Qualitäter and other blenders
Noted: Ensuring journalistic quality does not require editorial fig leaves (such as ombudsman offices), but rather a culture of editorial debate.
Column Journalistic quality assurance doesn't need publishing fig leaves (like ombudsman offices), but an editorial culture of debate.You've been invited to a panel on quality journalism, Mbwana? And you're wondering what you're supposed to say there? The prefix "quality" is a sure sign that you are trying to sell a somewhat stale product. "Super quality!": You will only find this slogan in junk stores. Really practical, beautiful, unquestionable goods do not need this addition. There is no such thing as a quality Rolls-Royce.
The situation with quality is similar to that with ethics, of which banker Hans J. Bär wrote: "If all the signs are not deceptive, the term ethics has fabulous prospects of a prefix career, the likes of which we have only seen in the bio-
know the label: It becomes a seal of quality for safe consumption."
In fact, a small but flourishing industry is also being set up under the banner of "quality in journalism" (as a corner store in the shadow of the ethics group, so to speak). Its partners are professors of journalism, press councils, ombudsmen, media training centers, panel organizers and associations such as www.quajou.ch.
A slightly pastoral tone is noticeable in almost all quality journalism debates. This is no coincidence, because the core business is ancient: grey-haired preachers, converted sinners, dark prophecies, occasional self-flagellation and lots of pious words. We are in the age-old business of selling indulgences. And here it is true that great sinners are generous donors. This was recently demonstrated at the Publishers' Congress, where numerous ladies and gentlemen enthusiastically applauded the penitential sermons of ex-colleagues and federal councillors. (Shortly after they had almost overturned the collective labor agreement: with the nice thought that poorly paid journalists work more creatively).
The annoying thing about Swiss journalism - the lukewarm air, the shouting, the uniformity - also has tangible reasons: A decline in advertising, a lack of money and, as a result, fear everywhere. Everyone is trying to be on the safe side, not to miss out on trends and to copy the competition, which is also copying. (Just as an example: the NZZ Sunday newspaper copy).
The pseudo-cure is called opportunism: more provincialism (in the rabbit breeder reportage you, rabbit breeder, read your name), more service servility (your newspaper optimizes your marriage and tax return) and last but not least the boutique idea: heads, heads, heads write columns, columns, columns. In the hope that wit, warmth and intelligence come from photographed skulls like mustard from a tube.
And there are quality assurance programs, further training and ombudsmen for the people and their conscience. But can quality be bought like a face cream? Of course you can! But it will have just as little effect. Quality is like style and personality: it is not an accessory, but the result of a process, an attitude.
But this is precisely where the problem lies: what editorial team has a goal, a point of view, a culture of debate? The quality of a newspaper is the product of journalistic alertness, curiosity and conviction - in other words, something that cannot be trained, but only lived. And a question of tradition (which, for example, keeps an almost leaderless NZZ on course) and publishing will (why else would Blick be the most growing, most intelligent medium in the country, despite all the nonsense?)
In short: even a fish wrapped in newspaper stinks from the head down. Anyone who debates about quality on podiums and in editorials instead of in their editorial offices about ideas, goals and attitudes is making up corpses.
PS: Of course, none of this means that you shouldn't appear on the podium for a fee, Mbwana!
> Constantin Seibt is editor for politics and economics at the weekly newspaper (WOZ).
The situation with quality is similar to that with ethics, of which banker Hans J. Bär wrote: "If all the signs are not deceptive, the term ethics has fabulous prospects of a prefix career, the likes of which we have only seen in the bio-
know the label: It becomes a seal of quality for safe consumption."
In fact, a small but flourishing industry is also being set up under the banner of "quality in journalism" (as a corner store in the shadow of the ethics group, so to speak). Its partners are professors of journalism, press councils, ombudsmen, media training centers, panel organizers and associations such as www.quajou.ch.
A slightly pastoral tone is noticeable in almost all quality journalism debates. This is no coincidence, because the core business is ancient: grey-haired preachers, converted sinners, dark prophecies, occasional self-flagellation and lots of pious words. We are in the age-old business of selling indulgences. And here it is true that great sinners are generous donors. This was recently demonstrated at the Publishers' Congress, where numerous ladies and gentlemen enthusiastically applauded the penitential sermons of ex-colleagues and federal councillors. (Shortly after they had almost overturned the collective labor agreement: with the nice thought that poorly paid journalists work more creatively).
The annoying thing about Swiss journalism - the lukewarm air, the shouting, the uniformity - also has tangible reasons: A decline in advertising, a lack of money and, as a result, fear everywhere. Everyone is trying to be on the safe side, not to miss out on trends and to copy the competition, which is also copying. (Just as an example: the NZZ Sunday newspaper copy).
The pseudo-cure is called opportunism: more provincialism (in the rabbit breeder reportage you, rabbit breeder, read your name), more service servility (your newspaper optimizes your marriage and tax return) and last but not least the boutique idea: heads, heads, heads write columns, columns, columns. In the hope that wit, warmth and intelligence come from photographed skulls like mustard from a tube.
And there are quality assurance programs, further training and ombudsmen for the people and their conscience. But can quality be bought like a face cream? Of course you can! But it will have just as little effect. Quality is like style and personality: it is not an accessory, but the result of a process, an attitude.
But this is precisely where the problem lies: what editorial team has a goal, a point of view, a culture of debate? The quality of a newspaper is the product of journalistic alertness, curiosity and conviction - in other words, something that cannot be trained, but only lived. And a question of tradition (which, for example, keeps an almost leaderless NZZ on course) and publishing will (why else would Blick be the most growing, most intelligent medium in the country, despite all the nonsense?)
In short: even a fish wrapped in newspaper stinks from the head down. Anyone who debates about quality on podiums and in editorials instead of in their editorial offices about ideas, goals and attitudes is making up corpses.
PS: Of course, none of this means that you shouldn't appear on the podium for a fee, Mbwana!
> Constantin Seibt is editor for politics and economics at the weekly newspaper (WOZ).
