Facts -- The Geneva Convention and the Military Commission Act

President George W. Bush signs into law S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, during a ceremony Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the East Room of the White House.

(Source: Paul Morse, whitehouse.gov)

by Richard Jung Lee

edited by Stine Eckert

I believe that any country that violates human rights should be criticized. The United States, Zimbabwe, or any other government in the world should be punished if they violate the Geneva Convention. What happened in Guantanamo Bay can not justify Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s wrongdoings. Mugabe is responsible for murder of thousands, torture of dissidents, forced displacement, food shortages, and currency collapse in Zimbabwe. Those are facts!

Is there a human rights double standard in the United States? Yes, there is. Since 9/11, the United States introduced some security measures that violate human rights. The “Military Commission Act” passed in 2006 legalized torture as a means to fight terrorism; secret wiretap warrants doubled since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. I think Americans should defend human rights as hard in their own country as they defend human rights in other countries. National security is not an excuse.

Any country that violates human rights should be covered by the media and judged by the public. However, I do not think it is possible or necessary to include the U.S. human rights incidents in every single article about the human rights violations of other countries. I would only mention those incidents if it is relevant to the story I am working on.

Playing by the rules

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found on the United Nations website.

by Cristina Mutchler

edited by Stine Eckert

As a journalist, it is important to be both ethical and lawful when writing editorials especially about such sensitive subjects as the violation of human rights.

The United States is permitted to exercise authority in the protection of its citizens. If the president has gone beyond international law or standards often the activities must be curbed. If the methods are lawful or constitutional, they should be permissible. However, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's attempts to go on the offensive and accuse the United States of wrongdoing does not excuse his violation of international law.

I think it is also a question of what constitutes "torture," as these methods are labeled broadly and we do not necessarily know the exact methods used. As a journalist, I think it is my place to report fairly and accurately on governmental issues and during this transition in leadership, it would not be fair to accuse.

The United States can question the human rights record of any country if it has sufficient verification of the abuses just as other countries may question the human rights issues in the United States. If wiretapping is done pursuant to law there is no question as to its legality or the government's role in pursuing same. The allegations are subject to criticism and must be compared to the standards of international law. I would encourage those who criticize the United States of having a double standard with regards to international human rights to instead help ensure that all countries are playing "by the rules."

The alleged abuses of the United States should be open to investigation. It is understandable that the United States is reacting to 9/11 but the reactions must be tempered by international law. Other countries should also be held to the same standards and should be open to criticism. When reporting about other nations that allegedly violate international law, I think that the focus should be to encourage and ensure that all countries are maintaining the same standard for human rights.

Editorials need to show both sides

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Source: http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/Portal/Pillar7-Society.html)

by Celia Shortt
edited by Stine Eckert

My editorial dealing with the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, and President of the United States, George W. Bush, would have included a response from President Bush about the accusations leveled against him by President Mugabe. The only statement that resembled a defense from President Bush’s side was, “Bush denies the United States tortures.” Even as a writer of an editorial, I would have tried to show both sides as well as possible and then make a determination from there.

I think that the government has the right to do what it feels necessary to protect its country against outside threats and enemies. I do think, however, that whatever the government should choose to do should be aimed at the actual source of those threats. I believe that innocent people have been hurt and targeted by those tactics. I would also say that some innocent people had their human rights violated by those governmental tactics. If the government is going to go those extremes, they should know exactly who they’re targeting.

I would include these developments of the United States international human rights incidents during President Bush’s terms with all other incidents of the same nature from other countries throughout the world. These actions violated human rights and should be called such. The United States should not be held to any different standard.

Triple Standards -- The Trickiness of the International Criminal Court and Human Rights

Symbol of the International Criminal Court (Source: teamdarfur.org)

by Lu Tang

edited by Stine Eckert

If I were to write an editorial, I would try to conceive it from a balanced angle. I would put this issue in context to help the readers understand why Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe slammed former President G. W. Bush over human rights and what the responses from the Bush administration were. I would prepare some background knowledge of what happened in the past between these two countries and what reaction to Mugabe’s accusation of Bush is in other countries.

It is true that United States plays double standards on the question of international human rights, sometimes triple standards.

Actually if countries are not satisfied with what the Bush administration did to prisoners of war in the Guantanamo Bay prison, they can sue the United States in the International Criminal Court (IIC), but no one will take this case, because the IIC has a special agreement called the Rome Statute, and the United States did not sign it (other countries which did not sign it either include China, India, and Russia). It means the United States can never be sued for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

Generally speaking, the act that the United States military tortured people in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib prison is not right, but it is not illegal. So you can criticize the U.S. government, but you can never really do anything to prevent it. At the same time, the United States may punish other countries which they think violate human rights and place sanctions on them through its influence on the United Nations while what the other countries can do is only “accuse” the United States of violating human rights.

Why We Elected Obama

Robert Mugabe and George W. Bush. (Source: usatoday.com)

by Ellen Schnier
edited by Stine Eckert

It is possible that no nation is completely in compliance with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Many nations who have subscribed to these policies make great attempts to follow through with them. They were founded to recognize all people of the world as human beings, who should be treated as such.

While Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, exaggerates the situation, he brings to light some criticisms of former President G.W. Bush. In his address, he takes no responsibility for his own human rights abuses and attempts to put Mr. Bush's failings on par with his. This is almost laughable, as he is almost solely responsible for creating chaos in Zimbabwe, driving the inflation rate up so their currency is no longer viable and people cannot afford food. Even Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu said he was devastated by the human rights violations of Mugabe's government.

His criticisms, however, are not unwarranted. He is not the first to speak about the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Suspects held without being given a trial violates the U.S. Constitution and international codes. The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay were illegal and went beyond the bounds of U.S. standards and those of the UN Human Rights Declaration. Certainly former President G.W. Bush is at fault as Commander in Chief for allowing such atrocities to stain the image of the United States.

The same can be said for violations of rights within our borders. After 9/11 heavy security measures were placed on Americans in the name of national security such as monitoring their phone calls and records without restriction or notice. Terrified by the possibility of another attack on the United States, former President G.W. Bush put in place measures that many feel violate our freedoms.

In looking back at Mr. G.W. Bush's presidency, many will remember the egregious errors he made in entering a war prematurely and without full information, in allowing torture techniques that had been made illegal, and in holding prisoners hostage in what Mugabe calls "concentration camps." All of these were done (we have to believe) with the best interest of the United States in mind and for the protection of our citizens against a second terrorism attempt.

At what cost was this done, however? Are we better off having killed thousands of innocent citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq, having spent billions upon billions of dollars putting our economy in a tailspin, having violated the freedoms of American citizens, and having violated international codes of human rights just to prevent another attack? Most Americans would probably say no. There is no justification for such egregious violations.

This is why our new President Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed on his first day of office and has said that the military must follow the prescribed interrogation techniques. He is attempting to right some of the wrongs of the former president and restore some contempt other nations hold for U.S. hypocrisy. Healing needs to take place.

For this reason, writing about other nations' violations of human rights is made easier by the promise of change. Since Mr. Obama took office, he has taken steps to ensure the United States can pursue other nations' failings in this area without President Mugabe's counterargument.

No country is perfect, and no country will ever completely uphold the example of human rights without moments of failure. The range of violations, however, is important to note. Just because the United States does not have a completely unblemished record does not mean our violations are on par with those of Zimbabwe or other nations whose tyrannical dictators suppress the rights of all people in their countries and make violation a habit. We still have a responsibility to attempt to correct the wrongs of other nations, even if we have some problems ourselves.

It is the responsibility of American journalists to expose other nations' human rights violations, but they have an equal responsibility to expose our own. These will appear most likely in separate articles, but there should be articles about our own government's failings and make an attempt to put us on a better path.

Museum Bridges the Cultural Gap between East and West

Photo Courtesy: Museum of Islamic Art

By: Sally Ann Cruikshank

The building rises out of the bay, its unique angles carving a new shape in the Doha skyline. It is the new $300 million Museum of Islamic Art, commonly referred to MIA. It represents not only a change in the aesthetic of the Qatar city, but also a shift in the country’s future as a cultural hub of the Middle East.

The Museum opened its doors to the public in December 2008, and one visitor calls it a “treasure of ancient Islamic history.” The MIA’s design is the work of renowned Chinese-American architect I.M. Pei, who designed the glass pyramids that are now part of the Louvre in Paris, France. The Museum sits on a man-made island in Doha Harbor because Pei did not want any other structures to compete with it.

Pei’s task was to blend the Islamic traditions of the past with modern architecture. Nesma Adb Elaziz, an editor for IslamOnline.net who visited MIA to cover its inauguration says Pei has succeeded. “In every corner you will find both styles going side by side,” says Elaziz.

It is that blending of Islamic tradition and modern ideals which authorities in Qatar hope will translate into a learning experience for visitors to MIA. Inside the Museum, more than 14 centuries of Islamic art and culture are on display, a collection over a decade in the making. Philip Beech, editor of the Qatar Visitor website, says the country’s Emir and his wife want to emphasize Islam as a humanitarian religion and “emphasizing the artistic and scientific achievements of Islam adds another facet to this.”

It is a notion that struck Roxanne Piper Davis, a U.S. expatriate living in Qatar, when she visited MIA for the first time. She calls the Museum a “unique place that allows Muslims and non-Muslims to appreciate their religion and culture at the same time.” “One of my favorite pieces is a picture of the Virgin Mary with Arabic Calligraphy written at the top: ‘There is no God but God,’” Beech says. “There’s speculation that this is meant to emphasize the similarities between Islam and Christianity.”

The opening of MIA could mean more people will get to experience those similarities. The Museum is the first step in Qatar’s plan to become a tourist destination. Elaziz says it is a plan that’s working. “The museum has already attracted the attention of the whole world, with its grand design and extravagant inauguration,” she says. “It gives an opportunity to Qatar to establish itself as a cultural center after being labeled as an oil rich state for a long time.”

Beech says preparations are already underway across Qatar to prepare for an increase in international visitors. A new, larger airport is under construction and more hotel rooms are being built. He says the hope is people will come to see MIA and stay to enjoy the other attractions in the area, such as the singing sand dunes, camel racing, and world-class golf courses.

The curators are already working to make MIA more appealing, by partnering with the British Museum and other museums around the world to display its rare works of art. The Qatar Museums Authority has also announced plans to open a library inside MIA next to an educational center. Piper Davis says it all could lead to a greater understanding between the East and West. “We obviously cannot expect MIA to solve major conflicts, but perhaps it will contribute at least to a small level of understanding and tolerance.”

Need to Change -- Bangladesh’s Election and the Hope and Concerns of its People

by Stine Eckert

Change. That was not only the buzzword for the recent U.S. election and President Barack Obama, but also for Sheik Hasina, the president of the Awami League (AL) party in Bangladesh. Just like the United States presidential campaigns, the promise of change brought an overwhelming victory in Bangledesh’s general election on December 29, 2008. The AL party-led alliance won an absolute majority by taking 258 of 294 parliamentary seats against its main opponent, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Before, a quasi-military government ran the country during a state of emergency. During these 23 months, citizens' fundamental rights were suspended. For Bangladeshis the first general election in seven years was a breakthrough in returning to democracy; 70% participated.

What hopes and concerns harbor Bangladeshis for the promised changes of the new government? – An unemployed biologist, environmental analyst, high school student, human rights activist, journalist, and university administrator answer.

No Proper Democracy Yet

“It is true that Bangladesh is yet to get the proper democracy, but we are in the process,” writes Muhammad Aminul Islam, senior staff correspondent at the Dhaka-based daily newspaper New Age in an e-mail interview. He says that it is yet too early to judge the new government. “Absolute power means absolute corruption,” he says. “I am concerned whether this government can control its members.” Mr. Islam says that between 2001 and 2006 the BNP-led alliance enjoyed a similar majority but crushed the people’s hopes with “unabated irregularities by the ruling party men.” Violence after the recent election by AL rulers and its student wing, he says, has brought back the fear that this government might be a déjà-vu of the BNP rule. He says that his hope lies with the young and fresh but inexperienced ministers whose help the AL administration needs to tackle corruption, reduce inflation and hunger in society.

Despair and a Digital Bangladesh

Twenty-year old Dhaka resident Rukshana Sultana, who recently earned a Master’s degree in biology but is unemployed, writes in an e-mail interview that the election means a lot to her. She says as much as the country is approaching the AL-led administration positively, the people will carefully watch its every step. Sultana says that with the number of unemployed young people rising, the new government should prioritize job creation and lower food prices. Nabila Naomi, an 18-year old high school senior in Dhaka said in an e-mail interview that the new government must lower the price of rice and invest in road repair in smaller areas. She says that she “hates politicians.” Meanwhile, 26-year old Sayed Mohammad Mosharof, who holds a Master’s degree in soil and environmental science and works as an environmental analyst in Dhaka, says in an e-mail interview that he had awaited the election with the “hope of an unlimited horizon.” His wish list for the government includes curbing corruption, state accountability, and lowering food-prices, creating a more technologically advanced “digital Bangladesh.”

Self-Censorship, Torture, and Freer Expression

Dr. Kazi Anis Ahmed, Director of Academic Affairs at the University of Liberal Arts in Dhaka, similarly banks on the government’s promise for increased investment in information technology to benefit higher education. Under the rule of the quasi-military interim government, Dr. Ahmed says in an e-mail interview, “a great deal of self-censorship” was going on among citizens but also writers, intellectuals, and journalists. He disclosed that after some riots had started at a university campus “on very flimsy ground” and spread countrywide, thousands of people including students and some prominent professors were arrested and allegedly roughed up in detention.

One of them was human rights activist and independent journalist Tasneem Khalil. A Human Rights Watch report published in February 2008 details the “The Torture of Tasneem Khalil.” At the time of his arrest Mr. Khalil reported for the respected English language newspaper The Daily Star, CNN, and Human Rights Watch. Among other issues, he covered extrajudicial killings and minority rights. In the report he says that on May 11, 2007 men of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, the military intelligence agency of Bangladesh, arrested him. Khalil writes that during the 22 hours in captivity he was repeatedly verbally abused and beaten. A photo in the report shows a dinner-plate sized purple-red bruise on his left lower back. Mr. Khalil now lives in Sweden.

In an e-mail interview Mr. Khalil writes he would “love to see” the free press as the main weapon to fight hunger and poverty this time. The overwhelming victory of AL was no surprise to him. He predicted such a victory two years ago if free and fair elections were conducted. “People power has once again won the battle for democracy, something to be excited about.” He says the new government appears to be “very serious” about fulfilling promises such as quickly fixing the steeply rising food prices – an issue he says will make or break it. He says AL president Sheik Hasina has selected “some of the brightest and honest faces” in Bangladeshi politics. This, Mr. Khalil hopes, signals a pro-people, left-of-center government for the next five years. But he also says he’s worried about the “fascist tendencies” AL has shown in the past. “[I’m] keeping my fingers crossed, so that we don't have to watch the orgy of political violence anymore or see yet another sham parliament in Bangladesh.”

Everything possible, even reelection

Dr. Ahmed warns of “a certain tendency of partisan administration in public academic institutions will persist but needs to be kept within limits.” He hopes the urgent help needed for the economy is really coming as the AL-led alliance seems to be more “economically aware” than previous administrations. If the government keeps it own members in check and insures that the opposition does not leave the parliamentary process, he suggests, “it may become the first to get re-elected in five years.”

Bangladesh needs to take one step at a time. “Only the struggle for a democratically elected government,” writes Mr. Islam, “can ensure that the people will get the proper democracy one day.” Whereas Mr. Mosharof is enthusiastic that “everything is possible in Bangladesh;” Ms Naomi remains pessimistic: “Neither this government nor [its opponent] BNP can do anything for our country.”

Prof. Kalyango Talks to OU-SPJ Chapter about International Reporting

Professor Yusuf Kalyango, director of Ohio University's Institute for International Journalism, recently spoke about international reporting with OU's Society of Professional Journalists chapter. He specifically addressed the challenges and risks of international correspondence. You can view excerpts from the video interview below.

Dr. Kalyango explains one of the biggest challenges impacting international journalists.

Dr. Kalyango speaks about the impact that ethnocentrism has on international reporting.

Dr. Kalyango talks about the treatment of foreign correspondents in developing countries and gives advice to people who wish to report outside of the United States.

Filmed and Edited by Taylor Mirfendereski

Comparing Local and International Coverage of Obama Inauguration

A Nation Reborn... Australian Coverage

Edited by Sally A. Cruikshank
Author: Ellen Schnier

Photo courtesy of WAToday
Aretha Franklin sang 'Our Country 'Tis of Thee' just before President Barack Obama was sworn in and delivered his inaugural speech. Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut of the Washington Post included this in their article, 'A Historic Inauguration Draws Throngs to the Mall.' Geoff Elliot, Washington Correspondent for The Australian, in 'A Nation Reborn Under President Bush,' left out such details as this and that Mr. Obama used the same Bible Abraham Lincoln used for his first inauguration.

While, of course, Americans are more interested in the details of an event happening in their own country, the Australian journalist spoke more about U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and what General Petraeus was doing during the inauguration.This is only to say that there was an overwhelming and palpable feeling of hope and a sense of history taking place that was felt by Americans on Tuesday and seeped into the Washington Post article. Shear and Kornblut, in introducing the tone on the National Mall in Washington, said the event 'took place among a building air of anticipation' for an inauguration with 'record-breaking attendance.'

President Obama 'looked out at a sea of admirers' while giving his speech, 'chanting his name and straining for a glimpse of the new president.' Elliott, on the other hand, began his article mentioning that one of the new president's first acts would be to stop legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. Caught up in the grandness of the day, the American journalists began by saying Mr. Obama has the task of 'reviving a country in crisis.' The words 'hope' and 'change' are used throughout the article.Geoff Elliott said of the president's address, 'The speech was a fairly dour effort for a renowned orator' and reported its 'subdued tone.' While Shear and Kornblut agreed about the 'somber tone,' they called his speech notable for its 'soaring rhetoric.'

Beyond such differences (that can be attributed mainly to the fog of euphoria that seemed to join Americans for a day), much of the commentary overlaps. Both mentioned near the beginning of their articles the economic hardships the country faces and quoted Mr. Obama, 'We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.'Both articles also mentioned the president's discussion of foreign affairs with both ally nations and enemies. 'America is a friend to each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.'

The Australian, offering an international perspective to his comment, added, 'He sent a message to the rest of the world, and Islamic nations, after eight years in which US ties with some of its top allies have frayed, especially after the war in Iraq.' (This certainly speaks to a renewed interest both the new president and other foreign leaders have in moving forward.) Mr. Obama continued, 'To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward' and announced to terrorists, 'We say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.' A message of strength to our enemies in war, both articles included his vow.Aside from quoting similar parts of Mr. Obama's address, both articles mentioned that on Wall Street, stocks took a tumble throughout the day, signaling even greater economic demise.

Very little was mentioned about President Obama's race in The Australian and in fact never mentions the fact that he is the first African-American president. Elliott simply mentions his 'improbable tilt for the presidency' and said he 'touched only briefly on the triumph he shares with African-Americans.' While theWashington Post would agree that Mr. Obama 'made only glancing references to the racial barrier that had fallen with his historic ascent,' Shear and Kornblut did not downplay its significance. 'His voice echoing across the Mall, where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the 1963 march on Washington, Obama saluted the progress the nation has made in healing racial division.' They mentioned his reference to slavery, how ancestors 'endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth' and hailed 'our patchwork history.' It is evident that even if the new president did not bring his race to the forefront of his speech, the rest of the nation did.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that George W. Bush, upon being relieved of his duties and boarding a plane to Texas, received 'plenty of jeers from a crowd eager to see a new chapter in the U.S. story (from The Australian). 'Some of the crowd booed at the sight of Bush,' the Washington Post relayed, "who left office as one of the least popular presidents in U.S. history." Some things are too obvious to go unnoticed..."

Comparing Local and International Coverage of President Obama's Inauguration

Power of People... German Coverage

Edited by Sally A. Cruikshank
Author: Stine Eckert

Capturing the moment, saving it for the next generation - this seemed to be the purpose of German newspapers on January, 21st.. But it was not Obama, foreign correspondent Matthias Rüb (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) was focusing on - it was the American people. He observed and described a moment, where people stood together, sharing a moment everyone was waiting for. The correspondent experienced a united America, where citizens, whether they were Black, Hispanic, Asian or Caucasian, looked up to and believed in the words of one man. Matthias Rüb witnessed a day, where the American people re-gained their pride, and he shared this day with the German people. Also the New York Times appreciated the sea of flags and red, white and blue between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. 'Beyond the politics of the occasion, the sight of a black man climbing the highest peak electrified people across racial, generational and partisan lines,' the paper wrote. And this new hope is needed, to solve all the current and upcoming problems. Two wars, an economic crisis, terrorism, lost jobs and health care are only a few challenges the newspaper lists.

Photo courtesy of CreativeSoulPhoto
"Capturing the moment, saving it for the next generation - this seemed to be the purpose of German newspapers on January, 21st.. But it was not Obama, foreign correspondent Matthias Rüb (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) was focusing on - it was the American people. He observed and described a moment, where people stood together, sharing a moment everyone was waiting for. The correspondent experienced a united America, where citizens, whether they were Black, Hispanic, Asian or Caucasian, looked up to and believed in the words of one man. Matthias Rüb witnessed a day, where the American people re-gained their pride, and he shared this day with the German people. Also the New York Times appreciated the sea of flags and red, white and blue between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. 'Beyond the politics of the occasion, the sight of a black man climbing the highest peak electrified people across racial, generational and partisan lines,' the paper wrote. And this new hope is needed, to solve all the current and upcoming problems. Two wars, an economic crisis, terrorism, lost jobs and health care are only a few challenges the newspaper lists.

In contrast to that, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung focuses on the overall goals of Obama's politics: hope over fear, and unity over conflicts. Detailed challenges, or overall goals - The newspapers from the two continents seem to agree. There are problems to face in the next couple of months and years. But a President that has and values the support of the people is a step in the right direction.On January, 21st, German and U.S. newspapers had the same opinion. It was a glorious day, that was a result from the power of people." --Carolin Biebrach"On both sides of the Atlantic, journalists tried to get an overall feel for Obama’s tone during his inaugural speech; German and US journalists covered the event rather homogeneously.German foreign correspondent Gregor Peter Schmitz in Washington who was reporting for one of the major political publications in German, weekly Spiegel magazine, dubbed Obama the 'new national chief psychologist' for his motivational spirit; CNN gave Obama a thumbs up for 'the right speech for the times.' Whereas the Spiegel article was titled 'Obama proclaims his American dream,' the analysis of his inaugural speech by Nancy Gibbs of Time magazine was more specific and somber: 'Humility, Gratitude, Sacrifice.' She concluded her story taking the perspective of the audience who looked up at 'a man in the very far distance accept[ing] the full weight of their hopes.'

Hope over fear was just one topic that German and U.S. journalists addressed. Both also emphasized Obama’s willingness to face what ails the United States openly, his call for duty and sacrifice. Another German foreign correspondent Oskar Piegsa of weekly newspaper Zeit, another major political publication in Germany, gave examples of people in tears due to the historical meaning of the moment, pointing out Obama’s background. A theme that came up with every U.S. media I read. Piesga also likened the event to public viewing for a major soccer game with everyone on the same page, booing Bush and obsessing about Obama, a big game easy enough to play for everyone. Interestingly, the Spiegel article reported about Obama’s emphasis on a new and more appreciated position for science and his mentioning of wind and solar energy whereas environmental issues where absent in the U.S. coverage I followed on NPR, CNN, and Time.

The mirroring of topics was reflected in a number of same quotes: In their assessment of Obama’s inaugural speech, Spiegel as well as CNN referenced John F. Kennedy in 1961: 'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.' Both publications quoted the America-as-a-friend line, his acknowledgment of a nation not only at war, and in an economic crisis but also the 'nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable and that the next generation must lower its sights.' In this transatlantic homogeneous mixture of hope and fear only one sentence struck me more than the rest, provided by Nancy Gibbs of Time Magazine: "You could almost pity the pundits as they groped for extravagant new ways to say what didn't need to be said in the first place.