Gellermann, Klinkhammer and Brautigam interviewed about the Tagesschau’s reporting
How serious is the journalism that the Tagesschau offers night after night when it comes to far-reaching political topics?? Uli Gellermann, Friedhelm Klinkhammer and Volker Brautigam have just published a book titled "The Power at 8: The Tagesschau Factor" which directs the viewer’s attention to the criticized shallows of the ARD news flagship.
In an interview with Telepolis, the Tagesschau critics even talk about "Exchange manovers by means of clever choice of words", "of politically motivated language" and a "Abuse of the sovereignty of interpretation".
In your book, you praise the Tagesschau right at the beginning. They write that the daily news is still the most respectable compared to the other news formats. But then you criticize the makers of the program. You take ie with the editors and write: "And yet they are nothing more than clever: so cunning as to satisfy the demands of rule in such a way that their one-sidedness is not immediately obvious. Clever as well as shrewd, so as not to cause a stir and yet also to look square at times. Clever enough to present a dazzling lens that is primarily for dazzling and not much else." Why such a markup? Uli Gellermann: The serve corresponds to the match: The Tagesschau is unquestionably the decisive leading medium in Germany, its power of interpretation and interpretation, to stay in your image, is like a game in which the Hamburg editorial staff is player and referee at the same time. Whoever has such power and constantly abuses it for fake news, must be sketched from the first page as the one who misinterprets the rules in his favor. And what you take as praise is nothing more than a description of a leveled media landscape from which even small surveys stand out: in fact, the news-making at the SAT.1-news or the BILD-newspaper even worse than at the public broadcaster. They speak of "Fake News" and of "Abuse the rules in its favor". These are heavy dishes. Please specify your accusations. Uli Gellermann: The quoted Fake News would be better in the case of Tagesschau in "No-News" be renamed: The Hamburg editorial staff specializes in simply not running certain news stories, like the one about the 64 celebrities in December 2014 who called for peace in Europe at the start of the Ukraine conflict. They warned against, in the face of the Ukraine crisis, Russia "to penetrate" or to "damonize". Among them were former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, former Federal President Roman Herzog, former Federal Ministers Otto Schily and Herta Daubler-Gmelin, former Minister President of Brandenburg Manfred Stolpe, and former EKD Council President Margot Kabmann. Actually enough weighty names to fill three news programs and four talk shows, not enough to wring a report out of the Tagesschau. This special form of fake news by concealment has continued in the Ukraine conflict, for example, in the consistent concealment of the Nazis operating there. We call the linguistic tricks of the Tagesschau editorial staff, which imagines objectivity and thus tries to evade the accusation of partisanship, clever. This is especially true for the Russia coverage, which is dominated by a simple friend-foe schema and in which apparent facts are gladly replaced by "Observers" are presented, which have no names and are also not located. Gladly, the unchecked statement of a source with an attribute like "Harvard Lawyer" refined to give the coloring of the message a kind of scientificity. If you then google the Mr. Jurist, you will find someone who is party. And if a good witness to the news has an opinion on it, he "reports" who, however, is, in the opinion of the editors, a bad witness, then of course he only has some "claims".