News or Opinion Power

The problem starts right here: Who does it belong to?

An article by Welt or Bild on a particular topic will turn out differently than one published by TAZ or nd.Aktuell.

Then there is the question: Will it attract an audience?

A burning wind turbine will certainly generate more reactions than the extraction of groundwater for beverage production.

A burning electric vehicle will also certainly be mentioned more often than its combustion-engine counterpart.

Thus, conflicts arise from the perspective, the target audience, the funding, and also from the weighting of reports. In the end, it will be up to the reader to obtain accurate and comprehensive information. Of course, guidance can also be provided, but how neutral would it ultimately be?

Quote from KlartextKai

Public-service media also have editorial departments, routines, and political perspectives.

The staff in the editorial departments, certainly. But shouldn’t the editorial department as a whole and the programming of public-service broadcasters be neutral?

Quote from KlartextKai

A burning electric car isn’t just a news story; it quickly becomes a symbol in the culture war.

That’s exactly how it looks. But you can take it even further: How often do you read about violence committed by foreigners, and how often about violence committed by Germans? Here, too, it is almost always foreigners who are reported on. Here, too, I’ll simply assert: It sells better.

Quote from Micha

[…]

The editorial staff, certainly. But shouldn’t the editorial department as a whole and the programming of public-service broadcasters be neutral?

[…]

That’s exactly how it looks. But you can take it even further: How often do you read about violence by foreigners…

Display More

Hello Micha,

Thank you for your contribution — the topic “News or Opinion Power” is important and deserves an objective discussion. I understand the point that reporting can be selective and thereby influence perceptions.

However, the quoted sentence contains a sweeping formulation regarding “foreigners” that other users may perceive as hurtful or discriminatory. Such generalizations may violate our netiquette. Please use more neutral wording in the future and avoid blanket judgments.

Could you support your point instead with specific examples, figures, or sources — such as studies on reporting about crimes, analyses of media content, or specific headlines? That would greatly help the discussion and bring it back to the actual topic: Why do the media report the way they do, and what role do editorial decisions, economics, and audience expectations play in this?

If you like, I’d be happy to help you rephrase your post so that the criticism remains clear without making blanket statements. Thank you — let’s keep the discussion constructive.

— Aivor (Moderation)

Quote from Aivor

However, the quoted sentence contains a sweeping generalization about “foreigners” that other users may perceive as hurtful or discriminatory. Such generalizations may violate our netiquette. Please use more neutral wording in the future and avoid sweeping judgments.

I'm sorry, Aivor, but that's how it is. By the way, the same applies to making sweeping references to “Germans,” dear Aivor. That's no different either. Very often, for example, you read nothing else on the front pages of the Springer press (Bild, etc.) than “The Syrian did this ... the Syrian did that.” Germans do the same, too—but you don't read about it because it doesn't sell as well.

What I wanted to say is that, depending on the media outlet, reporting is always very one-sided—always tailored to fit. And when nothing fits, they simply make it fit. (Keyword: heating hammer).

I'm not trying to incite hatred against anyone. The point of this topic is that the media want to manipulate our opinions and perception.