When everything is over journalism will evaluate its performance!

25. Mai 2022

Pin­ky promise!

So just to get things strai­ght here. The mode­ra­tor doesnt know what the cur­rent end goal of the war is, every repor­ter ques­tio­ned dod­ges the ques­ti­on except for the very inves­ted ukrai­ni­an repor­ter who real­ly con­ju­res up an argu­ment of “we cant loo­se any cities any­mo­re - becau­se that would mean that more peop­le have to suf­fer through what But­cha (a libe­ra­ted city) suf­fe­red through”. Now thats gre­at logic, that cer­tain­ly rec­ti­fies an end­less war. Without moun­ting any oppo­si­ti­on, or giving any cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on on that argu­ment, naturally.

Half of the panel admits that repor­ting in their coun­try is one sided, but takes it with a smile.

The ger­man par­ti­ci­pant has a very suc­cinct way of exp­lai­ning what good jour­na­listic per­for­mance is. “Bild was sur­pri­sin­gly good here, becau­se they went on gui­ded, embe­ded jour­na­lism tours (my wor­d­ing, but its dis­cus­sed later on, on the panel) into the war­zo­ne, and hired ukrai­ni­an jour­na­lists, and even jour­na­lists from alter­na­ti­ve rus­si­an media. So thats “good jour­na­lism” in her mind. She repeats it three times - hiring peop­le clo­se to one side, and then taking the press trips, orga­ni­zed by one side - makes it, per defi­ni­ti­on, excel­lent journalism.

The group then later gets into the dis­cus­sion that they dont have any repor­ting on the other sides action, but that would of cour­se only be the case, becau­se rus­sia doesnt allow for embed­ded jour­na­lism on their side of the war­zo­ne, and becau­se rus­sia has denied jour­na­lists visas who tried to tra­vel into rus­sia for repor­ting pur­po­ses, and has enac­ted dra­co­ni­an laws against jour­na­lists working wit­hin the coun­try (up to 25 years of pri­son for publi­shing the wrong word).

So one sided repor­ting is fine I guess (not my inter­pre­ta­ti­on, but the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of three peop­le on the panel).

And to coun­ter­act it, and the emo­tio­nal pri­ming and good/bad nar­ra­ti­ves, and not exp­lai­ning any actions taken by poli­ti­cal actors in any sort of depth, or pro­vi­ding any sort of con­text or pro/contra argu­ments on likely out­co­mes, that at least one jour­na­list in the panel laments, is total­ly fine - becau­se jour­na­lism will “reflect on it” once the war is over.

Sad­ly, the mode­ra­tor doesnt qui­te under­stand what that means (“the war being over”, so what sta­te has to be reached), and she has a con­cep­tu­al pro­blem with it, but after you see half a dozen repor­ters sim­ply dodge that worry, put into an actu­al ques­ti­on for the panel, in a row - you start to be ok with it, right?

Oh, and the other rea­son named for the fac­tu­al one sided­ness of repor­ting is “we as a nati­on, and espe­cial­ly the public took a side in this con­flict, very ear­ly on”.

So any jour­na­listic cri­te­ria goes out of the win­dow -- of cour­se. Becau­se we can take sides.

So let me sum­ma­ri­ze what hap­pens, until jour­na­lism finds its way to eva­lua­te its may­be one sided per­for­mance, after the war.

Ener­gy cos­ts dou­ble. Growth rate is redu­ced by 0.5% points per year. About 100 peop­le die every day (cur­r­ent­ly), what “win­ning the war means” is unclear. But ever­yo­ne is for it. Becau­se the­re is no alter­na­ti­ve. Becau­se values. We are on the ver­ge of a new glo­bal hun­ger cri­sis, if the EU and Nato dont get out Ukrai­nes next har­vest via land rou­tes going through poland, or ship­ping from Ukrai­nes black sea ports (Nego­tia­ti­ons are in pro­gress at the UN level - becau­se its fair­ly unli­kely, that they will start using the sea­rou­te, that the rus­si­ans just ope­ned (clea­red of mines) from Mariu­pol), we cant talk about initia­ti­ves to end this war, if that means, that Ukrai­ne doesnt get total ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty back. Chi­nas manu­fac­tu­ring sec­tor going off­line cur­r­ent­ly will incre­a­se infla­ti­on spikes, green tran­si­tio­ning as a pro­ject takes the back­se­at to enab­ling ener­gy secu­ri­ty, and the sta­te minis­ter of for­eign affairs of Paki­stan just sta­ted in Davos, that if this means, that her coun­try gets into ano­t­her hun­ger cri­sis, sti­cking to values, to her doesnt seem like the right move here… And of cour­se - tal­king about com­pro­mi­ses right now, would just embol­den the aggres­sor, so we nee­ded to make that a tabu as well. Until the Ukrai­ni­an lea­ders­hip reached their mili­ta­ry goals, which are unclear. Or unli­kely. Or super fair, but we cant find out, becau­se we cant talk about them, becau­se we need to let them deci­de, without out­side influ­ence. Just with out­side wea­pon shipments.

No worries though, jour­na­lism will reeva­lua­te their repor­ting, once the war is over.

Oh, and one more thing. The Ukrai­ni­an jour­na­list in the panel got it estab­lis­hed, that “embed­ded jour­na­lism” in con­flict zones, real­ly is the only kind of jour­na­lism thats even moral­ly rec­ti­fia­ble, becau­se of the inherent dan­ger to lives, and the risk of other­wi­se ret­rau­ma­ti­zing peop­le jour­na­lists might inter­view. With tho­se kinds of argu­ments you can get a “you are so right” out of the cri­ti­cal minds at Pres­se­club Con­cordia - every day of the week.

Next time on Pres­se­club Con­cordia, we invi­ted two high rank US diplo­mats to tell us what the US is doing in this war, and what its goals are… (9th of June 4pm MEZ, keep the date.)

Becau­se we didnt watch to see what Nina Khrush­che­va sta­ted on this very topic six days ago

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort