You are probably right.  But I think America stands about midway on the news/entertainment scale.  With countries like Japan (nude weather reporters) and England being on the far end from Germany.  Still, the saying here is: if it bleeds, it leads.  Which basically says if it is not sensational, dont report it.

I don't find that bloodhound mentality that just thrives on sensationalism very ethical - but it is influencing the private sector here as well. They copy the american style of late nightalk shows, infotainment etc. on cable, complete with the way the news are presented by anchormen/woman and journalists reporting "live" who state the first name of each other at the beginning of every sentence.

Some people here loudly criticize the american influence on our beloved culture *cough* Apparently, all the bad stuff comes from you guys, did you know that 

I agree about the bias, but I also believe there is a fear of litigation. Ist Amendment rights withstanding, it doesn't stop people in these times.

of Course!  But they have to remember that americans are "The wretched refuse!  Our ancestors were kicked out of every decent country in the world!" (john Winger - Stripes).

The American Slander laws are very weak in comparison to other countries.  This is due primarily to the First Amendment, and the American reverence of it.  It is one of those 2 edged swords.  We cant really strengthen them without infringing upon the first amendment.

There was a small article in the papers here that an outdoor sporting company used a picture of President Obama for an addcampeign in New York without his consent. But as president he is a public figure so that was well within their rights of free speech and press. It must really suck being a public figure in the US in any shape or form if the media can basically publish everything on you without regard to your privacy.

If your free speech is protected by the 1st Ammendment, do you have to even fear litigation? It does seem to cancel each other out for me, unless it is about copyright laws.

I dont recall that one.  But I do recall one done with a picture of his wife and one that mentions his children by name.  They were very upset at both (and I really dont blame them), but as you noted, not really a lot they could do.

Fear it?  Fear is perhaps strong.  You dont have to fear it for the most part.  If I repeat a rumor I hear, and it is false, I have no fear of retribution unless I already knew it was false (and that is kind of hard to prove when you think about it).  But there are successful litigations of both slander and libel.  And about the only time that anyone gets convicted of them (very seldom in criminal court, most likely in civil court) is when it is really blatantly wrong and highly inflamatory.

Not correct. The company (WeatherProof) had to remove the billboard. It is illegal to use a government official in order to profit. The office of the POTUS could have sued, but they agreed to take it down. They got the free publicity in the end. A commercial venture does not constitute free speech.

edit: The same thing goes for the first lady. The ad had to be removed. You can't make money directly off another person (i.e.promote a product)without their permission, and protocol demands, due to conflict of interest, the first family not contribute directly to a companies gain. News papers and magazines get away with it, because they promote it as news or of public interest, which may indirectly sell their media product under the protection of the 1st Amendment. 

Wouldn't you love to see a news outlet that simply reported the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts whithout any editorial bias whatsoever? Now that would be truly novel.

Mason:  yeah, look up "fat chance" in your dictionary.

Ruthie:  When the detractors start blaming us for all that is rotten in Germany, ask them if they speak Russian...then tell them the only thing they need to say to us is "Thanks".

I know they did, and I know that law, but as Utemia pointed out - how does it apply to celebrities?  I guess the same, but there is more leeway in using celebrities because they are celebrities in this country.  And if your cause is non-profit, no profit is being made, so how does that work?  I know Obama was mad about the PETA ad mentioning the kids.  But they were not "profiting" by it in the classical sense.

I would settle for an outlet that did not claim to be biased - "Disclaimer: We support President Obama.  With that in mind, in today's news......".  The government makes every other private entity do that (and even urges media outlets to do that when reporting on stories about their parents or children).

I think that comes after "Hell, Freezing over".

Nobody blames the US for things that go wrong in Germany. That would be pretty outrageous, and in fact the gratitude towards america for all that was done to help turn Germany into a western democracy is huge. The positive outweights the negative attitudes by far, even though I know that some think it is the other way. I don't know of any antiamerican violent incident where tourists or americans living here had problems - from Germans that is. They turned the consulate general in Frankfurt into a fortress, but that was because of terror threats. Also, I read that the military installations are heavily guarded - and isn't  because a german mob is beleaguering the front gates.