Maybe Julia Onken has thought
Job cuts and cost pressures in newsrooms are driving editors to rely on all sorts of free expert advice when extraordinary events occur—which often results in expert opinions that are about as meaningful as a street survey. Op-ed by Hans Stutz, freelance journalist.
We know it: editorial teams have been thinned out, jobs reduced to the max and budgets cut to below the poverty line for freelancers. The cuts have been made gradually over the years and each time the publisher and the editor-in-chief have promised that journalistic quality is not at risk, no, no, rather the opposite is true. Whoever believes this can call themselves a manager or consultant.
But the normal madness prevails in the editorial offices every day: politicians resign or put their foot in their mouths. Companies merge or collapse, managers increase their bonuses and don't want to talk about it. Wage earners go on strike. People kill people, often as soldiers, but sometimes out of jealousy or need for money. People cheat people in good faith or themselves. People fall from the sky in airplanes or from cliffs in sportswear. Sometimes the wind whistles until rooftops fly off. So the extraordinary happens every day, and the editor hardly knows where his head is. But he has internalized the cost pressure of the publishers and therefore quite naturally calls up outsourced knowledge, often from state-paid university professors, but sometimes also from interest groups, such as those of the Avénir Suisse employer foundation.
This industry of experts has its familiar faces. The sociologist Kurt Imhof is an expert on everyone and everything, but especially on what he likes to call "media hounding". Psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok is an expert on the tough guys with a good view of decades of barred air. Forensic psychiatrist Josef Sachs regularly provides spontaneous explanations of murder and manslaughter without personal knowledge of the perpetrator. Journalist Sepp Moser is the expert on airplane and airline crashes, psychologist Julia Onken is responsible for separation pain and menopause and Klaus Herr for couples and mating. The writer also belongs to this circle, receiving calls when some Nazi thugs have struck again somewhere. Requests that have their own particular economic appeal: As an expert, the freelance journalist is supposed to provide content free of charge.
Experience has shown that the smaller the editorial budget, the more often professional colleagues call. So private radio stations and free newspapers call first, then private TV stations, and only later do colleagues from daily newspapers or the SRG call, but they are then better prepared. But everything always has to happen very quickly: The editor summarizes a current agency or police report in a maximum of two sentences and then immediately wants a statement. ("Excuse me, may I put you in the studio right away?") If the expert points out that he doesn't know enough about the specific case, the editor replies that he can make a general statement on the topic. An invitation to pretend to have inaccurate facts. There are always "experts" who even take up such an offer. This results in journalistic articles that don't even reach the level of party gossip.
Let's take a current example. The news: German billionaire Susanne Klatten, whose name was previously only known to interested readers of business news, has been in love with an inconspicuous Swiss ex-banker for a few weeks. He apparently found it easy to win the affection and money of rich women. The "Newsnetz" portal then asks psychologist Julia Onken, who of course doesn't know the recently infatuated billionaire any better. Onken begins by speculating in general terms about "perhaps a little underserved", then escalates to "Ms. Klatten is of course a poor pig" and then rambles on: "Perhaps Klatten has never had such good sex." One thing is certain: if things go on like this, editors will soon need an expert to advise them on how to deal with experts. This expert will then explain to them that statements that contain the word "perhaps" are always correct, as they also contain the assertion of the opposite, but are therefore meaningless. Or to put it another way: you don't need an expert for this, a street survey will suffice.
But the normal madness prevails in the editorial offices every day: politicians resign or put their foot in their mouths. Companies merge or collapse, managers increase their bonuses and don't want to talk about it. Wage earners go on strike. People kill people, often as soldiers, but sometimes out of jealousy or need for money. People cheat people in good faith or themselves. People fall from the sky in airplanes or from cliffs in sportswear. Sometimes the wind whistles until rooftops fly off. So the extraordinary happens every day, and the editor hardly knows where his head is. But he has internalized the cost pressure of the publishers and therefore quite naturally calls up outsourced knowledge, often from state-paid university professors, but sometimes also from interest groups, such as those of the Avénir Suisse employer foundation.
This industry of experts has its familiar faces. The sociologist Kurt Imhof is an expert on everyone and everything, but especially on what he likes to call "media hounding". Psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok is an expert on the tough guys with a good view of decades of barred air. Forensic psychiatrist Josef Sachs regularly provides spontaneous explanations of murder and manslaughter without personal knowledge of the perpetrator. Journalist Sepp Moser is the expert on airplane and airline crashes, psychologist Julia Onken is responsible for separation pain and menopause and Klaus Herr for couples and mating. The writer also belongs to this circle, receiving calls when some Nazi thugs have struck again somewhere. Requests that have their own particular economic appeal: As an expert, the freelance journalist is supposed to provide content free of charge.
Experience has shown that the smaller the editorial budget, the more often professional colleagues call. So private radio stations and free newspapers call first, then private TV stations, and only later do colleagues from daily newspapers or the SRG call, but they are then better prepared. But everything always has to happen very quickly: The editor summarizes a current agency or police report in a maximum of two sentences and then immediately wants a statement. ("Excuse me, may I put you in the studio right away?") If the expert points out that he doesn't know enough about the specific case, the editor replies that he can make a general statement on the topic. An invitation to pretend to have inaccurate facts. There are always "experts" who even take up such an offer. This results in journalistic articles that don't even reach the level of party gossip.
Let's take a current example. The news: German billionaire Susanne Klatten, whose name was previously only known to interested readers of business news, has been in love with an inconspicuous Swiss ex-banker for a few weeks. He apparently found it easy to win the affection and money of rich women. The "Newsnetz" portal then asks psychologist Julia Onken, who of course doesn't know the recently infatuated billionaire any better. Onken begins by speculating in general terms about "perhaps a little underserved", then escalates to "Ms. Klatten is of course a poor pig" and then rambles on: "Perhaps Klatten has never had such good sex." One thing is certain: if things go on like this, editors will soon need an expert to advise them on how to deal with experts. This expert will then explain to them that statements that contain the word "perhaps" are always correct, as they also contain the assertion of the opposite, but are therefore meaningless. Or to put it another way: you don't need an expert for this, a street survey will suffice.
