Everyone plays publisher
Column The big players are gradually being sold off to foreign publishers. And the smaller houses are forming alliances. The consequence: a jekami effect in the publishing industry and boring agency journalism.
Column The big players are gradually being sold off to foreign publishers. And the smaller houses are forming alliances. The consequence: a jekami effect in the publishing industry and boring agency journalism.
Every day, we experience a flood of news and conflicting opinions pouring in. Our brains are crammed with the "latest news" from newspapers, magazines, electronic and online media. They are all in fierce competition with each other. They fight for circulation, ratings and advertisers. Time is short for research, for quality, for adequate treatment of employees. And it's precisely them whose well-being should be the concern of the editorial management and the publishing house. Good employees are worth their weight in gold. And good employees with great relationships are priceless.Yet there seems to be a massive lack of two things in the big publishing houses: time and qualified employees or qualified supervisors. In recent years, neither Ringier nor Tamedia has developed a really good product in terms of content. The new papers are mostly stale copies of earlier media products. New concepts have to be developed, and old concept developers have to be hired. I hear again and again in both houses: "There is no one. Who could do something like that?" So they always fall back on the two or three familiar names that have been gathering dust in address cards for decades. In the end, every second print concept comes from the same brain. But even brains get old. Their owners no longer travel as much. They lose touch with the pulse of time. And so what comes is what has to come: Old wine in new skins, a few million for the launch. But none of the publishing bosses is really happy right from the start.
Second whine: "There are no editors-in-chief." Huh? I think I'm dreaming. There are plenty of suitable media professionals. But maybe we should also look outside the houses. Instead, it's always the same noses in charge. A blood refreshment seems hopeless. And then one wonders why the titles are doing so badly, why the TV ratings are falling, and so on. The result: In the hectic rush of falling sales, new titles are developed quickly, without time and without money. They are supposed to plug the holes. A new "trash child" is born, the editorial team is given such a minimal budget that it can practically only deliver "trash news". Thus is born what is already a reality today: agency journalism.
This "quality" in journalism is enough for many potential
readers any longer. So entrepreneurs hire former top journalists without further ado and invest in new publishing products. In the past, investing in a dilapidated five-star hotel was considered chic. Today, CEOs find it casual to finance their own newspaper, TV station or publishing house. As a result, media professionals are becoming pawns in the hands of various power groups. Politically independent reporting seems impossible. What to do, for example, when the financier's company hits the headlines? Crisis communication becomes a top dance, and qualitatively impeccable journalism can no longer take place.
Today, as never before, the formation of political will and the assertion of interests in power politics are taking place via the media. At the same time, there is an increasing convergence of opinions transported and established by the media. This is essentially based on a very close interlocking of most media with news agencies and with the interests of shareholders, advertising customers, political parties and other groups. The journalistic search for truth is becoming impossible.
I'm convinced that the more free papers that spur on the competition, the more the desire for quality journalism will grow. The question is who will pay the actual costs for well-researched stories. This would actually be the job of a good publisher. Patronage for quality in journalism must give way. Instead, good research and well-trained journalists should once again be worth a lot to the publishing houses.
> Karin Müller,
Every day, we experience a flood of news and conflicting opinions pouring in. Our brains are crammed with the "latest news" from newspapers, magazines, electronic and online media. They are all in fierce competition with each other. They fight for circulation, ratings and advertisers. Time is short for research, for quality, for adequate treatment of employees. And it's precisely them whose well-being should be the concern of the editorial management and the publishing house. Good employees are worth their weight in gold. And good employees with great relationships are priceless.Yet there seems to be a massive lack of two things in the big publishing houses: time and qualified employees or qualified supervisors. In recent years, neither Ringier nor Tamedia has developed a really good product in terms of content. The new papers are mostly stale copies of earlier media products. New concepts have to be developed, and old concept developers have to be hired. I hear again and again in both houses: "There is no one. Who could do something like that?" So they always fall back on the two or three familiar names that have been gathering dust in address cards for decades. In the end, every second print concept comes from the same brain. But even brains get old. Their owners no longer travel as much. They lose touch with the pulse of time. And so what comes is what has to come: Old wine in new skins, a few million for the launch. But none of the publishing bosses is really happy right from the start.
Second whine: "There are no editors-in-chief." Huh? I think I'm dreaming. There are plenty of suitable media professionals. But maybe we should also look outside the houses. Instead, it's always the same noses in charge. A blood refreshment seems hopeless. And then one wonders why the titles are doing so badly, why the TV ratings are falling, and so on. The result: In the hectic rush of falling sales, new titles are developed quickly, without time and without money. They are supposed to plug the holes. A new "trash child" is born, the editorial team is given such a minimal budget that it can practically only deliver "trash news". Thus is born what is already a reality today: agency journalism.
This "quality" in journalism is enough for many potential
readers any longer. So entrepreneurs hire former top journalists without further ado and invest in new publishing products. In the past, investing in a dilapidated five-star hotel was considered chic. Today, CEOs find it casual to finance their own newspaper, TV station or publishing house. As a result, media professionals are becoming pawns in the hands of various power groups. Politically independent reporting seems impossible. What to do, for example, when the financier's company hits the headlines? Crisis communication becomes a top dance, and qualitatively impeccable journalism can no longer take place.
Today, as never before, the formation of political will and the assertion of interests in power politics are taking place via the media. At the same time, there is an increasing convergence of opinions transported and established by the media. This is essentially based on a very close interlocking of most media with news agencies and with the interests of shareholders, advertising customers, political parties and other groups. The journalistic search for truth is becoming impossible.
I'm convinced that the more free papers that spur on the competition, the more the desire for quality journalism will grow. The question is who will pay the actual costs for well-researched stories. This would actually be the job of a good publisher. Patronage for quality in journalism must give way. Instead, good research and well-trained journalists should once again be worth a lot to the publishing houses.
> Karin Müller,
