Media - basic knowledge for media practice. The title is sober, but the foreword is lively and picks up the reader with clichés about media journalists. Media journalists are head over heels in love with their own profession, so much so that they do nothing but observe themselves and their peers, it says, for example. Or: media journalists tend to be masochistic. After all, they have to listen to their colleagues time and time again about being nest-smearers or doing PR on their own behalf. The contrast in the wording between the title and the foreword reflects the different facets of the book. For the most part, it is an entertaining read, but at the same time it provides well-founded analyses and manages the balancing act between practical and theoretical knowledge. The publication names media journalistic offerings, sheds light on people and fields of work in today's media journalism and provides concrete examples of practical cases. Various media journalists report on their research, successful colleagues are portrayed and case studies from media journalistic work and best practice models are given. Checklists round off the offer, such as a "Code of Conduct for Media Journalists" or a compilation of the relevant compulsory reading.
The practical approach is contrasted by a great deal of theoretical knowledge and a scientific perspective. Various topics such as the self-observation trap or anticipatory obedience are examined theoretically, with food for thought for practical application. The history of media journalism is also reviewed, from the emergence of radio and television in the 1960s and 1970s to more recent and ongoing developments. The 220 pages also include a critical examination of the industry. For example, the authors criticize the dwindling media coverage in the media. They do not accept the often-cited argument that media journalism is only of interest to professional colleagues. Media topics are not per se uninteresting for the general public, but attempts to get a wider audience interested in them have so far only been pursued half-heartedly. She calls for media topics to be presented in a way that is "effective for the public". The authors show that the clichés in the foreword, although exaggerated, are not taken out of thin air by going into detail about the challenges and special features of the profession. These include the difficulty of observing and fairly criticizing one's peers as a media journalist, being as close to them as possible, but still maintaining the necessary distance.
Jump start or knowledge comparison
The "compact textbook" is intended as a starting aid for young journalists, which is explained in the checklist "What should I do if I want to become a media journalist?" at the end of the book. (Co-author Christian Meier has summarized the most important "survival rules" for career starters for Werbewoche, see box on the right). However, the checklists, case studies and thoughts on future developments in media journalism also make the textbook interesting for practicing media journalists. Although international examples are cited time and again - internet companies from the USA are a recurring theme - the book focuses primarily on the German media landscape. In this sense, it offers Swiss journalists the opportunity to take a closer look at the media world of our northern neighbor. The different perspectives of the authors - one a media journalist, the other a media scientist - as well as their writing style make for a varied read. Christian Meier is deputy editor-in-chief of the online media portal Meedia.de, Stephan Weichert is a professor of journalism at the private Macromedia University of Applied Sciences for Media and Communication in Hamburg (MHMK) and also founded the media-critical portal Vocer in 2011.
Werbewoche met Christian Meier at the Medientage München and asked him about his new book. In the interview, he takes a closer look at the role of the media journalist, talks about changes in the profession, the alleged masochistic tendency of media journalists, his relationship with media science and the difficult and beautiful sides of his profession.
Isabel Imper
Media journalists should maintain their inner independence
WW: Christian Meier, how do you see the role of media journalists? Are they reporters who describe developments or rather investigative reporters who keep an eye on their colleagues?
CM: Both. Media journalists are chroniclers of media change. Every day we receive reports on how media companies are trying to cope with digital structural change. A publisher tests a new online business model, a TV station launches a new digital platform, another company buys a start-up. Media journalists record this news and categorize it. They try to explain to readers where the big lines are. How do the players in the media market behave? What recipes are there for media change? Incidentally, this task is not only performed by media journalists who write for the industry itself, but also by those who work for consumer media. The public reader also wants to know: What does it mean for me if the analog signal on television is switched off? Why will access to an online news portal cost money in future?
So media journalists are above all observers and reporters?
Not only that. In addition to the role of the chronicler, there is also that of the researcher. Media journalists have to look at what is happening behind the scenes. Who is talking to whom? And for what purpose?
Do media journalists perform this function sufficiently?
Well, enough is a relative value. Self-critically, it can be said that journalists in general - not just media journalists - too often stick to the surface in an increasingly fast-moving news world and allow themselves to be led by stories, only taking in the news and asking too little about the reasons behind a report. In media journalism, this tendency is further encouraged by the fact that reporting has expanded in recent years from researching traditional media to Facebook, Google and co. However, these US companies are black boxes. When Google launches a new service, it is adopted as such. Very often, however, you learn very little about the motives, about the internal processes within the company. I think there is a lot of catching up to do.
Is it even possible for German-speaking journalists to take a look behind the scenes at these companies?
German-speaking journalists must already have very good contacts in the USA. Most colleagues do not have these and therefore usually take over the research results of US colleagues.
In the book, you point out that media journalism in the traditional media has declined. At the same time, you emphasize the emergence of new blogs that report on the industry online. To what extent has this changed the work of media journalists?
Media pages in newspapers have been on the decline for years, that's true. The Berliner Zeitung has just given up its media page. Meanwhile, blogs have led to both qualitative and quantitative changes. Qualitatively, because it is an incentive when reports appear on a blog that you would have liked to have had yourself as an editor of a newspaper, for example. Good media journalism is not only done in traditional editorial offices. The quantity of work has also changed: It is no longer enough to appear once a day. Media news is generated almost around the clock, especially since we often report on developments in US media. Having an editorial deadline at 6 p.m. is far too early.
Media journalism is often labeled as irrelevant and has to justify its existence. Where does that come from?
If you report critically as a media journalist, you are often asked: "Why are you writing against the industry? Why do you constantly write that newspapers, publishers and TV stations are doing badly? Is that really so relevant now? Are there no other issues?" Perhaps this is where this accusation of supposed irrelevance comes from. Media journalists are also often confronted with the accusation that their profession is too self-centered, too self-referential. This accusation often seems like a pretext for discrediting annoying reporting.
How do you respond to such accusations?
Media journalism has a control function. The media should control the economy, the politicians and the country's key players. But who controls the media? There is no doubt that media journalism can develop self-regulatory powers. The mixing of editorial and advertising, for example, is an eminently important issue for media journalism. If there is surreptitious advertising in a medium, there must be journalists who expose such practices. Or if the entanglements of a media company are so opaque that journalistic power is being abused, this must come to light. Even if everyday reporting is not always so dramatic, media journalism remains a small but essential discipline of journalism.
Why do media journalists write so little about radio?
Radio is a rather neglected field. This is because it is sometimes wrongly declared to be an old medium, a secondary medium. People fail to realize that a very large number of people listen to the radio every day. Media journalists may also write little about this medium because the last twenty years have seen the emergence of more and more format radio stations with lots of music but only a few contributions of high journalistic quality. Media journalists would much rather deal with Der Spiegel, the NZZ or ZDF than with a radio station that may be commercially successful but does not have much journalistic expertise.
You wrote your book together with a media scientist. The relationship between practitioners and media scholars is not generally considered to be particularly good. To what extent did you as a practitioner benefit from the collaboration?
Journalists probably reflect little on their work in everyday life. They do research, talk to informants, discuss at conferences and at the end of the day have written or broadcast one or two articles. It's called routine. This reflection, the art of self-observation and sometimes self-knowledge can be learned from media studies. This collaboration has certainly helped me to question my own work. However, I wouldn't necessarily describe my relationship with media studies as bad, but rather as non-existent ...
Why is this the case?
I suspect that journalists think media scientists have no idea about journalistic practice. Media scientists, in turn, are offended when no one pays attention to their large-scale studies. You can speak of a bad relationship or simply of talking past each other. There is often no willingness to listen to what the other side has to say.
Do you have any suggestions on how this could change?
You simply have to talk to each other, there's no other way. Journalists should take the time to look at what studies there are on the topic of newsrooms or social media, for example. It can't hurt to take a bird's eye view of your own work. For their part, the institutes should approach the editorial offices and establish contact.
You write that media journalists tend to be masochistic because they have to listen to the same accusations over and over again. For example, of being a nest polluter or doing PR on their own behalf. Have you ever thought about quitting?
No, not at all. "Masochism" is perhaps a tad too drastic. However, as the book is primarily aimed at practitioners, we also wanted to express uncomfortable truths and not just use balanced and balanced scientific formulations. Indeed, media journalists have to put up with being harshly criticized by their own guild from case to case. If I, as a journalist, write a critical report about a business boss, I usually receive recognition from my colleagues. If, on the other hand, you criticize an editor-in-chief, it can happen that your own editor-in-chief gets in touch and asks: "Did you have to do that now? We don't want any trouble with this or that publisher." In this case, it is primarily important for a media journalist to maintain their inner independence.
What do you mean by that?
By this I mean that a media journalist must be able to free himself from his own media preferences and, conversely, from his prejudices. Let's say I enjoy reading the NZZ, perhaps even have colleagues who are friends there, perhaps would even like to work there one day. Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, I must be able to criticize the paper, the editor-in-chief, the publishing manager. And I must expect to be attacked by these colleagues when the report is published. Then the aforementioned support from the editorial team is important again, but many media journalists work as freelancers for the media, at least in Germany.
Are you criticizing the fact that media journalism is being delegated to freelancers?
Yes, trouble is occasionally "outsourced". In my opinion, media journalists should be permanently employed. They are particularly exposed to criticism from their own industry and need the protection of the editorial team, the editor-in-chief, in order to survive. Even more so than other journalists.
Media journalists must therefore be able to deal with criticism from their own industry. What do they get in return?
You will receive recognition from readers, viewers, listeners and colleagues who appreciate critical reporting. As an independent thinking and writing media journalist, you can earn a good reputation. Reputation is also the currency by which journalists should be judged.
Interview: Isabel Imper