A lesson in Switzerland<\/h3>\n
On 24.02.2017, Swiss television broadcast an edition of the political discussion program Arena on the topic of “Trump’s war”<\/a> (unfortunately only in Swiss German). The somewhat misleading title of the program posed the following question: <\/p>\n Are there good reasons to distrust the media? Or are the media more important than ever in exposing Trump’s lies? And is the Swiss media still trusted? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Instead of pursuing these questions in a differentiated manner and facilitating a genuine exchange, the editorial team has apparently decided to vividly refute the accusation that the media are biased. At the same time, it provided a perfect example on many levels of why even established media such as Swiss television should be treated with caution. <\/p>\n Among the guests was the controversial historian Daniele Ganser<\/a>. He is controversial, even if he doesn’t like to hear it, because he has dedicated himself to uncomfortable questions for years and discusses them scientifically. <\/p>\n The scientific investigation of 9\/11 in particular has caused Ganser considerable professional difficulties, because it is obviously not permitted to address such questions scientifically as a historian. It is all too easy to be considered a conspiracy theorist. <\/p>\n However, if there is one thing Ganser is not, it is a conspiracy theorist. Because he asks the logical questions, but doesn’t get carried away with theories. <\/p>\n However, anyone who deals with unconventional issues and publishes about them attracts these same conspiracy theorists like light attracts mosquitoes. I had to learn this the hard way, even in a more moderate form, when I wrote about the “unconditional basic income”<\/a> and let it be known that I consider it to be at least a passable solution for the future. <\/p>\n The day after the article was published, I had an inbox full of emails from people congratulating me on my fight against the establishment, against the rich, against subjugation, against the Bilderbergers and against everything else.<\/p>\n I didn’t portray any of this in the article and it’s certainly not my world view or attitude. You have fans like that anyway, whether you like it or not. Ganser has a veritable army of them. <\/p>\n It’s the same with the “lying press”. There is a whole armada of people who think that the mainstream media, i.e. all serious media, has united in some kind of grand conspiracy to control the masses. And that all citizens are victims of a large-scale manipulation attempt. <\/p>\n That’s nonsense, of course. No, there is no conspiracy and what Trump calls the lying press (fake news) simply does not exist. Get over it. <\/p>\n However, this does not mean that the media do not sometimes make mistakes, consciously or unconsciously omit things or present them in a distorted way.<\/p>\n In this “Arena” of February 24, 2017, this very Ganser perversely became the best proof that it does happen. It happened like this: <\/p>\n A few minutes after the start of the program, the presenter of the show puts a tweet from Ganser on the screen practically out of the blue, in which he complains about another program, “Einstein”, a few days ago, in which his work on 9\/11 was also featured. The central point here is that the contribution should obviously have been shown first on its own (or in a mix with completely different contributions). Later, however, it was mixed with contributions about conspiracy theories in the program. <\/p>\n As a result, the article about Ganser’s work was also pushed into the corner of conspiracy theories. And a troubled child like Ganser naturally gets upset about this. And, paradoxically, he is no different from Trump in this respect, making it clear with striking words on Twitter: How off the mark and unfair Swiss television is. <\/p>\n Of course, the editors of “Arena” did not miss this opportunity and literally filleted Ganser by immediately showing an excerpt from an e-mail from Ganser to the editor of “Einstein”, in which Ganser describes the contribution in the program as fair and factual. What is not shown is the e-mail correspondence preceding this e-mail and a second sentence in the e-mail in which Ganser describes the mix of topics as bad. <\/p>\n You will notice that the whole thing is so “detail-laden” that it becomes opaque.<\/p>\n So Ganser was on the show with his pants sawed off and nobody gave him the opportunity to give his version of the facts. How could they… It would have taken at least 5 minutes. And you simply don’t have that in a format like this. <\/p>\n What many forget is that news is a business and, more precisely, a show business. Journalists among you will now moan that this is beneath their work ethic. But when you’re out to make ratings and increase circulation, a good story is everything. Since the traditional media business model has been crumbling, everyone is simply out for it. You can see that just by looking at the “click-baits” of even the big established houses. <\/p>\n So if you can tell a great story by consciously or unconsciously leaving out a small but crucial part, then you do it. It’s not great, but it has nothing to do with a big all-encompassing conspiracy. It’s business. As usual. <\/p>\n Throughout the debate, representatives of the traditional media never tire of emphasizing how important it is to ask critical questions. But you must not be too critical: <\/p>\n Ganser has investigated 9\/11 like virtually no one else on the planet and there are scientifically sound unanswered questions. But that doesn’t seem to be interesting. Roger Schawinski<\/a>, representative of the established media, even slaps Ganser in the face in the program, saying “that 9\/11 has been concluded and clarified”. A critical attitude looks different. <\/p>\n And when Ganser portrays the number of bombs that a US president rains down on foreign countries as a factual indicator of the misdemeanors of a US administration, it seems a little ridiculous at first glance.<\/p>\n In reality, however, this is surprisingly consistent. And it is legitimate to ask the media why they have never strongly criticized Obama for this in recent years. <\/p>\n No, it is even based on the critical attitude that representatives of the established media are always so keen to promote.<\/p>\n I agree that traditional media will definitely be needed in the future. But their role will be different in the future. <\/p>\n The Internet has made our opinion landscape diverse. Our society first has to learn how to deal with it and utilize its full potential. We are, if you like, in the middle of the storming phase.*<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The supreme discipline is probably to illuminate and categorize in a differentiated way and also to allow voices to be heard that do not fit into the (journalistic\/political) concept. This applies to media companies, private journalists, among whom you can count all the bloggers, and it applies in particular to state exponents. <\/p>\n That’s why Trump’s approach is totally wrong and so dangerous. He is provoking the media to see reporting as a war. As soon as that happens, he has an easy game: he can uncover the bias and is then actually right. <\/p>\n Let’s hope that the media don’t fall for it. The antidote, so to speak, is differentiated reporting and a healthy composure. This can put a stop to people like Trump, who exist everywhere to a lesser extent and always have. Unfortunately, however, you can’t make a (media) business with differentiation and composure. <\/p>\n I imagine the “click-bait”: “Trump is a bit right, but then again he’s not. But we have to see this in a larger context.” Not even Deutschlandfunk lures its listeners, of which I am one, out from behind the fireplace. No, it has to bang. Then the place is up and running. Unfortunately. <\/p>\n This is another reason why it is so important that new media companies with new concepts emerge and hopefully incorporate new business models. This is the only way that the media can remain the fourth estate in society. However, I tend to take a dim view of this. There has been far too little movement so far. Selling animal feed may be economically clever. But it no longer has anything to do with the social function of the media. <\/p>\n This is being replaced by an armada of private publicists and niche formats. Even if this increases the dilemma of the 1000 untrustworthy sources<\/a>, the bottom line is that it is a positive development because it is diverse. As I said, we as a society just have to learn to deal with it. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n (* And “Scrummaster” Donald has decided to escalate)<\/em><\/p>\n Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fotolia_36072203_S.jpg\")
<\/p>\nA farmer is needed<\/h3>\n
The Aluhut faction<\/h3>\n
The farmer is sacrificed<\/h3>\n
Media, especially news, is always also show business<\/h3>\n
Being critical is (almost) always good<\/h3>\n
Upheaval in the media landscape and upheaval in communication culture<\/h3>\n
Differentiation and composure as a “weapon”<\/h3>\n
New business models<\/h3>\n