Icon: enlarge
Hard yes, rarely fair: the talk show with Frank Plasberg
Photo:
Stephan Pick / WDR
On the one hand it is understandable and correct when people get upset about discriminatory statements in talk shows, on the other hand, the production of this excitement is in the nature of things.
And so you can take note of the fact that the WDR and some of the people involved have apologized for the racist statements and the cast in an episode of the program "The Last Instance", but the problem is deeper and is not new.
The fact that talk shows are often rather bad examples of discussion culture is due to the way these programs are usually structured.
Margarete Stokowski, arrow to the right
Photo:
Rosanna Graf
Born in 1986, was born in Poland and grew up in Berlin.
She studied philosophy and social sciences and has been working as a freelance writer since 2009.
Her feminist bestseller "Bottom Rum Free" was published in 2016 by Rowohlt Verlag.
In 2018, »The Last Days of Patriarchy« followed, a collection of columns from SPIEGEL and »taz«.
An essential feature of political discussions is that those involved should, at least in principle, have the will to listen and the willingness to reconsider arguments and also the opportunity to finish speaking without being interrupted.
Talk shows suggest that it is about exchange, but usually those involved go home with exactly the same opinions as they came.
Because it's not about listening and learning, but about a staged show conflict in which quick-wittedness and appearance count more than good reasons.
As a guest, you spend more time in the mask than arguing and the problem with that is not that make-up takes time.
It is a problem that political talk shows have to entertain, but at the same time deal with topics that do not necessarily help to make entertainment a priority.
That can sometimes go well, but it can also go completely wrong, so that talk formats are often just the caricature of a real discussion.
Whereby it would be entertaining and at the same time useful if one of the people questioned on a political talk show simply stood up after a question, pulled the micro-cables out of his clothes and said: "I'm sorry, I have to change first walk down the block and think about it, I'll be right back. "
It is particularly absurd when talk shows on certain topics - often: sexism, racism - complain about the escalation and polarization of the debate, which is then mostly blamed on social media, but is in fact created by precisely these TV programs.
However, while the limited space in social media such as Twitter sometimes inevitably means short formulations and a lack of complexity, TV editorial offices and production companies have the option of designing programs in such a way that there is more space for arguments.
However, this does not work if formats are aimed at rhetorical exhibition fights and it also does not work if you simply randomly invite some C-celebrities to discrimination topics instead of people who may not (yet) be famous but have a clue.
No better than drunk "truth or dare" rounds
A program like "hart aber fair" only deserves the word "fair" in its name in the sense that it has not yet been beaten.
However, since both the moderator and the broadcasters have often turned out to be politically tendentious, one simply cannot expect that any form of collective knowledge formation can take place there, similar to the one in "The Last Instance", which is triggered by yes-or- No questions on certain topics that simplify the concept and therefore cannot go beyond the level of spin the bottle or drunken "truth or dare" rounds.
(Fun fact: both shows are made by the same production company.)
There is a problem, as long as it is not part of talk show culture, to answer questions with “I should think about it first”.
This is partly the responsibility of those who are invited to show, but partly also the responsibility of those who invite.
This problem is not limited to talk shows on television, but in principle to all media formats that aim at discursive slaughter rather than executed thoughts.
Not every topic is suitable for a pro and contra format, keyword "Or should you leave it?".
There is a lot that should be left out in this regard.
Sometimes the best contribution you can make is not to go into a discussion.
In the course of the #MeToo debate, I had more than one question of the following kind: A radio station calls me in the morning to ask if I would like to take part in a discussion during the day on allegations against some more or less prominent man who Is said to have molested women and who now feels some kind of consequence because of it, for example losing one of many jobs.
You have already found another person who criticizes it and you now need someone who thinks it is good - although some of them were about cases that I had never heard of or whose background I did not know.
I do not accept such requests because I think the whole format is wrong.
At the latest in the corona pandemic, the media should have noticed that the concept "here is an expert and here is his opponent" is dangerous.
It is indeed the task of the media to interview different people on the same topic, but the problem is that the antagonist phenomenon in the editorial offices often creates these opponents in the first place because it brings them into positions that are relevant to the debate itself through selection of topics and intensification bring nothing at all.
If supposed experts have often expressed themselves incompetently on very fundamental issues, then you don't need to cancel them directly from the ring, but it would be helpful not to stylize them as anti-Drosten or anti-Lauterbach on principle, because there is exactly no one for whom this is good, except perhaps the robot that counts the clicks.
Some of this could also be applied to columns: Even columnists are often - and often rightly - accused of only working for the purpose of polarization and provocation.
But there is still a decisive advantage over talk shows: a column with a length of a little over 1000 words (this is this text here, for example) people read on average in about seven minutes.
During this time, the person writing can explain reasons, look for examples, and collect thoughts that they had more than five seconds to develop.
You don't get that much coherent speaking time on any political talk show.
Of course, not everyone has a column, but the problem is not that journalism includes portraying the opinions of different people, rather that talk shows place little value on developing arguments that last longer than a minute.
Better training of editors and moderators
It is not the case that talk shows are irretrievable formats (although - with "hard but fair" and "the last instance" they are, unless they switch to less political topics such as desserts and interior design).
It would be of great help if the editorial offices that plan these programs invited people who had something to say on the topic: a more diverse selection of guests, better training of the editorial staff and presenters on discrimination issues would change a lot.
But when talk and pro / con formats in the media so often lag behind a level of knowledge that can no longer be regarded as secret knowledge and place more value on jagged performance than on content, it of course leads to the fact that some people simply don't feel like it anymore, to go into such formats because they simply suspect that it will not do anything.
When they appear in the media, they may be regarded as people who »only have one topic«, but honestly that is not necessarily the most unglamorous choice given the current debates in Germany.
Icon: The mirror
