The Washington Post explains why the media coverage looks the way it does. It’s a function of market-driven journalism. The media consultants, including the aptly-named McVay Media, are saying that a pro-war bias is good for business.

The New York Times has the perfect phrase for the difference between George W. Bush and Tony Blair: “the fluency gap.” I give the Times a lot of credit from running stories from a different perspective, by translating stories from Der Spiegel. Admittedly, they’re not providing some of the more outspoken coverage from the German newsmagazine, which has dropped all pretense of being anythign other than staunchly anti-war. One recent feature was an interview with German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, which included this exchange about Fischer’s hopes for a policy of disarming Iraq without recourse to war:

SPIEGEL: A nice thought, but to get that done one would have had to avoid making loud noises in the [German] election campaign and to have entered into serious conversations with the Americans.

Fischer: I did that. Ever since September 18th or 19th, 2001, when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in Washington roughly outlined for me what he thought the answer to international terrorism had to be.


Fischer: His view was that the US had to liberate a whole string of countries from their terrorist rulers, if necessary by force. Ultimately a new world order would come out of this – more democracy, peace, stability, and security for people.</blockquote>