that is slightly more complex than the average German intellectual's? It's embarrasing, isn't it? I also think you didn't expect that I had actually read Boell's book.

Oh, please, you think I didn't already read the Wikipedia article on Bild?

And I can imagine that the other papers "reprimand" Bild a lot. I already said that they need a scapegoat.

Those same German "media observers" never seem to realise that most news outlets make up stories as they go along. But it only bothers them when Bild does it without pretending not to.

Did you ever wonder how, say, Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman, who has considerably more liberal positions than most politicians of the CDU in Germany is usually referred to as a "right-wing extremist" by German media? Do you think they ever bothered to find out about what he stands for?

Did you ever wonder why almost no German news outlet ever bothered to document what actually happened in Iraq before the invasion? Guess what German and other western news companies had an understanding with Saddam: they didn't report the bad things and in exchange they were allowed to remain in the country. I understand that makes sense. But why didn't the media report those things when Saddam was ousted and had no power over them any more? Ethics standards? Can you see them?

Did you ever wonder why very few people in the west know what's going on in Sudan while everyone is being informed about every single death in Iraq? Which particular journalistic ethics command that it is more important to paint America in a bad light than to report an even more violent war and genocide in Sudan?

You can read about Sudan here:

http://www.damanga.org/

Although I have to admit that I am biased:

http://www.damanga.org/newsroom/press_releases/2009/letter_to_damanga_friends_and_supporters.html

I have been somewhat involved with the charity for some time (but in an almost inconsequential way, I'm not sure why they list me).

Yes, that's a nice club of honorable people who dare to criticise Bild, it really is.