WEBVTT 00:17.640 --> 00:20.980 Thank you very much, Ms. Post, and thank you very much, Mrs. Motis and 00:20.980 --> 00:23.260 Mr. Bojanowski, for the teasers. 00:23.920 --> 00:26.540 I hope that at the end I'll be the good guy here. 00:27.800 --> 00:32.420 And not last, because I think that's the one who survives in the 00:32.420 --> 00:32.680 movie. 00:37.040 --> 00:42.160 Many of you are familiar with the famous sentence of the late 1995 00:42.160 --> 00:49.520 topic moderator Hans-Joachim Friedrichs, who remarkably managed to go 00:49.520 --> 00:55.640 through as a moral maxim for journalistic practice, as a kind of 00:55.640 --> 00:59.320 categorical imperative that can be used in all forms of reporting, 00:59.320 --> 01:06.000 even beyond the limited and comparatively bureaucratic tasks of a 01:06.000 --> 01:06.780 newscaster. 01:07.380 --> 01:11.000 He says, a good journalist can be recognized by the fact that he 01:11.000 --> 01:14.480 doesn't get along with a thing, not even with a good one. 01:15.700 --> 01:19.720 In times when populist parties thus win votes against an allegedly 01:19.720 --> 01:25.680 left or green, or at least a kind of vocal preference of an allegedly 01:25.680 --> 01:30.140 publicist mainstream, that sounds pretty good at first. 01:31.060 --> 01:35.300 After super-partisanship, after the absence of an agenda, after a 01:35.300 --> 01:37.900 strict orientation to the pure facts. 01:38.760 --> 01:41.420 But apart from the fact that Friedrichs never meant this sentence so 01:41.420 --> 01:45.400 broadly, it is based on a very problematic premise. 01:46.260 --> 01:49.940 What we heard several times this morning in relation to science is of 01:49.940 --> 01:51.000 course also true for journalism. 01:51.840 --> 01:54.760 Journalists are constantly faced with a mountain of subjective 01:54.760 --> 01:55.340 decisions. 01:55.960 --> 01:57.520 What topics do I report? 01:57.660 --> 01:58.660 How detailed? 01:58.920 --> 01:59.960 Who do I talk to? 02:00.260 --> 02:02.400 Which studies or reports do I read? 02:02.680 --> 02:03.920 Which details do I omit? 02:04.160 --> 02:04.860 Which do I emphasize? 02:06.080 --> 02:13.360 With newscasters, you could still consider it a virtue not to 02:13.360 --> 02:15.580 contextualize or even comment on the information you read. 02:15.580 --> 02:20.340 But if journalists act as if they do not select and classify, but 02:20.340 --> 02:25.720 only, you know the famous slogan of the mirror, say what is, if the 02:25.720 --> 02:30.280 people who act according to such maxims have no awareness of what they 02:30.280 --> 02:34.680 are omitting, then objectivity is best an illusion. 02:35.320 --> 02:37.760 And in the worst case, I think, ideology. 02:38.880 --> 02:40.880 We humans are not objective. 02:40.880 --> 02:47.220 We have been socialized in certain cultures and environments. 02:48.460 --> 02:49.880 But above all, it is not the world. 02:50.200 --> 02:51.320 The world is not balanced. 02:51.980 --> 02:56.240 So whoever tries to depict it as it is, always reinforces the existing 02:56.240 --> 02:58.920 flaws and flaws and injustices. 02:59.680 --> 03:05.020 In the context of reporting on climate change, or if that sounds too 03:05.020 --> 03:07.900 comfortable to you, in the context of the climate crisis or the 03:07.900 --> 03:12.600 climate catastrophe, this somewhat fossil principle of staying neutral 03:12.600 --> 03:18.620 at all costs is a measure that, by the way, historically did not arise 03:18.620 --> 03:23.520 as a moral obligation of special journalists, but rather as a new 03:23.520 --> 03:26.620 business model with which the newspapers wanted to reach a larger 03:26.620 --> 03:27.320 audience around the turn of the century. 03:28.840 --> 03:35.440 So beyond, so to speak, loyal but particular, loyal but particular 03:35.440 --> 03:37.160 clientele that you mentioned before. 03:37.160 --> 03:39.680 So this idea is increasingly being questioned in the face of the 03:39.680 --> 03:40.840 climate crisis. 03:43.580 --> 03:47.540 Because achieving the climate goals that the federal government or the 03:47.540 --> 03:53.780 EU have set also requires a social transformation, consequently one 03:53.780 --> 03:56.560 also discusses whether there should or should be a transformation of 03:56.560 --> 03:57.800 journalistic standards. 03:59.340 --> 04:05.160 So not just a transformation journalism, as Ms. Lesmuller suggested, 04:05.420 --> 04:07.880 but also a transformation of journalism, so to speak. 04:08.860 --> 04:10.960 And more and more journalists are explicitly rejecting the offer of 04:10.960 --> 04:17.880 neutrality, as they did somewhat publicly, already three years ago, 04:17.980 --> 04:23.100 Mr. Bojanowski had shown the title, in October 2020, as the magazine 04:23.100 --> 04:27.320 Stern did, in the editorial for a controversial issue, which he 04:27.320 --> 04:28.820 designed together with Fridays for Future. 04:28.820 --> 04:34.420 The new motto was, as far as the climate crisis is concerned, the star 04:34.420 --> 04:35.280 is no longer neutral. 04:36.620 --> 04:39.540 For many stubborn readers, this was a kind of fall of sin. 04:39.960 --> 04:43.960 The limit to activism was exceeded, which above all shows how deeply 04:43.960 --> 04:48.560 the narrative of journalistic objectivity also shapes the expectations 04:48.560 --> 04:49.540 of the audience. 04:50.800 --> 04:55.640 That it is so stubbornly held is already a bit disappointing, because 04:55.640 --> 04:58.840 it has been problematized in other cases in recent years. 04:59.400 --> 05:03.860 For example, as Ms. Mothes mentioned, in connection with the report on 05:03.860 --> 05:04.600 Donald Trump. 05:05.080 --> 05:08.020 This example can explain the problem quite well. 05:08.820 --> 05:13.460 A classical understanding of balance, as it has been cultivated in the 05:13.460 --> 05:18.380 USA for a long time, or prevailed, would require each political 05:18.380 --> 05:20.840 statement of opinion to oppose one of the other. 05:22.100 --> 05:24.680 Which was already a pretty simple ritual before Trump and his hyper 05:24.680 --> 05:26.180 -fictionalization of politics. 05:28.260 --> 05:29.860 There are always more than two sides. 05:30.840 --> 05:33.940 It is then also a decision that is connected, which in turn is 05:33.940 --> 05:34.380 subjective. 05:35.600 --> 05:42.460 But now such a both-sidism, such a false balance, means laying the red 05:42.460 --> 05:44.900 carpet for lies and misinformation. 05:46.160 --> 05:50.780 In the context of the climate report, some talk shows still considered 05:50.780 --> 05:55.000 it a good idea to invite climate change deniers to present them to a 05:55.000 --> 05:56.060 guest from science. 05:57.220 --> 06:02.940 Which is 97% in agreement, but someone has to disagree, because 06:02.940 --> 06:04.520 otherwise you are being mean with one position. 06:05.780 --> 06:09.800 Which then results in the impression that maybe this is not so certain 06:09.800 --> 06:11.100 about climate change. 06:11.900 --> 06:13.460 Only one in two people believes it. 06:14.720 --> 06:19.420 Today, except for Markus Lanz, who actually managed to invite an AfD 06:19.420 --> 06:24.500 politician this year, hardly any serious editorial staff on the 06:24.500 --> 06:24.500 subject. 06:24.800 --> 06:27.180 But that does not mean that there is no more contradiction. 06:28.700 --> 06:32.400 Climate researchers at the University of Cambridge have, this is now 06:32.400 --> 06:36.640 also three years ago, developed a diagram on which it is very well 06:36.640 --> 06:37.820 summarized. 06:38.680 --> 06:44.380 Let's see if I can get any further here. 06:44.380 --> 06:47.140 Yes, on which it is very well summarized, 06:51.620 --> 06:55.560 how the discourse of the skeptics has shifted from the doubts about 06:55.560 --> 06:59.660 climate research itself to a justification of inactivity from climate 06:59.660 --> 07:03.040 change deniers to climate protection skeptics, so to speak. 07:03.760 --> 07:05.020 This is the illustrated version. 07:05.220 --> 07:08.760 I'll do the next one, so you can read along a little what positions 07:08.760 --> 07:09.340 there are. 07:11.200 --> 07:16.100 From the popular word about autism, that our CO2 footprint is 07:16.100 --> 07:20.140 comparatively low compared to other countries and other countries do 07:20.140 --> 07:24.800 much less anyway, to magical thinking, there is everything possible. 07:25.680 --> 07:32.880 I would not use all the examples presented here as arguments or as 07:32.880 --> 07:35.360 excuses, as it is called in the German translation. 07:37.080 --> 07:41.800 I think social justice, for example, is not just a pretext and it is 07:41.800 --> 07:45.900 certainly also legitimate to talk about adaptation strategies, just as 07:45.900 --> 07:50.000 factual criticism of climate policy is not necessarily an excuse, but 07:50.000 --> 07:50.620 would be very welcome. 07:51.580 --> 07:56.220 On the other hand, I am missing some argumentation figures in the 07:56.220 --> 08:00.180 overview, for example the popular phrase about technology openness, 08:00.180 --> 08:04.660 which is strangely only brought into play when conventional solutions 08:04.660 --> 08:06.900 against climate neutrality should be brought into play. 08:08.200 --> 08:13.000 Or, of course, the wrong contrast between economy and ecology, between 08:13.000 --> 08:13.940 which one would have to decide. 08:14.860 --> 08:20.780 But above all, of course, the meta-story of the renunciation, which 08:20.780 --> 08:23.660 does not have a spark of visionary energy to present progress 08:23.660 --> 08:25.520 differently than a calculation of the present. 08:26.480 --> 08:31.860 As a countermeasure against this embedded thinking, I can recommend 08:32.180 --> 08:38.300 googling the term solarpunk to come across pictures of a movement that 08:38.300 --> 08:41.700 is painting a climate-neutral future as you can not imagine it in a 08:41.700 --> 08:42.580 more modern way. 08:44.500 --> 08:48.820 And more urban and science fiction-like, with wildly green skyscrapers 08:48.820 --> 08:53.120 and solar-powered flight taxis and many inviting spin-offs. 08:53.120 --> 08:59.060 In any case, this scheme shows quite nicely that a certain refusal to 08:59.060 --> 09:00.700 transform is by no means yesterday. 09:01.780 --> 09:04.620 After all, the topic of climate is now a bit more present than in the 09:04.620 --> 09:08.560 past decade, in which, as calculated by a study by the University of 09:08.560 --> 09:12.300 Hamburg, at most 4% of the broadcast time was broadcast on public 09:12.300 --> 09:13.440 television. 09:14.200 --> 09:16.680 In good years, in some years 1%. 09:16.680 --> 09:21.160 Only in 2019 did the value come down to 8.4%. 09:21.160 --> 09:26.340 But that is still a record value, especially in recent years due to 09:26.340 --> 09:28.860 the Corona pandemic and the Ukrainian war. 09:30.680 --> 09:33.740 If, nevertheless, some people feel that they can hardly save 09:33.740 --> 09:39.080 themselves from climate reporting, then this may actually be due to a 09:39.080 --> 09:41.900 measurable increase in the presence of the topic. 09:43.380 --> 09:47.760 At Anne Will, if you use this program as an indicator for the 09:47.760 --> 09:54.080 relevance of social debate topics, this year at least 8 out of 24 09:54.080 --> 09:56.060 programs were about the energy transition. 09:56.600 --> 09:58.920 The only question is, what is the topic? 09:59.620 --> 10:02.920 In just 5 of these 8 programs, it was about the heating law. 10:03.080 --> 10:05.860 And not because it is so technically complex that you would have to 10:05.860 --> 10:08.540 explain it again and again, but because you could negotiate it so 10:08.540 --> 10:13.520 wonderfully in the midst of the usual political talk, because it was 10:13.520 --> 10:14.780 so hot in the coalition. 10:14.780 --> 10:18.020 This has relatively little to do with climate journalism or science 10:18.020 --> 10:18.760 journalism. 10:21.020 --> 10:24.220 The price for this media presence of climate protection topics is 10:24.220 --> 10:28.420 obviously that every constructive report is piled up in the routines 10:28.420 --> 10:34.360 of news journalism, which lives on the news and on the noise, on the 10:34.360 --> 10:39.000 daily rumble of party politics, where perspective and context are 10:39.000 --> 10:39.440 actually much more important. 10:41.080 --> 10:45.120 And perhaps that is exactly the reason for some people's warnings of 10:45.120 --> 10:49.860 the climate disaster like a mantra, because the depth and diversity of 10:49.860 --> 10:50.940 the report is missing. 10:51.680 --> 10:56.120 Because not only can you no longer hear the alarmist slogans, but also 10:56.120 --> 10:59.920 the activism for the status quo, so to speak. 11:00.560 --> 11:05.820 Although it is really difficult for me to recognize the poor work of a 11:05.820 --> 11:07.060 climate lobby in the report. 11:07.620 --> 11:12.320 The mirror that is still so often held to the left, for example, has 11:12.320 --> 11:15.080 this year made two and a half titles on environmental issues. 11:15.700 --> 11:19.820 About the cultural struggle for the car, that's half of it, I would 11:19.820 --> 11:20.180 say. 11:20.680 --> 11:24.160 About the water scarcity and the one with my favorite cover. 11:25.480 --> 11:29.360 With the headline Operation heat pump, expensive and controversial, 11:29.900 --> 11:31.740 with green over-jealousy into chaos. 11:32.540 --> 11:35.940 If that's lobbyism, then as a lobbyist I would like to have my money 11:35.940 --> 11:36.260 back. 11:37.360 --> 11:40.360 I already understand that the claim of the end of the world can seem 11:40.360 --> 11:44.900 exaggerated to you and that serious media demands that the disaster 11:44.900 --> 11:46.580 scenarios are somehow free of value. 11:47.560 --> 11:49.740 As if you were looking at the world like a non-involved 11:49.740 --> 11:55.200 extraterrestrial and could watch mankind eat a bag of popcorn as they 11:55.200 --> 11:56.200 try to cope with the crisis. 11:57.420 --> 12:03.020 I am also far from following the slogan Follow the Science, of which 12:03.020 --> 12:05.080 we have heard a lot this morning. 12:05.800 --> 12:07.580 That would also be a paradoxical position in the context of an 12:07.580 --> 12:11.440 argument that pleads for mistrust against an idea such as objectivity. 12:14.120 --> 12:18.800 Science does not tell us whether we should try to reach the 1.5 degree 12:18.800 --> 12:21.540 goal with all means, or rather whether we should think about the 12:21.540 --> 12:25.760 possibilities of adaptation, whether we should focus on degrowth or 12:25.760 --> 12:30.520 green new deals, on prohibitions or on voluntariness, on behavioral, 12:30.640 --> 12:36.120 economic or psychological approaches, on individual or algorithmic 12:36.120 --> 12:36.400 reason. 12:37.800 --> 12:44.000 Similar to politics, scientific expertise should not be an act of 12:44.000 --> 12:44.900 action for journalism . 12:44.900 --> 12:50.980 But please make sure to have a license to agree with certain views if 12:50.980 --> 12:55.100 you think they are reasonable, whether there is a social consensus for 12:55.100 --> 12:55.740 it or not. 12:56.620 --> 13:00.460 Who else should make this knowledge accessible, translate it, join 13:00.460 --> 13:04.880 social discourse, convey the relevance of certain findings? 13:05.860 --> 13:10.460 To remain neutral in this was to say everyone is right. 13:11.080 --> 13:16.120 If you ask Mr. Bujanowski how you can decide, how should we position 13:16.120 --> 13:19.760 ourselves, I would like to know how we can not position ourselves, not 13:19.760 --> 13:25.600 in a moral sense, but how do you manage to write a text that does not 13:25.600 --> 13:27.020 decide for a position? 13:28.700 --> 13:32.620 I think you only act as if you do not decide. 13:33.680 --> 13:37.660 Negotiating scientific expertise is a social task. 13:38.440 --> 13:42.280 And I think it's absurd if journalists in the debate only have the 13:42.280 --> 13:43.840 task of carrying on the propaganda. 13:45.700 --> 13:48.400 Perhaps I am socialized very strangely as a culture and media critic, 13:50.580 --> 13:55.840 but when I think about what kind of texts I find interesting or 13:55.840 --> 13:59.300 exemplary, then there are always those who open up greater 13:59.300 --> 14:05.080 connections, who design new perspectives, who say what could be or 14:05.080 --> 14:07.220 also well reason why something should not be. 14:07.840 --> 14:12.620 Not in the sense of mathematical prognoses, but in the sense of a 14:12.620 --> 14:16.960 narrative process, in the sense of a truth that does not only owe 14:16.960 --> 14:18.700 itself to the verificability of facts. 14:18.700 --> 14:24.660 There is a second beautiful sentence by Hans-Joachim Friedrich, one 14:24.660 --> 14:26.740 that hardly anyone in our industry knows. 14:27.540 --> 14:32.700 The former ZDF editor-in-chief, Reinhard Abel, before his questions, 14:32.820 --> 14:36.920 for example in the famous elephant round, which he moderated for a 14:36.920 --> 14:41.840 long time, no politician had to fear, called him a prophet of balance, 14:42.720 --> 14:44.440 of the unbridled art of doing everyone justice. 14:45.380 --> 14:50.160 I think the quality of the debate would benefit if we tried to orient 14:50.160 --> 14:51.320 ourselves more on that. 14:52.420 --> 14:52.900 Thank you very much.