To the point: media criticism takes place
Once again, it's all about media criticism. Slowly but surely, I can no longer hear the whining about the dwindling importance of media criticism.
Okay, there are fewer and fewer regular media criticism pages or outlets in the printed daily or weekly press. Unfortunately, this is the case. When articles critical of the media appear in the printed press today, they are unfortunately more and more often stories about which one is never sure whether they were only put in the paper to piss off the dear competition, to denigrate the politically differently thinking journalist colleagues or simply to join in the howling of the wolves. Or simply because one wants to fill an extra sheet with statements that don't get any better or truer if one repeats them prayerfully.
But all this does not mean that there is less genuine media criticism. On media sites on the Internet, in media blogs, on Twitter and even on Facebook, which is so hated by the usual cultural pessimists, there are probably more media-critical contributions today than ever before. And not only from Switzerland, but also from abroad.
However, there is a decisive difference between these and the printed version. In contrast to print articles that are critical of the media, which are very rarely responded to, online media criticism is always the starting point for a discussion - in other words, media criticism 2.0.
I can already hear the mutterings of online critics and print fetishists pointing out the often subterranean quality of blog comments. Of course, some of the reactions are beyond any serious content. But dear people, letters to the editor are not always of high quality either. But at least you can throw them away. In addition, there are always excellent comments or food for thought that move the discussion forward. You just have to choose the people you follow on Twitter or count among your friends on Facebook. It's just like in real life: I don't choose the biggest jerk as my evening conversation partner, only to realize indignantly afterwards that a discussion with him or her didn't help me at all. What amazes me is that you read practically nothing about these discussions from the online world in the printed press. I don't exclude myself from that either. In the future, I will increasingly refer to such contributions or comment on them and put them up for discussion. Both online and in print.
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief [email protected]
