Plastic Fishtail Labret Jewelry

are to come this month because some donors ... It correctly observed, as well many people like my project. That is also a reaffirmation for me!
Thanks again!

The donation receipts will be in the near future by mail to the new donor.

Good Vegetable Snacks

I think the recent donors deserve a mention on this page. Therefore, here is a (monthly updated) list of my supporters:

- music LK stage 13, which donated not themselves, but put a concert on the legs, brought me a lot: Jill, Nicole, Judith K., Judith J., Lisa, Alessandra, Kevin, Judith A., Sarah, Philipp, Steffen, Andreas, Martin, Marie und natürlich Herr Kühr

-das Ehepaar Hofmann

-das Ehepaar Kuhlendahl

-Herr Demmer

-das Ehepaar Schrader

-Frau Wolf-Weber

-das Erzbistum Köln

-das Ehepaar Günther

-Frau M. Galler

Vielen, vielen Dank an Sie alle!
Und für eventuelle zukünftige Spender: Selbst ein kleinerer Betrag hilft mir schon sehr weiter!

Rash Hot Like Sunburn

Initiative Media Dispute: Lighthouse goes to Merseburger

Initiative Media Dispute: Leuchtturm geht an Merseburger

Centerfire Saddle Rigging

Juhuu! Der gestrige Abend brachte mich im Thema Spenden Sammeln ein ganzes Stück weiter. Nach endlos langer Vorbereitungszeit und a week full-time attendance at school there was the fall concert. According to an old school tradition of this annual concert is organized by the music performance course of stage 13. This time, so we were at it and after we had agreed on the hippie slogan "woodstOHG" (OHG is my school), we went to work.
Castings, friendly cooperation with the Art-LK for the stage, stress with the ticket sales and the design of posters, etc. to stand. Equally naturally intense rehearsals for our own musical contribution. Because of the hippie motto came in the course then, the idea that one could in the spirit of "Peace and Peace" yes donate for a social project. When I from my Peru Project told, were all excited and wanted to support me. Thus, half of the ticket prices of the concert went to my project, I could keep a small thank you speech on the topic and even got applause when I said that I will do for a year there volunteering.
was the same concert a resounding success: the audience was great and extremely popular mood, the atmosphere behind the scenes was even more exuberant. And when in the end, all participants (at least 80) on the stage one last "Let the Sunshine" did the best, the crowd went wild and happy-Muik LKler joined in his arms.
Whether all of us now probably bored out of sheer stress freedom is I'm just wondering:)

What Shade Revlon Colorstay Same As Mac Nc20

Initiative Media Dispute: taz.de: Evangelical School of Journalism Berlin hat sich ein neues Profil gegeben, das die kirliche Orientierung herausstreicht.

Initiative Mediendisput: taz.de: Die Evangelische Journalistenschule Berlin hat sich ein neues Profil gegeben, das die kirliche Orientierung herausstreicht.

Short Brown Hair Blonde Chunks

Initiative Mediendisput: ARD -Jahrbuch 2008 -Vielfalt als Stärke

Initiative Mediendisput: ARD -Jahrbuch 2008 -Vielfalt als Stärke

Best Shoes For Someone With Plantar Psoriasis

Redigiertes Transkript des Berliner Mediendisputs 02/08

Redigiertes Transkript des Mediendisputs 02/08
„Was wissen wir noch vom Weltgeschehen – über die Krise des Auslandsjournalismus und die Rolle der Geheimdienste bei der internationalen Aufklärung“


Vorstellung und Einleitung:

Leif: Da kommt jetzt als erstes unser Presseoffizier, Dirk Schulze, Lutz then mosquito, communication scientists, including Ashwin Raman, freelance TV journalist, reporter crisis and finally Elmar Theveßen. This is our tour tonight. It's always nice if the speakers are denied in the case, Mr Zaymenz. He must have thought: If you make this international theme, then get at most 80 people. We're always under pressure to have our own pressure ratio, which is expressed by audience response. But I am glad that you have denied it, and you receive compensation determined by a very interesting round tonight.

We want to do something under the national high school standard formulated title: "What we know vom Weltgeschehen – über die Krise des Auslandsjournalismus und die Rolle der Geheimdienste bei der internationalen Aufklärung“. Das haben wir extra so formuliert, damit die Referenten uns nicht vorab absagen. Wenn Sie das anders formulieren, dann kriegen sie nur Absagen.
Fangen wir also mit Herrn Raman an. Vielleicht haben Sie vor kurzem seinen Film über den Irak in der ARD gesehen? Herr Raman hat 18 längere Filme alleine über den Irak und 11 über Afghanistan gedreht. Herr Raman, wenn Sie Ihre Erfahrung bilanzieren, was läuft schief etwa in der Irak-Berichterstattung?

Raman: Meiner Ansicht nach wird nicht über den Irak berichtet, sondern über die Anzahl der Menschen, die dort ums Leben . Come If a bomb goes off somewhere, then the "news" is. But we know very little about the country, because the coverage remains with the attacks.

Ashwin Raman - a freelance reporter in Iraq and Afghanistan crisis:

Leif: You yourself are working with their own camera, as a VJ. What brings you to the benefits?

Raman: I have several advantages: First, once my skin color. I can mix well, and I move too freely, people with white skin color there are not so easy. Even dark skin sometimes has just benefits. And I have contacts with the military, even to the insurgents. And somehow, for some Why I have their confidence. They think, what to offer or say to me is so presented. I have this confidence of both sides.

Leif: You have made a world-level report, even with their own camera, where you have shown the raid by U.S. soldiers with families in Iraq. And we have been surprised really: How did you ran so close? Was the only possible because you had your own camera?

Raman: Yes, I work with as always a 500 € camera. Again and again I am asked for my camera and as I turn - then, as I turn? I buy a 16:9 format camera, set it to "Automatic" and then I turn. That's all I'm doing. It is my conviction that the Mensch hinter der Kamera die wichtigste Komponente ist, nicht das Gerät oder die Technik. Dieses Ereignis konnte ich drehen, weil ich in dem Jeep vor Ort war und gesehen habe, was da passiert. Also habe ich es gedreht. Ich konnte das aufnehmen, weil ich unauffällig bin und gut mit solchen Leuten zurechtkomme. Und diesen Einwand muss ich auch loswerden: Wenn ich diese ganzen Diskussionen höre über Auslandsberichterstattung, dann werde ich wütend: In diesen Ländern gibt es kein fließendes Wasser, kein warmes Essen, es gibt Soldaten – und dann denke ich, diese Menschen, die entscheiden, was die Bevölkerung in Deutschland sehen oder hören soll, (...), also, das kann doch nicht stimmen!

Leif: But when you came with their material to the world level editors, you have you kissed his feet and said: "Very good, Mr. Raman, this is a fantastic work you have done."

Raman: No, that was me not said. It is true that this report was published first in Channel 4. And the newsletter went to all over the world. Finally, I have called the issues of the day. So, I tell you openly and honestly, I could have made any films, if I had not one or the other, especially a person in an institution, the trust has to me and my cause and this would bring to the fore. Without this mediation I had no chance.


· Embedded Journalism - a former press officer told

Leif: We go to the left of me to Dirk Schulze. He knows what to do in another continent in crisis, we also learn about the little - Afghanistan. Are you convinced Military. Twelve years and two years of additional.

Schulze: War. War.

Leif: War. If one is not his whole life? Military service for twelve years, plus two years contract?

Schulze: But already.

Leif: What has driven you to stay so long in the military?

Schulze: It was just this mixture. One is the responsibility to Human and material. On the other hand, is this friendship, camaraderie, cohesion. That was really nice things.

Leif: But eventually you come to the former, but that not everything is going so great in Afghanistan, and you wrote with a colleague the book "A Streetcar Named Kabul. Over 50,000 copies have already been sold. No one would have expected, not even the editor. And now you tell us: Why has this book as an appeal? Is it because it shows the dirty side of Afghanistan and the deployment of German?

Schulze: I think people here, the population of the Federal Republic of Germany, who has a need a need for reporting from that country. And while gritty and unvarnished. Like the soldiers go on site with the people around, like the soldiers living there? The questions we have answered the first time with the book.

Leif: What goes wrong in Afghanistan during the military deployment and the deployment of German soldiers?

Schulze: My personal opinion is that this one will not make use of military success. Since we can still send 200000-300000 soldiers down, that does not work. What is missing, the first thing is a testable target site, from which one can say: In five years we want to stand there in ten years we want to be there. And After 13 years we may be able to provide an exit strategy because we have achieved what we set out. The goals are now formulated rather very vague. You can always say again: Well, we have achieved we have achieved with "good will". I do not have a strategy. This is not only the problem of the Federal Republic, which is a global problem that also see the UN, Americans and others.

Leif: And why do you hold in spite of this lack of strategic goals set in the Afghanistan mission?
Schulze: I think very clearly why: it has bought free of the Iraq mission by sending the troops into the supposedly safer country has, and not in Iraq. It has been said: We show "good will", we want to send troops. But now we reached a limit. We just do not get more to send more troops to the conscript army.

Leif: But this argument reads or hears little in the German media?

Schulz: Right. But this is my personal opinion because I have seen it on the ground otherwise, because I could also be provided by superiors not a clear purpose, goal or purpose, why should I defend freedom of Germany in the Hindu Kush.

Leif: You were also the press officer, as you have seen the work of journalists, roll the Bundeswehr with such machines?

Schulze: Sehr differenziert. Wie Sie schon angesprochen haben, wenn die Reise dann, ich sage es mal ganz salopp, über die Bundeswehr gebucht worden ist, wenn sie „embedded“ statt findet, dann konnte der Presseoffizier vor Ort ganz gezielt auf diese Kollegen einwirken und denen ganz gezielt zeigen, was gezeigt werden sollte. Und zwar Patrouillen, die schick zurechtgemacht waren. Wir sind dann Patrouillen gefahren in Stadtteile, von denen man wusste, dass sie ruhig sind, dass die Bevölkerung dort den Deutschen sehr wohl gesonnen ist, weil beispielsweise gerade eine Schule aufgemacht worden ist. Aber dann gab es auch noch die freien Journalisten, die nicht „embedded“ waren, die dort rein gegangen sind und mal We walked maybe now and then perhaps only on the track. They have already brought quite a different picture.

Leif: But there you have practiced good, if the German journalists came to the German defense minister?

Schulz: Right. Correct.

Leif: What does such an exercise so that journalists feel comfortable?

Schulze: We have it in our book as a "monkey show", called a circus monkey. No politician makes a surprise visit there. It is announced weeks before. Roads must be secured and locked, accommodations must be created. Since then, in parallel prior practice with specific troops. As is now said, You is now the patrol, which will then drive out. The clothes are brushed, the shoes are cleaned, polished their arms to a shine. There are provided by the MilGeowesen maps, world maps, are available. It really is a show event for the press. The boys then get out even after the press is with the politicians by, but they take a dip in the camp because they have already expressed their patrol behind him, and then leave to rest or prepare for the real next job before.

Leif: Is that what an exceptional program for the private channels or make public broadcasters with?

Schulze: This is definitely for those who come in with politicians. This program is for everyone, including the public broadcasters.

Leif: And what has that in your view, the consequences for the consumer? What image of Afghanistan, he gets?

Schulze: The end user is the first member of the Bundestag, which serves as a multiplier for his party. He then reimbursed so report says, "Man, I've seen since only send soldiers who live there, well, all of which have reported in unison:" We're fine down there. We have no problems. "And on the other side then the group is behind the deputies who are out einstimmt und sagt: „Mensch, gar keine Probleme! Wir können den Einsatz, das Mandat verlängern.“ Das wird natürlich auch wieder in den Medien als Statement gegeben. Und das kommt dann so bei den Bürgern an.

Leif: Man hat also kein vollständiges Bild?

Schulze: Nein, definitiv nicht.


Problem 1: Zu wenig Kompetenz
Einer für einen ganzen Kontinent und Inkompetenz in der Heimatredaktion

Leif: Von Irak und Afghanistan wandern wir weiter zu Herrn Mücke nach Afrika. Sie haben zwei Jahre in Afrika verbracht – für Ihr Studium aber auch als Journalist. Sie waren in verschiedenen Ländern auf dem Kontinent und haben jetzt Ihre Dissertation weitgehend fertig gestellt. Wenn Sie mal - Wissenschaftler können das ja in aller Knappheit - sagen, was ist Ihre fundamentale Erkenntnis ist, die Sie Ihrem Doktorvater präsentieren werden? Was macht die Afrika-Berichterstattung aus?

Mücke: Eine weitgehende Inkompetenz. Und zwar auf vielen Feldern. Ich will mal kurz die Strukturprobleme der Afrika-Berichterstattung beschreiben: Etwa seit der Medienkrise, aber auch schon vorher, seit der Mitte der 90er Jahre, findet ein massiver Korrespondentenabbau statt, die Korrespondentenzahlen sinken: Ungefähr 20 Prozent, also jeder fünfte Korrespondent wurde zurückgezogen. Das betrifft in erster Linie die Printmedien, bei den Öffentlich-Rechtlichen fand kein Stellenabbau statt. Another structural problem is that topics that will be tilled, especially hot-spots. That is, wars, crises, disasters - the disaster continent of Africa. Second, it also create Boulevard topics in the reporting - folklore, anthropology, animals. These are the two big issues for Africa is good. What is left out tends to be daily life, economy, employee perspectives, cultural issues. In these areas, you will if you talk to people, listen again and again complaints.

Leif: You have talked with correspondents itself, which was part of your survey. What are the views - and image analysis on the status of their reporting ergeben. Was sagen die, was sie selbst leisten können?

Mücke: Wenig. Das Bild von Afrika in der Berichterstattung ist extrem verzerrt, extrem eurozentristisch. Das macht sich zum Beispiel auch daran fest, welche Quellen Korrespondenten nutzen. Der Hauptteil der Quellen sind deutsche, sind europäische Quellen, sind UNO, sind externe Quellen. Das wird Herr Theveßen dann vielleicht auch über den Libanon erzählen. Zu einem gewissen Grad findet ein Ausschluss der Afrikaner aus der Berichterstattung statt, weil sie keine Chance haben, diese wahrzunehmen. Kaum einer spricht da Deutsch, kaum einer rezipiert deutsche Medien. Das heißt, Kritik von afrikanischer Seite an dieser Berichterstattung wird nicht herangetragen. Dann is a major problem, the indifference and the incompetence of the home editor. And I speak now of the leading media, I am not talking now about the national media, but I'm talking about the big media outlets in Germany, send someone to Africa at all.
If someone is responsible as a counterpart to the editors for content creation and management, then the report generally two areas to look after. That is, the editor has just then Eastern Europe and Africa or the Middle East and Africa. And then where the priorities are set, is clear. This is of course not sub-Saharan Africa, but the other reporting areas.

Leif: And if we translate our title of the evening to Africa, then what we know at the end of Africa yet?

mosquito: We get an extremely distorted picture, which, as in Afghanistan, like Iraq in no way reflects the realities of everyday life or life in Africa. I would like to mention also a very important number: Sub-Saharan Africa has 48 countries, and most of the correspondents also manage 48 countries. Full range of topics, from culture, economics to politics. The correspondent is to make war coverage and provide even color themes. It is a structural fraud that takes place there. The work tasks that he should meet there really are not at all feasible. I think that number speaks volumes about the simple enormous lack of interest, which prevails in Germany to this report areas. explains information avoidance and disinterest
A program makers are

Leif::


Problem 2 Mr Theveßen, you can imagine, the three have produced the extra flame you because you are the person responsible, so to speak. How do you respond? What do you say to colleagues?

Theveßen: that everything is right, what was said here. You have to hold on as the first: It has a lot to do with changes in the information landscape, even in the media landscape. I also noticed that many correspondents have been removed. In the case of public broadcasters, however, less. If we look at our structure, we must ascertaining numerical: The has not changed much at ZDF - and I can only speak for ZDF. We still have the same number of studios in those areas. We have the same number, sometimes even more correspondents in these areas. Nevertheless, one wonders, why does all the things you have said? This is perhaps because we see a hand in our newscasts more in these regions, even away from Europe by the way, what do not some European correspondents. This was read in the last few months, yes. But the fact is that we look more into these regions of the world, even in news broadcasts. And many times we try, the background to the events to be supplied in the same news programs. We see an increasing number of background contributions, also in the main news programs: for example, about the refugees who are trying to come to Ceuta and Melilla to Europe. But at the same time, the question arises: Where are the documentaries? Where are the magazine articles? To be quite honest: They're still there. If we calculate, we find that we have about the same number from all of these countries reporting. Some of the studios, especially in Africa, have a much higher output than in past years or decades. I think it is only less, because the audience may watch different programs, looking for distraction - and perhaps more in the colorful than in the background reporting. And we also send in prime-time clock at 20.15 on Tuesday evening have a great documentary on the Arab royal family with all the problems. But it is watched by far fewer viewers than before.

Leif: in the past would have been called something like cognitive dissonance.

Theveßen: I believe we must seek new ways. This is a change us from our structures to the point that we have colleagues who are similar to Mr. Raman way and try to dig up these stories that are exciting are. That takes a special kind of correspondent and journalist. As we may all become a bit too comfortable in recent years and decades. This is also dangerous. And the other is another form of storytelling. The Travels of a correspondent is now used far, far fewer viewers than they did ten years ago. And so we have to consider other dramatic means to these regions of the world to bring viewers closer

Leif: But still play, you had to recently fire, because what has happened in the ZDF something happen at all should not have: Several prominent Foreign correspondents are just gone to the "Gong" and have quite cut the gong to have said that the international issues that they do in Paris, Vienna or London, were no longer prime-time capability. As you have read the "Gong", Mr Theveßen what did you think? What was your first reaction?

Theveßen: I was pissed because we have on this subject in past years and again spoken times. And the interesting thing is: Those who complain are precisely those which bore we have expanded the coverage of other regions of the world. We could not previously reported from Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China in the way of how we are doing today. This is natürlich zu Lasten der Europaberichterstattung. Und ich frage dann mal ganz ehrlich, hier sind ja einige Kronzeugen da: Was ist am Ende wichtiger, dass wir über den Entwurf einen Gesetztes in London, in Großbritannien berichten, das vielleicht es irgendwann mal durchs Parlament geschafft hat – und somit Verlaufsberichterstattung betreiben, oder dass wir intensiv hin gucken in solche Länder und Regionen, die wir in vergangenen Jahrzehnten unterbelichtet haben?

Leif: Aber Sie waren so stocksauer, dass Sie eine Mail geschrieben haben - so wird es jedenfalls zitiert - wenn Sie dienstrechtlich verantwortlich wären, würden Sie dienstrechtliche Konsequenzen ziehen.

Theveßen: Also ich sage zu diesem Part time nothing now.

Leif: But I have it in black and white. It is also okay. If he is pissed, he may also react pissed.

Theveßen: I think we first of all discuss these things with each other to. And I would very happy if these comments had been discussed in the house itself with the newsrooms. In reporting internals, communication between correspondents and people in the office have fallen into the public. Among colleagues, is not. Which does not change the fact that we should discuss about the heart of the matter. We have done that. Both in writing and at headquarters in Mainz with stakeholders. And Bottom Line ist: Wir können belegen, dass all die Vorwürfe, die im „Gong“ im Bezug auf angebliche Verseichtung in der Berichtserstattung genannt wurden, falsch sind. Das lässt sich anhand von Zahlen, Fakten, Abläufen der Nachrichtensendungen belegen. Ich hätte mich deshalb gefreut, wenn wir uns lieber konstruktiv überlegen, wie wir zum Beispiel aus Afghanistan, Irak und anderen Ländern intensiver berichten und ob vielleicht auch westeuropäische Kollegen den Mut aufbringen, in diese Länder zu reisen.

Leif: So sehen es jedenfalls auch diese drei Promis, weil sie wollen jetzt gar nichts öffentlich sagen zum Thema. Die sind jetzt kuriert. Und im Grunde sehen sie das alles so ähnlich like you. That is, the "Gong" has somehow made the gong?

Theveßen: I think that some see this is still different. We talked intensively with colleagues, and everyone has their opinions. What annoys me is that I do not know who has seen today morning the "Kölner Stadt Anzeiger: What can I do not have, is when you afterwards then again walking around and acts as a will until after the criticism of foreign correspondents have used the first reflection on ZDF. This is pure nonsense. We have been doing for decades thought about doing a high quality range.

Leif: Last point: you with some programming decisions but still difficult to do, where you pulled out by the "International Journal" an important central mission of prime time - later in the evening.

Theveßen: I would have liked to see the "International Journal" would rather be placed directly after the "heute-journal". But, where it was, it has suffered badly. It has been very often. Second, came the Vollaufpublikum of shows like "Aktenzeichen XY character" or "Marianne and Michael." And since it is incredibly difficult for such a mission, to some extent to find the audience and knowing how to operate a format work. Now the "international journal 45th to 22 Clock And if you have ever looked inside lately, you'll see that our colleagues use it. It is first-class international reporting, which takes place in the "international journal", which is challenging television, and, incidentally, available on the Internet, which then removes the problem a little time.


Problem 3: Bureaucracy, structural constraints and inability
loss of quality journalism abroad

Leif: Mr Raman, you are convinced by the arguments you have just heard?

Raman: No, the core problem in Germany, this introverted thinking. We live in an age of globalization. The program makers say, "odds! We are not against any series on RTL and so. "And that's my opinion, wrong. My last film was an example. I report for 40 years from war zones. My first war was Vietnam. And I have never received so much response, my films often ran only until half past eleven. But the willingness is there for. And if you now any numbers and research reports as submitted and finds that few people see the articles - I do not think these arguments. What do these statistics? You have to talk with people who want to see what the. And that's the biggest problem with Germany: We do on and on. We discuss a lot. I would like to die Diskussion „Kinder statt Inder“ erinnern. Wir haben hier diskutiert: Die Inder werden kommen, sie werden hier bleiben. Bis wir fertig waren mit der Diskussion, waren die Kinder längst schon in Silicon Valley. Und dabei wollte sowieso niemand hierher kommen wegen der Sprache. Wir sind Weltmeister in Diskussionen, in Forschung und Zahlen, aber wir tun wenig.

Leif: Aber was sind aus Ihrer Sicht die Gründe? Dieses falsche Bild auf die Realität, man konstruiert sich eine Wirklichkeit, so dass die Leute desinteressiert sind und dass sie das nicht wissen wollen?

Raman: Nein, das glaube ich nicht. Wissen Sie, die öffentlich-rechtlichen kann man vergleichen mit den Kombinaten in der DDR-Zeit. Das Big animals are unlikely to much bureaucracy. And if you as a freelance correspondent since not catch a man who understands abroad, and knows a story, then nothing happens. So I've had people who have taken my film - and there was a sequence that does not understand the editor, so I had to cut it out. This happened often. Sometimes the editors have also been fears that the insurgents, we can not such an approach. There are few qualified journalists who understand the international - and this is reflected in the reporting.

Leif Mr. mosquito, as you see it? What in your view, the reasons for this change im Auslandsjournalismus?
Mücke: Was mir die Korrespondenten immer wieder genannt haben, wäre die Technisierung – also die Digitalisierung – die auf der einen Seite extrem hilfreich ist, denn man kann jetzt kommunizieren mit allen Ecken des Kontinents. Aber gleichzeitig, und das ist paradox, bindet diese Digitalisierung die Leute ans Büro. Das heißt, die Redaktionen wollen, dass die Korrespondenten ständig verfügbar sind. Ein sehr gutes Beispiel ist da ARD-Hörfunk, wo es auch als Komplementärstück fast keine Auslandsredaktionen mehr gibt – und das führt dazu, dass 50 Radiowellen, jeder Redakteur, jeder, der etwas möchte, sich bei dem einen Korrespondenten beispielsweise in Nairobi must sign in with his wishes. And then you have the tenacity and the first thick fur have to say: No, I have now for three weeks in the Congo. This is not at all. That is, in fact, the funds which are to promote research but, to the ball on the leg. I see that as a dangerous trend.


Problem 4: Overburdened correspondents
Fed with fakes and propaganda

Leif: How does the correspondents with whom you spoke to this development?

mosquito: Cynical. Cynical, first, that one fits into these structures. These structures are indeed set - and a correspondent in Africa can not change this. I once met a correspondent who has finally produced in the year 1000 contributions. Imagine that! 1000 radio reports from Nairobi, in this reporting area, which is definitely one of the toughest around the world. Infrastructural, logistical, source of receipts, everything. It takes a lot of time, it's extremely expensive. And this man has brought it managed to produce 1,000 articles. And since home is no counterpart, no editorial board, which also examined the times what is actually delivered because of content, no one has questioned this output. On the contrary, he was then promoted yet, in an even "more important" Korrespondentenstand. Er wurde groß gelobt in der WDR-Print. Aber wie hat er diesen Output zustande gebracht? Es war zum großen Teil virtueller Journalismus. Er sitzt in seinem Büro, wartet darauf, dass eben 50 Radiowellen und was weiß ich wie viele Redakteure da anrufen. Er muss aktuell berichten, und das bedient er. Und er sitzt in seinem Büro, hört früh BBC oder AFP und schneidet mit. Das ist sozusagen die primäre Quelle. Nun wäre das alles nicht ganz schlimm, wenn er das angeben würde: Wie BBC sagte… Aber das ist nicht der Fall. Sie denken: Mensch, das ist ja ein Kerl von Schrot und Korn, der geht ja nach Somalia, und da hat er den interviewt und diesen und jenen. Das kann unter Umständen gar nicht der his case. Often are also machine-gun fire and helicopter sounds in the background from the Sound Archive.

Leif: That means, we will be a pre-X makes a U?

fly: hundreds of percent - in this case, because I do not want to extend to all colleagues. This was an isolated case, he has also been criticized, but has not led to any consequences.

Leif: How does it look with the Home editors? You can also drag because such a balance? Can you say generally that it is so bad in the head editors that there is no clue? Or are the more under pressure? I read a study, published in six months from Brost Institute that eher die Redakteure in den Heimredaktionen die Korrespondenten mit absurden Aufgaben belästigen und ihnen Dinge abverlangen, die sich überhaupt nicht decken lassen mit der Realität vor Ort.

Mücke: Das ist ganz sicher so, aber das hat was mit Kompetenzen zu tun, das hat was mit der Kontinuität der Betreuung dieser Berichtsgebiete zu tun. Eine Tendenz ist ja, dass junge Redakteure in den Auslandsjournalismus in diesen Redaktionen einsteigen, und dann ein Berichtsgebiet betreuen, aber auch bald wieder verschwinden, weil sie andere Posten bekommen oder selber Korrespondent werden. Wenn ich also keine kompetente Betreuung zu Hause habe, führt das automatisch zu Themenwünschen, die eben teilweise absurd sind. Ein gutes Beispiel is the coverage of the Bundeswehr mission in Congo. Anyone familiar with Africa, had to laugh, because what was provided for questions. This is unfortunately also for the public broadcasters. "What is the action? And there are child soldiers? ". They stood in Kinshasa, the war is over 2,000 miles away from Kinshasa. These connoisseurs really naive to not more tolerable questions reflect, of course, again, that make up needs, what one has failed permanently: to report Somewhat over one of the greatest conflicts of the time, and that the Congo conflict, which now as it were in competition with other major conflicts again absolutely does not matter.


Leif Mr. Schulze, from your experience as a press officer and as a book author: Are there differences between print journalists and journalists of electronic media?

Schulze: We have really seen hardly any. The only distinction we have really noticed over again was this: Was the complete package booked with armed forces or their own local correspondent, who has also sought ways away from his stories and has maintained his contacts over the years. This one has really seen the difference.

Leif: And how it looks with footage, that is, material that is rotated by the military? Returns the Bundeswehr pictures?

Schulze, 'We have also made such a matrix for the Y-newspaper of the armed forces. Of course there is also material on to the media that are not there on the spot. And I do believe that there is one or the other "mess out" with.

Leif Mr. Raman, the colleague said of the ARD, the best suppliers, the U.S. military in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. They have brought the top images. They came in the "Daily Show" but has not been identified. That's fine, morally okay in your view that you take pictures of the military?

Raman: That is certainly the case in Iraq rather than Afghanistan because it is very difficult in Iraq, überhaupt Bilder zu bekommen. Daher man nimmt, was man hat und kommentiert entsprechend. Viel schlimmer finde ich, dass man Bilder von irakischen Kameraleuten nimmt. Man steht irgendwo vor einem Fünf-Sterne-Hotel vor der Kamera und sagt was, sagt aber nicht, dass die Bilder, die jetzt gezeigt werden, von einem irakischen Kameramann gedreht wurden, der dafür sein Leben riskiert hat. Aber so oder so: Ich glaube, es gehört zu einem guten Journalismus, dass ein Journalist seine Quellen angibt.


Problem 5: Vorbei am Bürger
Das Dilemma der späten Sendeplätzen

Theveßen: Wir müssen nur gucken, dass wir unsere Struktur entsprechend anpassen. Von diese Reisen mit der Bundeswehr oder with politicians, the ZDF has made, for example, in 2006-07 four pieces. Four. And everything else in Afghanistan coverage during that time - 12 journeys by Uli Gack, two big breaks from Ulrich Tilgner - made on your own. The "mirror" Susanne Koelbl is always on your own way. This procedure generates hundreds of contributions and switching conversations with Afghanistan in these two years. And yet, for some the impression that we would report only loyal to the government and we would accept this offer forever grateful. This is not the case. We have in the past two years as first reported that massive equipment defects was in the army. We have reported the first to know that in Afghanistan the umschwang Stimmug in the population to the armed forces and that faith was lost to a future of stability. These are things that have explored our correspondent Ulrich Tilgner and Uli Gack site on your own.

Leif: Because I can give you right if I can perhaps briefly hooked again: For a reproach I have to do to you but it will often 23 clock 45 Tuesday or Wednesday evening, when the average Joe citizen, in the morning get up at seven and eight clock must clock at work must be no longer simply watching TV. The normal citizen is not until a clock at night and carefully enough to be watching this really very good. You have certainly right that there were also very good reporting on Afghanistan. But it was often too late during the week, on a time slot where to locate these important issues in my opinion have nothing.

Theveßen: I agree with you: The long, detailed runs often relatively late. I do not know how often you "today" and "heute-journal" see. And among hundreds of articles, I have just mentioned, especially "now" and "heute-journal" posts that are four minutes long, but still very impressive. Per week, the people watching on average one and a half the "heute-journal" - then turns in the end the question of how much of this reach international reporting in ARD and ZDF in the audience.


Problem 6: Safety First
good international reporting is a question of risk

Leif: But now again back to this "embedded journalism", would you say today that public broadcasters have to fly with a fighter plane? Should not we basically give up?

Theveßen: The fact is that the colleagues Gack and Tilghman are always traveling on your own and that of civilian airlines. Only in exceptional cases where it is particularly dangerous was, they once made a domestic flight with the Bundeswehr. Something else is the entourage that travels with politicians there. And you have my opinion quite correctly, that the police training in Afghanistan and not so well. Of 61,000 soldiers who have been trained in recent years, there are just 40 000. Where are the others disappeared 21,000, which has formed the West? These are all important stories, and we have to tell. For this we need people who are willing to tell it, play the whistle. And the risk some of their career to do so. Our colleagues who are on site to talk, sometimes you are, but need something at least through two sources have covered to the report.

Raman: But Mr. Theveßen, it is a fact that Afghanistan has a German reference. I find it strange that neither ARD or ZDF have a permanent office there. That can not be!

Theveßen: That's not true. We have of course a constant since Stringer, who comes from the country. And the colleagues who travel there are always been the same in recent years. So these are people who know about. Now comes one do so, and we should openly discuss: How dangerous is it? You are at high risk, our colleagues who have traveled there as well. Therefore, we have requirements, such they move, how often they call with the head per day. The risk is very high when they move into areas in which there is war, and that is in Afghanistan in a large part of the country the case. And then at the end is the question: Do we have enough experienced colleagues who have the training and experience to assess such risks? And as we go to that site, just when the situation is so dramatic dangerous?

Raman: Why are there these problems only with Germany? Like so make it the BBC and others?

Leif: BBC, Americans, CBS ...

Theveßen: I think we need more colleagues as Uli Tilgner, as Uli Gack, as You, Mr. Raman. And I think the fact we have to react structurally. We have to think for ARD and ZDF, as we send crisis reporters who are properly trained in these regions. And I think it makes no sense, young ladies and gentlemen who have just come fresh on the job, like in earthquake zones, flood plains, sent into war zones in order to earn their spurs. I think this should be our most experienced and skilled colleagues.

Leif: But is it to you as discussed in the hierarchy, whether one should not send to Afghanistan a person who is permanently there and perhaps not possible in the very hot areas? If the re- order of the day, or do you completely repressed?

Theveßen: Yes, of course, now we have discussed in relation to Iran, because Uli Tilgner not just continuously working for us from Iran. The question is at the end, whether you have a presence - and television is a bit more expensive than print and radio - to keep in place and can do and how to deal with security measures. In Baghdad, for example, the correspondent for a while at the Palace Hotel were housed. And they all know what happened there, in front of the Palace Hotel.

Leif: But you have again asked questions. Could you try to play the current status? Is there a change or it remains at the status we have now?

Theveßen: We stay in first place, the status we have. Because we believe that the risk, have a solid presence on the ground, the time is relatively large. But we're working with fellow colleagues on the ground, stringers, who know very well.

Leif: Stringer, I do not know if that is known to all. They are designed domestic support, in the material, but also informants. And I think, hardly a foreign reporter does not need this Stringer. New way, the term "fixer", that is someone special material concerned. Or?

Theveßen: Fixer is someone who of the contacts concerned.

Leif Mr. mosquito, you also have a fixer that?

mosquito: No, I do not have, I am my fixer.


view into the digital future: The revolution of technology

Leif: Maybe a positive conclusion: You have now seen the earthquake in Asia that many young ladies who worked for the North German Radio, with modern technology have reported. If this kind of coverage the classic crisis revolutionize journalism, so you can continue to work autonomously with little technology and more fresh unused, will see heads?

Theveßen: I think yes. The use of modern technology makes it easier to report directly on site. At the same time it increases, but the claim, not just a colleague to have on site, from morning to night live stands there and use all the programs, because the fact is hardly out of his hotel. Standing on some balcony, so he is not arrested by the military junta. We must ensure that we have more resources on the ground: for example, two colleagues with full teams, one of which perhaps will always remain on site, while the other stories examined, taking turns accordingly. But we are by this small technology capable of from the Irrawaddy Delta immediately to Germany Want to make contributions or be discontinued.


The role of the intelligence

Leif: title of our evening is indeed: the role of intelligence agencies. Mr. Theveßen, you are intelligence specialist. They are treated incredibly nice of the secret services. All they have, they give you first. No one knows why.

Theveßen: When the times were so ...

Leif: It is always others push themselves Theveßen is called and gets the online everything on the table.

Theveßen: I was never called from.

Leif: You send it by mail?

Theveßen: No, maybe not.

Leif: How did you do that? Can you tell us today, at least one mystery: How did you do that, you get this special super special privileged position?

Theveßen: There are no special privileged position, but it is quite simply what any journalist making that accumulate over the years, first information, second and third, material and contacts. By the way, both in the areas of security authority, as well as in the fields of the objects of consideration of the safety authority. This means that even in Islamic circles. And calls I've received so far only from informants in Islamist circles, or just by the whistleblowers from the authorities. And that is quite normal, good journalism, I think. And at the end of the leads to the fact that we consider must still ten times what you make of what you have for information. Ultimately, it is so that security agencies and especially the politicians behind it have a very strong interest to accommodate a particular view of things in the media. The higher the danger of terrorism, the easier it is to bring through the security laws, and its need to be aware of - and therefore maybe do not drive each sow through the village, which would perhaps like to heave some private media in the headlines.

Leif: If the BND and very specific times people would come to the massive shin, could Is it possible that you will be turned off?

Theveßen: I think I have the BND already entered quite a few times on the shin. What's off?

Leif: Parked means you will not get anything more on substance.

Theveßen: I get nothing? It may be that it is months of silence. That existed both in the BND, the BKA, and the Constitution. Even with Islamists can cause by reporting that they no longer call.

Leif: But striking thing is that you will be informed privileged and on another level Mr. Wagner. So obviously there is a certain division of labor.

Theveßen: No, so if it is talking in the background, as well as the colleagues of the "South German", the "mirror" the "world", the "Focus", ARD, ZDF, RTL, SAT1.

Leif: But focus must not be there. But he is there in part automatically.

Theveßen: I abstain from any decision.

Leif: Very twice and my song ...

Theveßen: There is an information market. From which we hold ourselves out as ZDF. In this market, information is exchanged, exchanged documents, and possibly also paid money.

Leif: Do not. So money is not there. In Lerchenberg is running out calculated?

Theveßen: Public law. Since I'd waste the fee payers' money.

Leif: But what is the "mirror" happens, for example, Susanne Koelbl - could theoretically have happened to you too?

Theveßen: I probably do not, I'm not important enough for. For me, however, there were already cases where one has tried auszuforschen private data. But colleagues who have dealt extensively with these areas, have already been the subject of eavesdropping. Joerg from Brase "Frontal 21" for example: There is also a trial run. Bruno Schirra is also now known.

Leif: Die wollen wissen, welche Quellen Sie haben.

Theveßen: Das würden die gerne wissen. Das haben sie auch bei Susanne Koelbl wissen wollen. Mittlerweile machen sie das fast subtiler, auch das muss man offen sagen. Als die Entführungen in Afghanistan im vergangenen Jahr waren, gab es ein Hintergrundgespräch. Und hinterher wurde von deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden eine nette Übersicht über die Struktur der Taliban verteilt. Da waren die Telefonnummern von Taliban-Sprechern drauf. Das heißt, so macht man es wahrscheinlich perfekt. Man verteilt diese Telefonnummern an Kollegen. Einige sind dann wirklich so dumm, rufen da an und stellen all die Fragen, die die Sicherheitsbehörden gerne mal beantwortet haben möchten.

Leif: But overall you feel comfortable in the role as an intelligence expert?

Theveßen: I am the terrorism expert, not the intelligence expert.

Leif: So I put an incorrect insertions.

Theveßen: That may be. I feel in the role well, because I believe that one can very well explain and very objectively, the way things are. You can explain what is on a terror warning it - or not.

Leif: Have you ever had a feeling that you have been exploited with information?

Theveßen: Yes, absolutely. The experience you will ever make. The bottom line is that you are at the end not be exploited.

Leif: Mr Raman, you are a committed partner of intelligence agencies. I was surprised. You said you are "super happy" with the secret service people. What drives you always in the arms of the secret service?

Raman: I've been really addressed very often. Anticipated first: There are only two intelligence services, ISI, Pakistan's and Mossad. The other intelligence agencies play. Which can not be taken seriously. Shortly after the Americans were in Afghanistan, I met a man in the so-called "German Club". I've talked briefly with him. I said: BND. Has become very acidic, would not talk to me. But the next day he had calmed down and we became friends. Officially, he was not a BND-man, but he always wanted to see my stuff I was shooting. I have also shown it to him. Why not? And then he advised the ambassador there. The other day I was once called me to go to Cologne, and eat in a restaurant of his choice with him. Then he told me, this meeting had been approved by the top official and he offered me several opportunities for intelligence work, inter alia, to proceed to Sudan. I said to him: "Say, Mr. Weber, all I know is in my film. Why do you want me to pay? "At the end of the evening had I sell it somewhere under a bridge in Cologne. Then he is going through the grass and gave me at parting like in the movie "Casablanca" said: "This could be a good friendship." And he was gone.

Leif: Has it become a good friend? Where next?

Raman: Yes. You know, I am a much more open type. I tell you what I know. I have no secrets. I also give more stories to journalists. I do not have these problems. To me to show you what can!

Leif: And from time to time you are useful for?

Raman: I think so. You ask me for opinions and such. So it was at the CIA. Constantly, always some invitations.


full circle - if intelligence agencies cooperate and correspondents

Leif: Now we want to use again with the key informants. We are lucky today, because by chance is also Professor Geiger here. He used to be head of the BND. I would like to ask him sometimes spontaneously, if he had in his office could imagine that such a thing as now, the "mirror" the interception or collection of information from Mrs. Koelbl, also could have happened?

Geiger: Who says a chief of a larger organization with 7,000 employees in my time, now 6,000, he knew what each of the 6,000 or 7,000 people each day who is an impostor. This means you can never rule out that in an organization, nor to collect in a news service, where also some people who deliberately want to gather news, everyone is working correctly. I would never give a different answer.

Leif: But Ms Koelbl is a journalist, and that their emails will be checked and controlled, that is not a trivial matter, not even in your view?

Geiger: No, it's not a petty offense. And the public reaction was quite unique. When I introduce myself, I would have been employees of the BND, and sitting in Kabul - woher bekomme ich meine Informationen? Es wird natürlich von der Zentrale erwartet, dass wenn ich schon dort bin, ich auch etwas berichte. Und zwar nicht das berichte, was einen Tag vorher schon in der „Neuen Zürcher Zeitung“ gestanden hat. Also, wo gehen Sie da ran? Da gibt es Journalisten, die können Deutsch oder Englisch, dann sprechen Sie mit diesen Leuten. Sie sprechen mit den Angehörigen anderer Botschaften, vielleicht haben die was gehört. Das ist ja eine der ganz großen Gefahren: Dass Journalisten und auch Nachrichtendienstleute, die in einer so isolierten Situation sitzen, sich untereinander möglicherweise auch ein Bild zeichnen, von dem sie hinterher alle überzeugt sind, dass es das richtige ist, feel, and then confirmed because they realize: Oh yes, on television, in broadcast or newspaper, I have seen, heard or read, so I'm right. And then we come full circle. I think this is one of the great dangers. Even if we talk about journalism abroad or when we think about the issue: What we know about foreign countries? Since I can only say, has in my time if I have read reports, driven around the question: Is this the real report? Is this the truth? Or is it only possible close to the truth? If you immediately turn in Iraq, you are embedded, not in the military, but in the population. Then there are of course very different approaches. But for others it is incredibly difficult. And you can also imagine the CIA or the MI6 man from Great Britain, which falls on immediately. Could of course try to have sources. But what sources will be back? If it is not the same sources, which all have?

Leif: You now have to pose questions. And how would you answer it? What quality of information you can see from the BND? Is this really the reality ...?

Geiger: We must make it. We all know that about 90 percent of the information now for open sources of information. This is quite crucial. The need to evaluate. It interested possibly an intelligence agency not only how the political situation in general. We can learn from the media. What should bring out the intelligence service, other questions: What does Nasrallah do? What does he actually do with Hezbollah? Did he really going to take over Lebanon? How exactly are the relations of Nasrallah to Iran, Syria? Where is the running lines? Where weapons are transferred? What Iran does with its missile technology? How far is it exactly? Which way it goes with the nuclear equipment, nuclear weapons development? This is information that I can not possibly see the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", but that would now be information which are very important for policy. That is, one has to wonder, perhaps: If you had to make the intelligence services of other tasks, and the other is omitted. Since you have plenty of new information, if you have access. And bring something too.

Leif: What about your experience with intelligence services of disinformation to journalists? The fact that she faked to bring atmosphere enriched reports so that journalists write in their favor?

Geiger: I'm in the business a long time been in there, but in my time been aware of an open house and talked to many journalists. Of course, not under an assumed name, but as the then President the respective office. I have told the journalist what I think it is important for journalists, in my view the world situation. It contained the opportunity to object to me or to simply remain silent and then decide what you make of it, or for any other information in putting it - or nothing to do with it. I would not come up with the idea of the journalist to blow anything, because I want to draw a picture to which I am personally very much interested in the truth, and far too curious to now something wrong to bring into the world. I am not interested in the times of Gehlen's era and I can not remember that, when Powell and his famous appearance at the United Nations Such would have happened, that one is constructed something. I was also a state secretary in the intelligence situation where you put those things and then talk. No one has made any proposal, as we add a special message.

Raman: You talk about Powell. This story has been played but from Germany.

Geiger: Yeah, well, I mean ...

Raman: This man, this alcohol to ...

Geiger: I know of course not the exact story. I know them only from the media. But I know from the media vice-versa, that is the Americans in time, long before the deadline, made it clear that they should not be based on. If the Americans had wanted, they would have the source they had to assess it. According to media reports, the Americans have been shortly before or nervous and have asked: Is there a confirmation? They've received but not definitive. I think that you can not make the Federal Intelligence Service alleges that he has written the story differently, because he reported at a late date to
or not the truth about this source.

Leif: Finally, perhaps to write: When this case Koelbl have any consequences or the routine, and you forget that quickly again?

Geiger: Mr. Uhrlau has expressed very clearly his concern over the incident. That was not played. I know him personally. I have not spoken with him about it, but I've seen him in the media and read what instructions he has issued. He definitely does not want such things. One must of course consider who was the target of the whole operation. And just to say: The goal was a completely different person - in this context there a journalist - then know you have to, of course, what do you do with this information, where you once consultation takes and what it does exactly, so that one not just in there, when people goes in do not. Article 5, Grundgesetz, Pressefreiheit ist nun mal wichtig.

Theveßen: Und das ist sehr wichtig, wenn unsere Kollegen in Afghanistan oder Irak unterwegs sind. Wir wissen alle, dass die Kollegen vor Ort abgehört werden, genau wie hier. Aber in dem Moment, in dem Emails länger aufbewahrt werden und schön weiter gelesen werden, da wird es höchst illegal. Angeblich sind da ein paar aus irgendeinem Referat aus dem Ruder gelaufen. Das können Sie wahrscheinlich bei der Größe des Ladens nicht ausschließen. Fest steht, dass trotzdem jemand dafür verantwortlich ist oder die Verantwortung tragen muss.


Fragestunde

Leif: Vielen Dank erstmal an Herrn Professor Geiger für diese Eisbrecherfunktion. I hope that we have now been fed with enough material that you might now even want to ask questions. Have the opportunity to do so. We collect the questions.

Question: My name is tungsten steel. I'm from the West German Radio and I wanted to fly like Mr particularly ask about the correspondents in Nairobi. Would you say that's been a problem of the correspondents that you have described, or the problem is one of the thing because there are so many countries over which he had to report? Would you even go so far as to say that this is intentional by the ARD?

Question: I would like to ask the ZDF colleagues, how does it actually Antonia Rados that now, suddenly appears on ZDF, which was until now seen in ntv or RTL. If the ZDF had the appropriate colleagues lost?

Question: My question is addressed to the press officer. You have indeed described above, that you miss the concept in principle. I wonder how you managed to meet a mate on the one hand, your order, a product that should be perfectly possible to produce, and on the other side, the lack of common sense, they have even suggested not to be influenced?

Question: My name is Hardy Voss and I am a retired civil servant. How to solve the dilemma of the journalist that he once constitutionally granted freedom of reporting unfolds on its own initiative, and sets priorities, but has always must have the certainty that what he prepares and sends, does not run in prime time? How do you solve this dilemma in practice, because it turns so constantly?

Leif: Good. Mr. Mosquito, maybe you start with the first specific question of the WDR colleagues.

mosquito: So that would be wanted by the ARD, I can not imagine the best of intentions. There are structures in which work must correspondents, in which they must profit by it. The need for reporting is obviously there. And one can not Say that the correspondent has not worked. He has worked as an animal! have to make first thousand articles. Only: Our job as a journalist is research, and to what extent the movement in the self-referential media system is good journalism? And the structural question arises: Why is there no debate about that? Who do not or hardly exist. Why is not sufficiently competent care on the editorial page? Why the ARD radio has reduced foreign editors, thus creating structural incompetence? This may not be the intention, I know. But the question you must answer. You are in the organization, you need to your editor in chief, program planner or raise else whom.

Leif Mr. Schulz, you can again respond to the officer in question?

Schulze: I was not a press officer at the time when I was in Afghanistan. I was a platoon leader paratroopers train that has gone on patrol. I was practically every day on the road outside the camp and worked with the local people had carried out a Show of Force and obtained information. And I have already participated in other missions abroad and, for me, recognized that the armed forces of Snakes on the spot. There is no development felt were from the beginning or middle of 1999 then in 2002 the Balkans to Afghanistan. It took me two or three years after dem Vertragsende, auch nicht zu versuchen, Berufssoldat zu werden. Dieses Buch war natürlich eine Art Frustbewältigung für mich.

Leif: Wie reagieren eigentlich Ihre Kollegen auf das Buch? Sind Sie so ein Fahnenflüchtiger?

Schulze: Ja, ich war die Unke in unserem Team. Ich habe Kollegen, dem Verlag und meinem Autor gegenüber gesagt: „Wir werden als Landesverräter dargestellt.“ Ganz anders ist es gelaufen: Wir haben bis in den obersten Rang hoch ein Feedback bekommen: „Danke, dass es jetzt jemand mal gemacht hat, ungeschminkt. Und wir hoffen, ihr seid da so eine Art Wellenbrecher.“ Denn die Realität ist 3.000 deutsche Soldatinnen und Soldaten sind zum Teil unter widrigsten Circumstances and conditions there on the spot, in a very very dangerous mission.
Leif: Exactly. And for the soldiers wives, you are kind of Lili Marleen?

Schulze: Yes.

Leif: they say the readings?

Schulze: Yes, yes, they say. We wanted to just give the public a gritty, unvarnished view.

Leif: And now we get a question from Mr unvarnished Theveßen to the PR question to Mrs. Rados.

Theveßen: PR question?

Leif: Yes, that's the wedding gift for Mr. Kleber.

Theveßen: What we need to make foreign reporting even better experience, Knowledge and skills - ie colleagues, combine all in itself. We can on the one hand, by finding colleagues who have accumulated the experience for years or decades. Uli Tilgner we have been deprived. Now we have Antonia Rados. That was contrary to what was rumored in some newspapers, by the way not planned. And we are very happy that Antonia Rados has made it the fastest get in, to Myanmar and has also reported very good. At the same time we also try to train younger colleagues in the ZDF-intensive. With us there is a crisis training, as you go through several courses through, some way, even with the Bundeswehr. And psychological pressure is simulated.

Pirate Ship Parts Sleep

The Googleisierung in the editorial
DLF on demand mp3
flash

For Thomas Leif of network research, the results of the study is alarming. It calls for an intensification of the debate. "Journalists are always ..." more

39 Weeks Pregnant Sharp Pain In Pelvic Floor

Nächster Termin

Next Media Dispute Berlin in September.

Paddle Wheel Boatfor Sale

Was wissen wir noch vom Weltgeschehen ?

media disputable Berlin
About the crisis of international journalism and the role of intelligence in international education


Monday 19 May 2008
by 19 clock
in the Representation of Rhineland-Palatinate
to Ministergärten 6
10117 Berlin
with
Ashwin Raman
freelance TV journalist (SWR / ARD), crisis-reporter with their own camera
Dirk Schulze
Co-author of "A Streetcar Named Kabul" (Econ Verlag), former captain and press officer
Lutz Mükke
communication scholars and Africa expert
Matthias Gebauer
Der Spiegel, Berlin Office
Elmar Theveßen
Deputy Chief Editor ZDF (invited)
Chair: Dr. Thomas Leif
Chief Reporter TV SWR Mainz / Chairman recherche network

beginning of April, the "Gong "his name really lives. Renowned foreign correspondent for ZDF, including Alexander von Sobeck (Paris), Klaus Prömpers (Vienna) and Ruprecht Eser (London), the program guide had provided a real blockbuster. Their main criticism that foreign policy is. "Rarely prime-time-capable" Even former figureheads such as the "international journal" were found in the ZDF only in the border program.
Other employees of the foreign ministries have been complaining for years about a ghetto increasingly non-observance of the important international reporting.
Programme leaders argue and cause the increasing rate of pressure to bear: "A foreign reporting, which is not seen by many viewers, is losing public service value," said ZDF's chief editor Nikolaus Brender. He considers the period of "diplomatic correspondents" as well as for passing, like that of "classical features." (Cf. FR, 14 408) As part of the media dispute "in Berlin, we want to explore the current status of international reporting and with experienced practitioners including discuss the following questions:

What are the reasons for the changes in the international reporting?
royal against war zones:
What issues are now on the agenda?
Are there differences in the print area and the electronic media?
Why put the "international" in the case of the attention of the planners and the public?
Welche Folgen hat es, wenn wichtige Sendungen und Dokumentationen an die Programmränder geschoben werden?
Wer bestimmt die Relevanz von internationalen Ereignissen?
Wie entstehen „blinde Flecken“ und wann sind Vorgänge „SNG-fähig“?
Wie beeinflussen Geheimdienste und Militär die internationale Berichterstattung?


Für diese Veranstaltung steht nur eine begrenzte Anzahl an Plätzen zur Verfügung.
Wir berücksichtigen die Anmeldungen in der Reihenfolge des Maileinganges an hzincke@bitte-kein-spam-lv.rlp.
MainzerMedienDisput
Netzwerk Recherche
Gepostet von md unter 03:09
Dokumentation des MainzerMedienDisputs Berlin 26 February 2008

documentation of Mainz media dispute Berlin on 26 February 2008
in the Representation of Rhineland-Palatinate in Berlin


policy advice in Germany - opportunities, risks, side effects, "
documentation of Mainz media dispute Berlin on 26 February 2008
in the Representation of Rhineland-Palatinate in Berlin
Thomas Leif through conversation with
· Matthias Machnig, State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Environment
· Michael H. Spreng, political and communications consultant
· Josef Janning, head of the International Relations Program, Bertelsmann Stiftung
· Peter Weingart, Bielefeld University, member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences
· Nikolaus Huss, Managing Director of Publics Affairs and Head of the Berlin office at Burson-Marsteller Germany
· Timo reasons, University of Duisburg-Essen

Thomas Leif: We now want to agree on policy consultation in Germany: opportunities, risks and side effects. As part of the test culture we have in Germany, to answer any of the guests at the beginning instead of a personal interview only a very simple question with three sets. Mr. blast doing the beginning: What would you now advise the SPD leadership in dealing with the PDS or the left?
Michael Spreng: This is very difficult. We are the creators of the so genannten Powerslide-Strategie. Das heißt, man fährt in einem Wahnsinnstempo in eine bestimmte Richtung, tritt voll in die Bremsen, dreht mehrmals auf der Stelle und fährt mit demselben Tempo in die Gegenrichtung. Da muss Beratung aus meiner Sicht versagen. Beratung kann nur stattfinden, wenn ein Politiker strategiefähig ist. Dieser Zusammenhang zwischen Beratung und Strategiefähigkeit ist entscheidend. Ein Politiker, der keine erkennbare Strategie hat oder eine solche seinem Umfeld nicht erkennbar kommuniziert, ist natürlich auch sehr schwer zu beraten.
Leif: Das heißt, den Auftrag würden Sie nicht annehmen?
Spreng: Sagen wir so: Es wäre entwicklungsfähig.
Leif: Wenn schon Sie sich nicht auf das Spiel einlassen, dann fürchte ich, dass die anderen Teilnehmer total abdriften. Also sagen Sie drei Ideen, was würden Sie ihm sagen. Was soll er tun?
Spreng: Ich glaube, das Kind ist teilweise in den Brunnen gefallen. Aber er hätte den Versuch, den Schwarzen Peter der FDP zuzuschieben, wesentlich deutlicher machen müssen – massiver, mit viel mehr Gesprächen, mit viel mehr Aufwand. Und hätte das auch stärker kommunizieren müssen, um dann vor dieser Folie des vorgeführten und demonstrierten FDP-Verweigerns an höchster Stelle und trotz aller Versuche – dann eben nicht anders könnend – doch den furchtbaren Weg gehen zu müssen, der ja eigentlich abgelehnt wird: sich tolerieren to leave. But it is difficult to communicate a whole, because it's born out of necessity and not a long-term strategy behind it.
Leif Mr. Machnig can answer the question in three short sentences? What would you advise the SPD leadership in the current situation?
Matthias Machnig: First, I would advise to stick with what has always been. In the SPD has always been: there are decisions taken, where they are taken. In this case, this means that in Hessen. The second point: recognize the realities. That is for me something very simple. We have a five-party system and we must all adjust to the five-party system. Third, coalitions, not arithmetically , But define the content. The talks in Hesse, to say bluntly, have not even started yet. There was not a substantive debate on the question of what really needs to happen in Hessen. So I would just proceed to the melody: talking first time, with those who are potentially in question, determine where the intersection - and then decide based on the interfaces, what can be done. I think that's the sensible thing. All other discussions about color theories, arithmetic majorities, and the like do not continue. Policy is concrete.
Leif Mr. Janning, advise you as a member of the Bertelsmann Foundation's many Politiker. Was würden Sie der SPD-Spitze raten?
Josef Janning: Das ist keine Strategiefrage, sondern ein Vabanquespiel. Da gilt das, was Spreng gesagt hat: Viel kann passieren, wenn man sich auf diesen Prozess einlässt. Zweitens ist es für die SPD nicht gut, wenn es dauerhaft links von ihr eine Partei gibt. Die darf es nicht geben – sonst verliert die SPD eine Regierungsmöglichkeit. Dritter Punkt: Der Weg führt nicht über die Linke, sondern über die FDP.
Ein Therapeut für die SPD
Leif: Nikolaus Huss, früher selbst aktiv bei den Grünen, auch in verantwortlicher Position als Geschäftsführer, dann PR-Berater, Kampagnen-Mescalero und jetzt derjenige, der uns die Auslegung in three points says.
Nikolaus Huss: I would join Mr Machnig. The situation is becoming apparent, therefore, must defuse it. You can also change frequently: the political life of statements today is not as high - because there are a number of examples. I would add only one thing: The SPD should hire a therapist, because I think it is more a psychological than a substantive question with which they must deal with. Otherwise you have to approach the pragmatic, even if you do not explicitly links, but this left-right debate to be fatal and come see. There is now a party that is of sufficient strength and not really constitutional radical. So you have to admit to it. Whether they are then defined away, because it proves to be politically impotent or not, that is in the hands of the four other parties.
Leif: The therapists will probably play on Lafontaine, who is almost as undead in the social democratic living and not yet buried. But that is not easy. Professor Weingart, what would be your recommendation dealing with the policy advice?
Peter Weingart: In one I agree with Mr. Machnig. You have to talk to each other, in fact, face the new situation. You must respond to the content. But this also, once not to listen to the image consultant, but to do what one thinks is right.
Leif: Timo reasons, experienced young doctoral student from Duisburg, who conducts policy advice - what would you advise Beck?
Timo reasons: I would advise the SPD, the follow through now. The worst is the Gekrampfe, back and forth. Ypsilanti woman to be elected. Then one takes hold by winning theme, looks for because the majority in Parliament. And if everything goes perfectly, then you go to the incumbency in early state election, tipped out the left and forms a red-green government. That would be perfect.
Leif: Kurt Beck is absolutely flu later in Steinfeld. I think that it encourages rather than a hot chicken soup. - Professor Weingart, you have pulled through with a team for the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, a major project, they analyzed the institutional and policy advice in Germany also presented positive note. If you say it quite pointedly: What are the shortcomings of the policy advice in Germany?
Weingart: The deficits, we can see, are not basically Germany specifically. On the contrary: you will probably have to say that in Germany there is a relatively good advice culture - not least because we have a wide range of different types of consulting and advisory committees. About the boards in the Ministries. They are the oldest and the classic model of policy advice. Then there is well within the councils of experts, of which the majority have indeed the wise Council. At the other end of the spectrum, there are ad hoc committees, which are most likely to target, when you think of deficits: Hartz and Rürup about.
Leif: It is, therefore, in your view everything in butter?
Weingart: No, no, I have not said so. It is not everything in butter, but you have to distinguish between the bodies that provide a sense of public attention away from day to day advice. The works also. Then there are always cases where it is wrong. The most spectacular case occurred in the kingdom in relation to BSE. From this we can learn a lot: Given that the government and the scientists from different motives, the withheld information of advice - with the result that the media have exposed it. This then led to a huge loss of confidence. They allow you to look very beautiful, what can happen when advice is not organized properly. This has led us also to formulate guidelines.
commissions uncomfortable reforms
Leif: About deficits do not talk. Perhaps this helps' Hartz reform. Was it okay, as the Commission was busy? They confront the issue of independence To: politicians now are those consultants who fit them. Was not quite as Hartz? It took some preconceived political figures who have produced the wanted to hear what you are.
Weingart: Hartz is therefore a blatant and classic case, because he fits into this pattern of exploitation of advisory committees. Also, because the way the calculus is not worked out. It's the worst that can happen when commissions are used to legitimize only uncomfortable reforms. Then the whole thing is quickly over complex, but it also has another consequence: Both the government and academics - there were only two scientists in the Commission - may dabei erheblichen Schaden nehmen. Das wiederum wirkt sich dann in Zukunft aus. Mit anderen Worten: Es belastet zukünftige Beratungsverhältnisse.
Leif: Aber das Hartz-IV-Desaster in der Beratung würden Sie nicht als Blaupause für andere Kommissionen sehen?
Weingart: Nein, überhaupt nicht. Man darf auch nicht darüber hinweg sehen, dass es sehr viele gut funktionierende Gremien gibt. Wir schauen uns – weil wir was verbessern wollen – natürlich die Problemfelder an.
Leif: Timo Grunden hat sich mit drei Ministerpräsidenten beschäftigt und deren ganz persönliche Beratung analysiert, nachdem diese drei nicht mehr im Amt waren. Was haben Sie herausgefunden? Was hat Sie am Ende am meisten überrascht?
reasons: In summary I can say that politics is a risk activity for each top player. Most problems do not necessarily come from outside but from within. It is all about, first time to hold together his own shop, their own government, the various actors of a government. For this you need close associates, which pass through for the top player for the Prime Minister at the informal level, his leadership skills. This is a very important function. The second important function that a Prime Minister, by every top player, in very different arenas operates with very different rationales for action is to be confronted. The media arena is different than the party arena. And sometimes these arenas contradict. What is really good for a party arena, does not work in the media arena. Ideally, a head of government a group of advisers around him, all these different arenas, with whom he is facing, has represented, as it were unfold the political rationality in that they collect from a certain expertise and balance out arguments.
Leif: Do you have the ideal case, this division of labor found in the men Hoeppner, Biedenkopf or acorn?
reasons: there is every Prime Minister, a phase in which it worked, in representing these rationalities were and have worked well together - even while the boss was not impervious to advice, but the recommendations are followed. And there are in all cases, examples of how it has not worked - as a key advisor to the Advisory Board have left, as the boss was impervious to advice. In two cases, then it has also meant that they have lost the premiership. And in one case, he would have almost lost.
Leif: Consulting resistance is the cliché that is always stressed: Basically, the leaders impervious to advice. Can you seal this cliché scientific?
reasons: It depends on which questions to do it. When it comes to the matter, one can perhaps see that some say Prime Minister or Government: With this fix, which is offered me, I win no elections, I lose elections - not this power dimension must not be overlooked. The policy is then often accused of, she was impervious to advice on the material dimension. But political rationality brings together now both power and substantive issues. It is so indeed, that some of the Prime Minister later in their terms of office have become resistant to advice. Professing themselves likely to be immortal, what then brings them, the end of its term. The length of tenure is very important for counseling resistance.
Leif, can you We say a rule of thumb? Who really has influence counseling? Who comes ran close to the soul of a politician? Personal Body? Trust and commitment are the decisive factor?
reasons: trust is critical, but in any case are personal consultants or members of any gray eminences ominous kitchen cabinets. They have relatively specific offices, very prominent positions. In general, these are the chiefs of the State and government spokesman, perhaps department heads. They have therefore also institutional power. And they have power of representation. That is, the confidence of the Prime Minister, the Government is here and they can in the party, the party, the Media appear as if the Prime Minister appear itself, as if "principle: I am here representing the boss. I can speak for him and thus can also bring people into line, which I may be inferior in the hierarchy.
It's about fire withdraw
Leif: What are your key findings? What is wrong with the Prime Minister advice?
reasons: The main problem is actually that this "strategy consulting" in central government and state offices actually is not a strategy consultancy, but it comes to withdraw fire. It is particularly in crisis management. Every day there is a crisis. Every day gets under a world government. Since then, it is just to organize: Wie kann man darauf reagieren, wie überstehe ich den nächsten Tag, die nächste Woche? Im Terminplan eines Ministerpräsidenten oder Bundeskanzlers gibt es überhaupt keine Zeit, um strategisch nachzudenken. Und seine eigenen Leute haben diese Zeit auch kaum. Es ist schwierig, sich diese Zeit zu nehmen und wirklich langfristig strategisch zu denken. Es gab immer wieder Beispiele, wo man das mal gemacht hat, wo man sich die Zeit genommen hat, wo man langfristige Projekte ausgearbeitet hat – aber das sind enorme Kraftanstrengungen, die man nicht beliebig wiederholen kann. Es gibt noch ein internes Defizit im Bereich der Machtdimension, wenn die Netzwerke der Berater verdorren. Ein guter Berater hat ein eigenes Netzwerk, das er einbringt. Er kennt sich aus in der Partei. Er hat gute Verbindungen zur Wirtschaft, zu den Wirtschaftsverbänden oder zu den Medien. Wenn diese Netzwerke nicht mehr funktionieren, dann gibt es Informationsverluste. Und man bemerkt nicht mehr, dass sich plötzlich eine Oppositionsbewegung bildet in der Partei, in der Fraktion. Vielleicht spielen bestimmte Verbände, auf die man angewiesen ist, aus bestimmten Gründen nicht mehr mit. Wenn man diese Netzwerke verliert, verliert man auch Steuerungsmöglichkeiten. Zuerst verliert man Informationen, später Steuerungsmöglichkeiten und letzen Endes stellt sich dann auch Machterosion ein.
Leif: Herr Spreng, Sie waren ganz nah an Rüttgers, ganz nach an Stoiber, ganz nah an der CDU, ganz nah am Campaign turn. Does your experience with that of the scientist?
Spreng: My observation is - and adds just said - that politicians rarely have a stringent policy and keep it rare. They frequently change not only their opinions, but also what they consider strategy - depending on the day of opportunity, according to media influence, according to the influence of party colleagues, according to new demographic surveys, all of sudden have a tremendous importance and lead to policy changes. If a jointly agreed strategy is changed according to daily opportunity or upset, then advice is of course difficult. There are few politicians, die das konsequent durchhalten. Beispielsweise bei Edmund Stoiber war der Prozess so, dass zunächst im engsten Kreis seiner Berater, eine Strategie besprochen und festgelegt wurde, dann mit ihm diskutiert, von ihm abgesegnet und gewissermaßen sich zu Eigen gemacht wurde. Und dann wurde diese Strategie auch konsequent verfolgt. Dass diese Strategie zu einem bestimmten Punkt des Wahlkampfs zerschellt ist, lag natürlich auch daran, dass der Situationspolitiker Schröder sich damals gewissermaßen nicht dem strategischen Raster von Stoiber gefügt hat.
Leif: Da hätten Sie aber drauf vorbereitet sein müssen. Da ist Ihr Job.
Spreng: Nein, es war nicht möglich, auf die Flut im Osten vorbereitet zu sein. Und es war auch not possible to foresee that there will be a new edition of a war-or peace-election campaign, which was indeed made by the SPD several times. The time has indeed made Johannes Rau of North Rhine-Westphalia. War or peace could be chosen at that time. Helmut Schmidt has done it once. We had not counted on the new edition of a war-or peace-election campaign. This can now be a strategic failure or lack of information - but at these two points shattered at the end of the consistently held strategy. From
consultants littered
Leif: If you have time reflect your work experience in these areas: What are the main gaps, based on the policy and consulting opportunities?
Spreng: The problem is that politicians have a variety of consultants. There is indeed a competition held among these consultants. Everyone wants to be on the next turn - there are court ceremonials. I can also say that the example of Stoiber. Because I can be relatively unbiased because he is no longer in office: Stoiber had always before important events or important interviews or speeches or party conventions a circle of ten, fifteen people around him. Since no work was possible. They have all behaved like classical officials. You have bombarded him with information to help them not after the accusation was made: Why did not you tell me? This has naturally inundate mean that the politician at the end do not know whether he is a boy or a girl. My very first step was to concentrate all these briefings and discussions at two, so that we have any future in the group of three or made up to four people and we do all others who were formerly with the process for specialized technical issues for a quarter of an hour have consulted and then sent out. That was a very small measure, but it was useful to formalize a particular work with any advice and result-oriented.
Leif: Another weak point? Where else, the worm is inside the counseling work?
explosive: This is problem is what I said earlier: If politicians a strategy nicht durchhalten. Wir erleben ja immer wieder Beispiele, dass Politiker Strategien nicht durchhalten. Wir haben es bei Koch gesehen, der abrupte Strategiewechsel. Erst erfand er sich neu, das wurde gestartet mit einer Geschichte im Spiegel: Jetzt kommt der sanfte, der neue Koch. Dann kam die Kampagne „Koch kocht“. Und dann wurde versucht, einem Mann, der ja als harter Hund wirklich identifiziert war, ein ganz weiches, liebevolles Image zu verpassen, was aus meiner Sicht ohnehin in die Hose gegangen wäre. Und dann aber kam dieser abrupte Wechsel und gewissermaßen die Rückkehr zum alten Koch mit dem Ausländerthema.
Leif: Wie entsteht eine solche Slalomstrategie?
Spreng: Häufig natürlich aus Verzweiflung or panic. Apparently there was felt, the skins float it, you must do something and they could yet return to proven recipes - without realizing that perhaps has now changed the spirit of the times a bit, the media environment and the public environment. Then it comes to such emergency action, which you usually do not do well. Then the media play a major role. In the Koch case I betray no secret that there was a strong correlation between the largest German newspaper and Hessian Minister President, have complemented each other and rocked up. enter into such marriages over a long period with a medium, I think already problematic.
Leif Mr. Machnig, advice is your life theme. Remember also to such emergency situations? What was your biggest flop?
Machnig: We are now hard at one point. We discuss many different consulting services. Mr. Sprenger has spoken on the issue, I advise anyone communicative, strategic choice in a combat situation. There was talk about what needs to be located in the content advisory. And there are indications were given that we have a very broad institutional structure - councils, commissions of inquiry, discussion groups - have. We must pay attention a little bit in that the different levels ...
Leif: I think the audience gets with this already.
Machnig: Yes, but for each level is something completely different things. The experiences that you do in one area are not transferable. Leif
your say on the advice of party political views. What are the gaps?
Machnig: First of all believe and are tackling with the premise of party politics and policy advice that in any case nothing is predictable in politics. This is the first of all premises. Second, we noted then, that run out at some point anyway to draw on certain resources must me a bit of situational practice and move in a few guardrails. Third, one is often only general advice and beratungsaffin open if there is an acute problem. An example: There is a problem after a state election that has been won or lost. What happened? A polling firm will be called. Come visit us, telling us once the data and forwards times from the way we get out there. So, rather situational, but not in the core belief in strategic direction. Fourth, there is a contradiction in the policy. A party may actually act strategically only as a party. But it is often not in a position as a party to organize a total of strategic guidance, while the politicians very often has individual strategies in order to assert themselves to get into a board somewhere be chosen to enter. They are often conflicting interests that can not often associated with one another. I think this is a major problem. That's why I've always been just an experience: First, do not talk about strategy you. Second, there are very few, to formulate them. Thirdly, it is to be not only wise, one must also have the resources to enforce them. It usually takes personal sovereignty, sovereignty and financial authority to interpret the themes. Otherwise you are not in a position to what one has come up with clever, needed to do so. Too many
Quassler
A final point: It must be limited to a few people. I want to say a quick example: Al Gore, who was U.S. President almost time has made during his election campaign period as follows: He has met every morning with pollsters. Of them were always four pollsters on board. Four pollsters are similar to four lawyers. They have about eight opinions. In the end, the candidate, because all had a different assessment of the situation, not longer able, or in any way an adequate response to, authentic. The Americans have a wonderful term for this: The candidate is over handled. Too much blathering on him. This is indeed one of the biggest problems. Politicians sometimes tend to talk to many. From a former top politician following legend: It was always done that, what was last spoken - this is true quite often.
Leif: That sounds like a Sisyphean task.
Machnig: Of course, the never-ending task. Policy issues are questions of power. Power issues associated with the leadership question. Therefore must be always associated strategy consulting with the leaders. Since then arises the question: How close is the relationship of trust? Is there a common understanding of the source material? How far one is willing to open itself even in such a collaboration, or you have to do it informally? The wisest advice is this: If you talk to someone, and who end up feeling that das, was man ihm gerade empfohlen hat, seine eigenen Ideen seien. Ich habe solche Leute kennengelernt. Da hat man jemandem freitags ein Papier ins Wochenende mitgegeben. Der ist montags wiedergekommen und hat einen freudestrahlend angeguckt und einem glatt erzählt, dass er am Wochenende nachgedacht hat – und hat mir dann als seine Idee erzählt, was ich ihm am Freitag mitgegeben habe. Das ist die genialste Form der Beratung. Bei einer solchen Autosuggestion sitzt das Ergebnis umso tiefer. Häufig funktioniert das allerdings nicht, weil natürlich in der Tat auch zwischen den Beratern – es sei denn, es ist eine Kerntruppe, wo auch die Rollen verteilt sind – um Aufmerksamkeit, Einfluss, Nähe und ähnliches gebuhlt wird, was then more likely to lead it comes to strategic blockades, but not to a real consulting service. This is very often the problem. Therefore, the principle: As few as continuously as possible, as informally as possible in confidence. It then develops into something. On the subject of Hartz or other groups can learn one thing: A consulting service is always bad when the client has not made clear what he wants. What was the cause of the Hartz reforms? The trigger was that has been found in February 2002 that the figures from the Federal Institute for Occupational were much lower than officially assumed. It would have to make two things can. I'm talking about an institutional reform of the BA or I give the order to reflect on new labor market policy instruments. Or I do both - that's happened, with a difficult result, because in a short time both issues are very complicated, should be clarified. Because it should convince communicative, are also created word monsters that were not exactly welcoming. The I-AG is not necessarily an inviting concept. Incidentally, we have quite a lot, now three million one-person or self-employed persons who have absolutely no employees. I think often a poor consulting services comes from the fact that is not clearly defined what you really want. I it will say so: Forgive an opinion only if you know roughly what is the result.
Leif: We continue the discussion with Mr. Huss. What is with you adhere to the long-term memory deficits, problems remain - across the jungle of your individual work spaces?
Huss: I think it is worthwhile to look at the past government, because the red-green government had the following special case: have very populist politician who acts very egomaniacal and there tends to have a degree of volatility.
Leif: What happened to you since coming?
Huss: The fact that the whole policy advice that has grown very strongly, an overestimation of the media and the public vornimmt. Rot-Grün war ja immer sehr nah an der Öffentlichkeit gebaut. Man konnte alle Beratungen, die es im Kabinett gab, immer im Spiegel nachlesen und es gut dokumentieren. Aber das hat sich deswegen auch erschöpft. Diese Regierung war ja eigentlich gar nicht unerfolgreich, aber alle hatten das Gefühl, jetzt brauchen wir mal andere, weil wir diese Köpfe nicht dauernd im Fernsehen sehen wollen. Es ist dieser Unterschied: Einerseits Rot-Grün, die erfolgreiche Politik gemacht haben, wo aber alle dieser Vorturner überdrüssig waren. Andererseits die Nachfolgeregierung, die jetzt aus meiner Wählersicht überhaupt keine Inhalte mehr vorantreibt, aber wo alle das Gefühl haben: Gott sei Dank ist es ein bisschen ruhiger und we need to look not permanently coated with political escalation. That's an interesting question, because you can learn something from it already - namely that there are many different strategies to deal with public. Actually, one has to certify Merkel know that she keeps the ball low. But ultimately it is the very strategic because it thereby makes few errors and thereby overcome the first place can hold together the difficult constellation. So, strategy consulting is my opinion, to keep the ball a bit flatter. I would also say: you have to be flexible beyond the strategy of tactics.
Leif: That is, They advocate the bar of expectation of her to hang so low that everyone gets over it?
Huss: No, I would say you need a strategy, but you have to have for themselves, and politically have for themselves. The trumpet shall not be outside. One must then consider: What I'm tactically out, so I can implement my long-term goal.
Leif Mr. Janning, you are in preliminary talks said something very positive: the government is out of your experience, even from the perspective of the Bertelsmann Foundation, has become much more open to consultants. How can you justify that?
should not know what do you
Janning: This is because politics have lost many points in previous certainties. Left and Right is not really a railing more. What is in party programs is not really a railing more that I can calculate the medium term policy. is That is, the policy is in a situation in which is far less than they used to pre-defined what you actually want. And when you sit there and must be doing something, one does not know exactly what you should do, then the basis for this is relatively good, but to engage with other views and to think, what could make it then. I think politics has never been open. Positivism, including the executive apparatus, which itself was never so clear as is the case at the moment. We now know that probably many of the problems with which one progresses currently do not have solutions - it moves on to just kind of not.
Leif: Well openness of despair.
Janning: Well, some even from a simple perplexity.
Leif: And in this market gap, you encounter a basically private enterprise?
Janning: No, we're not in the sense company because we are not profit-oriented activity. But I think all those engaged in policy advice, from science to consulting deal, in principle this situation.
Leif: What is your opinion, the greatest Erfolg, den die Bertelsmann Stiftung in jüngster Zeit in der Politikberatung hatte?
Janning: Da gibt es natürlich eine ganze Reihe von Dingen, die sehr, sehr erfolgreich waren. Mein eigenes Tätigkeitsfeld ist Internationales. Wir waren zum Beispiel im Bereich EU-Reform und EU-Erweiterung sehr erfolgreich. Das ist ein Thema, was wir wie kaum ein anderer geprägt, gemacht, vorgedacht haben – auch mit ziemlich gutem Einfluss.
Leif: Bei manchen internationalen Konferenzen waren Sie quasi auch das Backoffice von Joschka Fischer.
Janning: Unter anderem, ja, aber wir haben natürlich nicht Politik ersetzt. Im internationalen Raum ist es etwas anders als in der Innenpolitik, weil dort der Faktor Parteipolitik, auch factor of daily politics and daily media coverage, not quite get by as in domestic policy. Domestic politics is standard advice very, very much more complicated than foreign policy.
Leif: What is the strategic goal of the Bertelsmann Foundation, which is why she acts with incredible sums of money in politics? Why do they do it?
Janning: We want to find general solutions. We want to help to find answers to social questions. Our contribution is basically to make that kind of thing from a logical perspective. For this we use our resources. We try to make this as transparent as humanly possible. That is, we publish everything. One can read it all. One can look for commands on the web. You can talk to us. That is, we understand ourselves more as a kind of knowledge broker rather than as any ivory tower, is made behind the thick walls something esoteric.
Leif: What is the political motive?
Janning: The political motive is simply to continue with this company to do better.
Leif: In which direction?
Janning: I'll give you our mission statement, which will structure our projects in the coming years: participation in a globalized world. This means that we do in the coming years with our projects participation opportunities, participation opportunities, participation opportunities for people in this society and improve in other societies. We believe that all they need different or more skills. We want to think about what you have to make in order to develop these skills. We believe that questioning the cohesion of societies is. So we want to think about: What do you have to strengthen the cohesion of societies. Finally, we can see, that sustainable change through globalization, the systems of interests. That is, we want to think about how one actually has to balance interests in the future in a globalized and transnational spaces.
Leif: What about the myth of neo-liberal octopus that all political access? How did you manage that you have built up this image? Is this a form of attention management?
Janning: I must say, that's me, a certain mystery. I believe that we accomplished mainly by the fact that we have in the past us in the moment, the Bertelsmann Foundation was even discussed, not involved in the rule in these debates. That was perhaps a mistake. I believe that our communication was at the end too defensive. Because we have always made things a lot more than would fit on it on the neo-liberal label at all. Because so many things are involved with neo-liberal do absolutely nothing.
Leif: Would you say these rankings - "The best state" and so on - are used spiritually too short?
Janning: We discuss such a thing itself, of course, for example, we made a site ranking, what was essentially an econometric exercise. This is relatively close and personal with what you may call neoliberal. And since then just get out and corresponding results that would be due to a qualitative analysis is not as likely to come out. But if you aggregate some quantitative data and allow the run to get certain things out there. Then you see how states go in as a ranking up and down. Since that is not really tangible for the people, as there are at Ende auch keinen Text gibt, der dahinter steht, den man mal nachlesen könnte, ist man relativ schnell dabei, eine Sache zu produzieren, die man so nicht machen sollte. Wir machen heutzutage diese ökonometrischen Rankings nicht mehr, sondern wir machen im Kern qualitative Rankings, die wir allenfalls quantitativ verdichten, einfach um eine Art Eyecatcher zu schaffen, um die Leute dazu zu bewegen, hinzugucken.
Leif: Aber wie erklären Sie sich diesen öffentlichen Furor gegen die Stiftung? Ist das von Ihnen insistiert? Nach Bertelsmann kommt ja heutzutage fast nur noch Liechtenstein. Lesen Sie sich die Homepages durch, hören Sie, was auf Kongressen berichtet wird – da herrscht ein unglaubliches Potenzial an Aggression. Woher Why is that?
Janning: A big tree attracts a lot of dogs who want to turn pee ask. Bertelsmann is one of the big companies. And the Bertelsmann Foundation has the same name as one of the big media companies - but is completely independent of the company. The shares do not anyone with the same. It is natural to think too convenient that this is sort of a front organization. This fits in nicely in the Stamokap philosophy. That is why I am not surprised that many of course do not want to look as accurate as what one actually does, but it goes even know what label is on it. Then you already know what the. I think this is understandable, aber falsch.
Leif: Höre ich heraus, dass Sie schon eingesehen haben, dass Ihre Kommunikation in der Frage als Akteur nicht so optimal war, dass sie sich künftig intellektuell auseinandersetzen wollen?
Beispielshaft transparent
Janning: Wir müssen künftig offensiver kommunizieren. Wir dürfen uns vor allen Dingen nicht gefallen lassen, dass Leute mit wirklich völlig halbgaren Geschichten versuchen, unsere Arbeit in Misskredit zu bringen. Wir sind mit dem, was wir machen, aus meiner Sicht beispielhaft transparent. Wir werden auch noch transparenter werden. Wir werden also zusehen, dass man wirklich alles nachlesen kann. Nur die Mühe macht sich kaum einer. Deswegen werden wir das, was wir wirklich machen, auch need to compress even more communicative, and then also keep mind if people try to discredit our position in the political debate in that they give us, were consolidated agency or similar.
Machnig: I can perhaps afford an amount to, because I made one or two of experience and the Bertelsmann Foundation. I will just say something positive times. Then I shall go to be critical. I think there is hardly a foundation, such as Bertelsmann is in a position to bring together people of different partisan stripes and offer them a platform to discuss something together, which otherwise would not be debatable. I think this is a strength. I called once strategic space. One of the big problems we have in politics: Everything is usually held in public. Everything is now rumored. I think at Bertelsmann, there are platforms where there is sometimes a real open debate, without having to have the presumption must be that is tomorrow in the newspaper. You really discussed properly oriented and time in front of the other side of the partisan foam mouth. Now the Critical: In my experience, Bertelsmann is this: By the time a project is finally exposed in the foundation, one is almost in the pension. It takes an incredibly long time. Policy that would afford such a decision process would not be able to work. That is one thing. Second, I always noticed: Sometimes working politically, because always thought only to a specific recovery context. And sometimes working as a consulting company that make such beautiful charts, but can not provide adequate solutions. A good policy approach could be as follows: on the one hand, factual, technically argue while still thinking about the recovery context. Then, a foundation in my view very successfully, because they can open blockages, which is also in substantive issues. Peter Glotz has used the image of tankers used for the SPD. I must say you are a super tanker. The turning circle is so large that I say, you have to do faster be, because otherwise their issues on the market comes as the political debate has long passed.
Leif: How do you explain the fact that Bertelsmann is inflated to the Riesenpopanz?
Huss: Because so rare critics are invited.
Mach Ning: Absolutely. And because it's just Bertelsmann, there are only times the Vorvermutung: This must be guided by interest, because it depends on the group. My experience of her inner life is actually very feminine, even when I look at decision-makers there. It is open, it is curious, but sometimes - that's my major criticism - too slow, too late and sometimes not to the occasion and address the issue properly aligned. If that were to be improved is, in my view is a huge opportunity.
Huss: The statement that the Foundation now less quantity and more quality work, makes me worry that it is part of the normal apparatus in Germany. German scientific advice so distinguished by the fact that you have read any 500-page study and then not know what is actually meant. That sounds a little bit by saying if you: We are now no longer ranking, but we now evaluate qualitatively. Then read out each do what he wants. What is missing in Germany, even in the consulting relationship and even in public places, is the courage to times to draw the right track, and cut into the pliers to provoke, rauszulocken contradictions. Since the Bertelsmann Foundation has been the only one who could with expertise. When the now enqueues in the fine art, perhaps out of business for strategic reasons, because you want to make it less vulnerable, then I fear that it will be the typical model of Germany: We will not all hurt, we all drink a wine with each other . And we all speak peace with each other.
Leif: Could you go one level deeper analysis? Waran is because it is only in the arms and does not allow this pointed emphasis? How can we organize more friendly fire in the consultation?
Huss: Eigentlich ganz banal: Mehr Mut – bei den Auftraggebern, also in der Politik, aber auch bei den Beratern selbst. Ich muss nicht immer nur mit Konsensmüll in die Beratung ziehen, sondern ich kann ja auch mal sagen: Lass uns was ausprobieren.
Leif: Haben Sie mit dieser Haltung prosperierende Geschäfte generiert?
Huss: Ich hatte zumindest immer meinen Spaß dabei.
Leif: Herr Grunden, wie lautet ihre Analyse der Bertelsmann Stiftung?
Grunden: Die Attraktivität der Stiftung liegt ja darin, dass es in der Tat eine Institution gibt, wo man mal strategisch denken kann, auch mal Fantasie spielen lassen kann – etwas, was die Parteiapparate, ich weiß nicht, ob sie es jemals geleistet haben, but in any case not afford in the way in which the such a foundation can, which has just taken too big scientific input. But I have a problem with the argument that there would be this objective social problems of an objective solution to be found. Every social problem is always embedded in social conflicts, standards, values. And the solution to a problem is embedded in these conflicts.
Janning: I have not spoken of objective problems and objective solutions. I have not said.
reasons: Well, it was already about to define the major social problems and then to work to resolve them. It is also okay wenn Sie das machen. Aber politische Strategie würde jetzt bedeuten, aus Sicht einer Partei oder eines Spitzenakteurs, zu überlegen: Was bedeutet diese Lösung für mein Wählerklientel, für meine politisch-strategischen Möglichkeiten? Welche Lösung kann ich mir eigentlich leisten und welche eben nicht? Die SPD kann die Hartz-Reform eben nicht so machen, jedenfalls nicht so begründen, wie das gemacht worden ist. Man kann sich nicht hinstellen und sagen: Soziale Sicherheit ist passé, entweder wir modernisieren oder wir werden modernisiert. Das funktioniert für eine sozialdemokratische Partei nicht. Sie muss das mit Normen und Werten begründen, die zu ihr passen.
Leif: Professor Weingart, würden Sie Say that Bertelsmann does compared to the institutional advisory services make a positive contribution? Or is it to judge from your point of view with skepticism?
Weingart: Bertelsmann is a think tank. They have a certain philosophy. And this philosophy is transported. The problem here in Germany, we have almost no other think tanks.
Leif: Why is that?
Weingart, France has quite a few, while the U.S. and England have a lot more. I think this has to do with that was with us the technical expertise and understanding to a much greater extent in the ministries, ie the executive authorities, at home. In other words, for us the system is conservative. There is much less socially committed groups. It is perhaps also true that Bertelsmann's why so much criticism in its wake, because we are still too few of the same species. In America, if you take the whole range of think tanks that have existed since the 20's and even earlier there is because no one more upset about the fact that Cato and Enterprise and the rest of them, in business. More
think tanks in Germany?
Leif: Would you say that this model of Think Tanks on the institutional advisory groups in Germany could be transferred?
Weingart: No, for most of the established institutions do not. But I want to raise a question in order to trace . Lay We can even for a moment to talk about the National Academy, that policy advice by the National Academy. Because the scientists do that is great hope that they're doing now as it were real and proper scientific advice. And they are competing with a wide range of consulting landscape, which will develop the rest in the coming years even more. Since that is precisely the question is: What can scientists do want to do in the academy of scientific advice? The other question is: What do politicians expect?
Leif Mr. Spreng, if you compare the profile with the Bertelsmann-Adenauer-Foundation, which also very good policy from your Practice know. Where's the difference? Are the political foundations of the Smasher in Germany?
Spreng: I think the Bertelsmann Stiftung is also why such a high rank because it provides a platform where you can discuss with some very interesting people from the public. But the great importance of the Bertelsmann Foundation is of course linked to the fact that actually connect to relevant policy foundations did not appear and you often do not know what the crazy with the millions of amounts available to them. I have over the past years, only two things remembered. One is without doubt interesting Prekariatsstudie the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which also has some political moves ...
Leif: That was an accident that came out.
Spreng: Then it was a happy accident. And the second is the internal power struggle paper by Mr. Gerhard, the new head of the Naumann Foundation. Of the Adenauer Foundation, I hear nothing. The object of the foundations to advance the debate in Germany, with a truly science-based statements on time problems, to important questions, of which I hear anything. It's very much self-employment. This is due to the fact that these foundations are often used as a military cemetery, and therefore the impetus is not very large, anything to move - but we managed to speak itself and is thus satisfied.
Leif: What is the reason for that - and you hope that will change that?
Spreng: I do not think it changes. Because I do not see that in the party leadership - if a change of mentality in motion - this is indeed also related to the party leadership, which in turn used as foundations. They are quite interested in keeping the foundations in this twilight.
Leif Mr. Janning, your assessment of the Foundation and the analysis in the public interest, but contradictory. There is indeed practically placed under manipulation, illegal influence. As this break is to be explained?
Janning: A problem of communication, we have just had here in the round. We have spoken of the Bertelsmann Foundation, Bertelsmann always said. Even Mr. Weingart as scientists always said Bertelsmann. If you Mohn Foundation would mean it would be easier, but unfortunately, the biting with the vanity of the founder. The do not want that. I believe that this in fact has a foundation of a company by the name of this rank and that reputation an extra problem to communicate their socio-political concerns credible. I am also willing to concede to Mr. Machnig. I know the cases to which he alludes to, that we in many Corners are too slow. This has to do with the fact that we have grown into the part in a role, in which many of us even have to navigate. Rightly, you have addressed the strategic areas. We have very carefully considered policy processes or to each other and discovered that the real gap is in fact a reform process that we are the strategic areas, which we used to have, otherwise lost and that one of us can recreate institutions such as strategic spaces. We have in fact already missed a lot of opportunities to do just that.
Machnig: What is your strategic response to the management of public criticism?
Janning, we must understand first that we have themselves become part of a political debate. And that was not the case. Today we are, even if we do not seek political office and do some extent a political actor that is perceived as such. That is, we need to better explain what we do, what we do not, and why we do what we do. And we have to persuade people that they deal intensively with our results.
Posted by md at 3:06
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)