Stirrup holder of power
It’s clear that the media will decide who crosses the finish line first in the upcoming fall election season. While that’s not ideal, it’s still better (i.e., more democratic) than political communication in the good old days of ideologies.
Column The media decide who will be the first to cross the finish line in the approaching fall elections. This may not be a good thing, but it is better (i.e. more democratic) than political communication in the good old days of ideologies.A long time ago, a certain Goethe noted irritably: "What is printed in the newspapers by monarchs does not look good: For power should act and not talk." What would the Weimar poet prince have thought of the obtrusive media presence of incumbent and candidate Helvetic rulers this fall? Probably this: "Poor people: having to talk so much for so little power!"
Must? We are allowed to! Today, our classe politique has at least as many opportunities for public self-presentation - because they are increasingly for sale - as they have hopes of big attention dividends: and the more "media-friendly" (i.e. apolitical) the appearance, the more likely the public will occasionally take a look, and the happier the media coffers will ring. In a nutshell: political advertising has blossomed into a universally profitable work of art, and anyone who doesn't bid is either to blame or broke.
Nevertheless, disapproving but also well-meaning democrats have every (good) human objection to this development. Academic and other observers diagnose a surplus of political representation at the expense of policy-making, of symbolic instead of decision-making politics, of shaking hands instead of raising hands (in parliament), of talking instead of acting.
So what? Isn't grassroots democracy the form of government of patience that works according to the motto: "Me mues halt rede mitenand"? The fact that the rampant communicationitis not only costs something, but often also brings something politically, may seem plutocratic to the have-nots, but it is entirely in line with market economy logic. Is the quack Dr. Eisenbart a much better "spin doctor" than Dr. Placebo? Is political bite more digestible than politics with donated toothbrushes? Once again
you are obviously beating the advertising (packaging) sack and actually mean the media democracy donkey.
Nothing works politically without media mediation, and certainly not without advertising for politicians, both on factual issues and in the election of candidates. Anyone who is bothered by the long duration and simple binary coding (yes/no) of campaigns should take note of the fact that there are many citizens who are slow to grasp political issues,
if at all. And that mass communication only works if it is simple and inviting. That's why Schröder sat down on Gottschalk's little bench. It should not be forgotten that politics needs advertising more than ever, even on its own behalf, as a field of action in need of legitimization - be it through media entertainment.
Power, which was still indivisible for Goethe, is now also distributed among media audiences. They can vote their political actors in and out of office twice: first by remote control - an early form of e-democracy - and later at the ballot box. "Votes should be weighed and not counted," said another classic author, Friedrich Schiller, some time ago. Who should weigh what and whom today, in the election fall: political or taste judgments, of responsible citizens or spoiled entertainment consumers? And with what legitimacy: that of a self-appointed elite? Then why not the ritual media political spectacle?
> Ulrich Saxer was a professor of journalism at the University of Zurich and
Professor of Sociology of Communication in Lugano.
Must? We are allowed to! Today, our classe politique has at least as many opportunities for public self-presentation - because they are increasingly for sale - as they have hopes of big attention dividends: and the more "media-friendly" (i.e. apolitical) the appearance, the more likely the public will occasionally take a look, and the happier the media coffers will ring. In a nutshell: political advertising has blossomed into a universally profitable work of art, and anyone who doesn't bid is either to blame or broke.
Nevertheless, disapproving but also well-meaning democrats have every (good) human objection to this development. Academic and other observers diagnose a surplus of political representation at the expense of policy-making, of symbolic instead of decision-making politics, of shaking hands instead of raising hands (in parliament), of talking instead of acting.
So what? Isn't grassroots democracy the form of government of patience that works according to the motto: "Me mues halt rede mitenand"? The fact that the rampant communicationitis not only costs something, but often also brings something politically, may seem plutocratic to the have-nots, but it is entirely in line with market economy logic. Is the quack Dr. Eisenbart a much better "spin doctor" than Dr. Placebo? Is political bite more digestible than politics with donated toothbrushes? Once again
you are obviously beating the advertising (packaging) sack and actually mean the media democracy donkey.
Nothing works politically without media mediation, and certainly not without advertising for politicians, both on factual issues and in the election of candidates. Anyone who is bothered by the long duration and simple binary coding (yes/no) of campaigns should take note of the fact that there are many citizens who are slow to grasp political issues,
if at all. And that mass communication only works if it is simple and inviting. That's why Schröder sat down on Gottschalk's little bench. It should not be forgotten that politics needs advertising more than ever, even on its own behalf, as a field of action in need of legitimization - be it through media entertainment.
Power, which was still indivisible for Goethe, is now also distributed among media audiences. They can vote their political actors in and out of office twice: first by remote control - an early form of e-democracy - and later at the ballot box. "Votes should be weighed and not counted," said another classic author, Friedrich Schiller, some time ago. Who should weigh what and whom today, in the election fall: political or taste judgments, of responsible citizens or spoiled entertainment consumers? And with what legitimacy: that of a self-appointed elite? Then why not the ritual media political spectacle?
> Ulrich Saxer was a professor of journalism at the University of Zurich and
Professor of Sociology of Communication in Lugano.
