Wooing, chirping, gockling
In his column, Oliver Fahrni responds to the call for a definition of the trendy term “media ecology” with a manifesto and examines the courtship dance of the great egret.
Column On the understandable demand
after the definition of a trend term, our author reacts with a
media-ecological manifesto.Hannah T. is annoyed. "You are talking
We talk about media ecology all the time, but nobody knows what it is",
she grumbles by e-mail: "Probably not you either. I want a
Definition!"
So kindly invited, let's get to work: Plead
ecology for the protection of nature, media ecology wants to promote the careful
Man's interaction with nature.
This is tricky. On the one hand, we are rational and recognize causes
and effects, are completely disillusioned. On the other hand, we are sensitive to stimuli
programmed. Especially if it is conducive to reproduction. In earlier
stages of human development, the stimulus promoted the realization -
Today, however, it is mostly just sales.
Can you see the great egret? During the courtship dance it spreads the
tail feathers, but pretends not to see the heron.
Successful tactics. Clever Don Juans have learned a thing or two.
The problem is that the media today proceed in the same way: They
tease, woo, chirp and gockeln, but ignore the reader and the
Spectators.
Is that a bad thing? Economically speaking, the irritation is stupid. The
citizen, the citizen with whom the journalist enters into a kind of collective
We have entered into a dialog about the world, mutating into consumers. And behave
accordingly: they snack, sip, zap and watch the media
have long been what they have become - blenders. Softeners. A
small fix. Since then, budgets for reader marketing have exploded.
More serious: Who with techniques of courtship the Iraq war,
unemployment or the genetic dispute fails to shed light on the
(if enlightenment was his intention at all). The form (the stimulus)
kills the content. That's why there was never a time-critical tabloid, that's why
this society is so poorly informed about itself.
Gerhard Schröder recently lamented a hostile media situation. To
right. Even the media, which are bathed in the marketable glow of his persona
recently persecuted the Federal Chancellor with malice and later
Reckoning. Nevertheless, his victim part is smear: Schröder himself was
a powerful member of the media frenzy that has dominated public understanding of
not only distorts the state of affairs, but increasingly makes it impossible.
How so? Before we call the chairs of media ecology, to the
example at the Hamburg University of Fine Arts, and us with
Things like "polymedial reproduction in the change of generations"
confuse, we want to think for ourselves. First a little empiricism: Does
you meet interesting people, founders and movers and shakers, you recognize
They have one thing in common: their TV is usually unplugged. They know the
latest sitcom, don't read Springer or Ringier magazines,
avoid Coelho & Co. Elites use the media highly selectively. They
diligently exchange bookmarks and strong texts. You are on
subscribed to perlentaucher.de. You get networked information.
On the other hand, these people indulge in such strange activities as
collecting Renaissance atlases or writing blogs. Your selective
Media use also has an ecological reason: it protects the environment.
scarce resources of attention and intellect. Only because they have the appeal
they can think and act. This is a condition of their
creative power, their advantage in a permanently excited, hyperactive
and depressive society.
Unchecked consumption of stimulating media warps the senses, head and soul.
In the past, the media also served to understand the situation; today
they are only part of the circumstances.
This is where media ecology comes in. It is certainly fine to use media education
to learn how to decode images, for example. Unequal
It is more useful to selectively avoid the media. And others
media.
after the definition of a trend term, our author reacts with a
media-ecological manifesto.Hannah T. is annoyed. "You are talking
We talk about media ecology all the time, but nobody knows what it is",
she grumbles by e-mail: "Probably not you either. I want a
Definition!"
So kindly invited, let's get to work: Plead
ecology for the protection of nature, media ecology wants to promote the careful
Man's interaction with nature.
This is tricky. On the one hand, we are rational and recognize causes
and effects, are completely disillusioned. On the other hand, we are sensitive to stimuli
programmed. Especially if it is conducive to reproduction. In earlier
stages of human development, the stimulus promoted the realization -
Today, however, it is mostly just sales.
Can you see the great egret? During the courtship dance it spreads the
tail feathers, but pretends not to see the heron.
Successful tactics. Clever Don Juans have learned a thing or two.
The problem is that the media today proceed in the same way: They
tease, woo, chirp and gockeln, but ignore the reader and the
Spectators.
Is that a bad thing? Economically speaking, the irritation is stupid. The
citizen, the citizen with whom the journalist enters into a kind of collective
We have entered into a dialog about the world, mutating into consumers. And behave
accordingly: they snack, sip, zap and watch the media
have long been what they have become - blenders. Softeners. A
small fix. Since then, budgets for reader marketing have exploded.
More serious: Who with techniques of courtship the Iraq war,
unemployment or the genetic dispute fails to shed light on the
(if enlightenment was his intention at all). The form (the stimulus)
kills the content. That's why there was never a time-critical tabloid, that's why
this society is so poorly informed about itself.
Gerhard Schröder recently lamented a hostile media situation. To
right. Even the media, which are bathed in the marketable glow of his persona
recently persecuted the Federal Chancellor with malice and later
Reckoning. Nevertheless, his victim part is smear: Schröder himself was
a powerful member of the media frenzy that has dominated public understanding of
not only distorts the state of affairs, but increasingly makes it impossible.
How so? Before we call the chairs of media ecology, to the
example at the Hamburg University of Fine Arts, and us with
Things like "polymedial reproduction in the change of generations"
confuse, we want to think for ourselves. First a little empiricism: Does
you meet interesting people, founders and movers and shakers, you recognize
They have one thing in common: their TV is usually unplugged. They know the
latest sitcom, don't read Springer or Ringier magazines,
avoid Coelho & Co. Elites use the media highly selectively. They
diligently exchange bookmarks and strong texts. You are on
subscribed to perlentaucher.de. You get networked information.
On the other hand, these people indulge in such strange activities as
collecting Renaissance atlases or writing blogs. Your selective
Media use also has an ecological reason: it protects the environment.
scarce resources of attention and intellect. Only because they have the appeal
they can think and act. This is a condition of their
creative power, their advantage in a permanently excited, hyperactive
and depressive society.
Unchecked consumption of stimulating media warps the senses, head and soul.
In the past, the media also served to understand the situation; today
they are only part of the circumstances.
This is where media ecology comes in. It is certainly fine to use media education
to learn how to decode images, for example. Unequal
It is more useful to selectively avoid the media. And others
media.
> Oliver Fahrni is a freelance publicist. Until 2001 he was
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Weltwoche and most recently Head of Foreign Affairs
of the Hamburger Woche.
