Enlarge image
SPIEGEL editor Martin Knobbe in the Berlin capital office
Photo: DER SPIEGEL
A letter to the editor got me thinking, longer than I would have thought.
It reached me after I had written a critical editorial about Olaf Scholz in late summer.
The tenor of my text at the time: Scholz is a clever strategist, that doesn't make him a good chancellor by a long way.
In my opinion, the future challenges required more than the “keep it up” attitude that Scholz exuded at the time.
The reader didn't criticize the content of the comment so much.
He simply asked: Who should we then choose?
He said that we, SPIEGEL, had "written down" all the candidates: we satirized Armin Laschet in the "Asterix" style on the title as "Chief Willsonix", and sharply criticized Annalena Baerbock for her many mistakes - a week after Scholz commentary appeared a critical cover story about the Greens.
Are we destructive?
Do we contribute to political disaffection if we constantly criticize everyone at the forefront of politics?
Are we talking about a populist worldview in which "those up there" are incapable anyway?
These are questions that have been with SPIEGEL for decades.
But never before have they approached me so directly.
Now, a critical eye is part of the DNA of a serious political journalist, and that applies even more to SPIEGEL. I am convinced that our readers expect from us that we look for the fly in the ointment with every politician, regardless of who they are. Nevertheless, it would be wrong if, after reading political SPIEGEL articles, all that remained was frustration, resignation or even anger. So what are the lessons of the reader’s criticism? As of today I see two.
First, we have to disarm linguistically. I don't know how often DER SPIEGEL - and others - wrote about state or political failure in this pandemic, but it was probably too often. Sometimes when obvious and urgently needed political steps are consciously omitted or not taken, these words are appropriate. At the same time, one should always keep in mind what it means when a state really fails. There are enough historical and current examples of this.
Second, we should show more often what is going well and what can be a model for problem solving.
We did this sometimes during the pandemic, when countries like Israel took committed and creative actions to reduce the number of infections.
We should try much more often to show how it can be done, to describe why things are going well.
Without neglecting the sharp criticism - if it is justified.