Sulking is useless
Politicians who have drawn attention to themselves should not—and cannot—boycott journalists. If they try to do so anyway, they do themselves and their office a disservice, according to Peter Glotz.
Column Politicians should not and cannot boycott journalists. But if they try, they do themselves and their office a disservice.
A disservice, says Peter Glotz.
The German chancellor's entourage is angry, and he is probably angry himself. The tabloids, above all Bild, are lambasting him. But the left-liberal organs of the "Hamburger Kumpanei", Spiegel and Stern, are also inciting and mocking the government. The news magazine published a caricature of Schröder's Germany as a madhouse for the carnival. And in Stern, Schröder's Berlin governor writes one total red-green slating after another. After all, Schröder is the first to dare to make overdue corrections to the welfare state. It is understandable that the reform chancellor is "not amused".
However, the reaction of his apparatus is unprofessional, to say the least. The Federal Press Office imposed a boycott on journalists: the bad boys are no longer given interviews or are not allowed on the Chancellor's plane on foreign visits. That is a gross mistake. Because you get better media coverage by communicating, not by refusing to communicate. "Punishment" is a means of educating minors; opinion leaders cannot be punished.
This faux pas is reinforced by the government spokesperson's gossip, although as a former Bild editor he should know better. He does not exercise his office through subtle pressure, but by being offended. The result is demarches from the Federal Press Conference, the German Journalists' Association and letters of protest from chief editors.
Schröder can refer to his predecessor Kohl. He did not grant Der Spiegel a single interview during his 16 years in office. Nevertheless, such a strategy is not expedient. At best, a writer or a bishop can boycott the mass media. If they take morality more seriously than effectiveness, this even contributes to their reputation among those minorities to whom they feel committed. But the chancellor is neither Günter Grass nor Cardinal Ratzinger; he has to explain his policies to the whole nation. How can he do this if he does not use the most important channels out of misguided pride?
Of course there are limits. Anyone can avoid media that violate their personal integrity. But criticism, even harsh and unfair criticism, is never a legitimate reason for ducking out. It's true: no one gives an interview to everyone at all times. But a government is ill-advised if it divides its own people's spokespeople into sheep and goats.
> Peter Glotz is Professor of Media and Communication Management at the University of St. Gallen.
A disservice, says Peter Glotz.
The German chancellor's entourage is angry, and he is probably angry himself. The tabloids, above all Bild, are lambasting him. But the left-liberal organs of the "Hamburger Kumpanei", Spiegel and Stern, are also inciting and mocking the government. The news magazine published a caricature of Schröder's Germany as a madhouse for the carnival. And in Stern, Schröder's Berlin governor writes one total red-green slating after another. After all, Schröder is the first to dare to make overdue corrections to the welfare state. It is understandable that the reform chancellor is "not amused".
However, the reaction of his apparatus is unprofessional, to say the least. The Federal Press Office imposed a boycott on journalists: the bad boys are no longer given interviews or are not allowed on the Chancellor's plane on foreign visits. That is a gross mistake. Because you get better media coverage by communicating, not by refusing to communicate. "Punishment" is a means of educating minors; opinion leaders cannot be punished.
This faux pas is reinforced by the government spokesperson's gossip, although as a former Bild editor he should know better. He does not exercise his office through subtle pressure, but by being offended. The result is demarches from the Federal Press Conference, the German Journalists' Association and letters of protest from chief editors.
Schröder can refer to his predecessor Kohl. He did not grant Der Spiegel a single interview during his 16 years in office. Nevertheless, such a strategy is not expedient. At best, a writer or a bishop can boycott the mass media. If they take morality more seriously than effectiveness, this even contributes to their reputation among those minorities to whom they feel committed. But the chancellor is neither Günter Grass nor Cardinal Ratzinger; he has to explain his policies to the whole nation. How can he do this if he does not use the most important channels out of misguided pride?
Of course there are limits. Anyone can avoid media that violate their personal integrity. But criticism, even harsh and unfair criticism, is never a legitimate reason for ducking out. It's true: no one gives an interview to everyone at all times. But a government is ill-advised if it divides its own people's spokespeople into sheep and goats.
> Peter Glotz is Professor of Media and Communication Management at the University of St. Gallen.
