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)