Well, I personally refute it by reading the blooming thing, rather than reading scare-mongering about the book from lots of people who haven’t read it.

If you read the book, you would realize something that the scare-mongering people seem to miss entirely. It is a work of fiction. It is not a manifesto or a statement of principles or an instruction manual.

What the book says, in short, is that _God_ will cause certain things to happen in the _future_, including mass conversion of the Jews to Christinanity and nasty things to happen in the Middle East. What it does *not* say is that _people_ should go out _now_ and kill or convert Jews or nuke the Middle East.

I personally am offended by the idea that most Jews don’t get to go to heaven unless they convert. However, there is a significant difference between a fictional book that suggests this, and non-fictional instructions to go out, find some Jews, and send them to heaven one way or another.

In other words, and back to the topic of the post, a novel where all Americans are fat, stupid, and perverted is just boring. “News” reporting where all Americans are fat, stupid, and perverted is lying by omission.

To get you started, how do you refute the claim that Left Behind promotes genocide in the Middle East and a particalurly distasteful version of Antisemitism?

It would also be good to know that their readership does not generally overlap with the what is left of the terrorist right in the United States (who generally have holed up in the Rocky Mountain States while the Left Behind novels are most popular in the South and the Midwest). It would be nice if individuals on the Eastern end of the Atlantic did not emulate President Bush by spouting off on things they know nothing about.

The Left Behind novels are a somewhat interesting story, but I fear that telling the story would be extremely difficult for a foreign correspondent. Such a writer would have to explain the difference between Evangelical Christians, Fundamentalist Christians, and the more extremist right wing elements that pop up from time to time in the American landscape.

I’m not sure I would say that the European integration record is a shining example…

Rüb’s clearly not dispatching any party line - the FAZ is not Die Welt, by far. Still, I think both the differences you are pointing out are the result of an editorial line that’s as confused about America these days as the party that is representing much of the FAZ’s core demographics, the CDU.

To broaden the issue a little - just looking at the Economist’s stance on all issues concerning Bush and Iraq, I am astonished to which extent so-called independet opinion makers are apparently influenced in their (written/published) opinion, by what they *believe* their core customers are thinking - I think the economist’s stance at first, and the late turnaround, is completely explicable with a brief look at the composition of their sales figures. I’m guessing a little here, but I’d say, about 40% of their readers are bound to be, or at least vote, Republican.

The FAZ’s web site is so poorly organized that for a long time I simply referred to it was the “German newspaper whose web site could be better organized.” It is now the “German newspaper whose web site has marginally improved,” but not so much that you should plan on finding and linking to articles quickly. For reference, the piece in question is on page 7 of today’s dead-tree edition and is titled “Washington besorgt ueber Europa.” If you find a link, please post.

The disjunct between what is “quite obvious” to Charly and what the US government thinks it is doing is precisely the news value of the piece. And indeed, in Washington it may be quite obvious that it is not prescribing democracy; in Moscow it may be quite obvious that the US is bent on encircling and destroying Russia; etc etc etc. That’s part of what makes Rüb good; Gelinsky could do the same in the areas she covers, but doesn’t.

It is quite obviously that the US government does indeed prescribs democracy for everyone. And with democracy i mean doing what the US wants you to do because on the whole the US is a bit allergic to democracy in foreign countries that don’t do what the US wants. See for example Russia, Haiti, Venezuela, Palestina etc.

Rüb’s story today provides a useful contrast: Washington Worried About Europe; “Threats from Islamists” / Democracy Report. According to Rüb’s report the US government is concerned that Europe’s lack of success integrating Muslims is a danger for international security. The second part concerns the annual State Department report on democracy and human rights around the world, and notes that thet US government does not believe it is prescribing democracy for everyone.

The first part of the story shows that the US government sees Europe differently from how most Germans (as near as I can tell) see it. That’s news, and I don’t think it’s being apologetic for an area where transatlantic differences are significant. I think it’s highlighting them.

As is the second part. That the US government does not believe it is doing what most Germans think it is doing is an important piece of data, for people who think about these things. Spelling out the difference, in terms the audience back home can understand, is the mark of a good correspondent.