“A kind of cave painting of the Kurz era”
TV review of “Lanz”
:
“A kind of cave painting of the Kurz era”
Dusseldorf The allegations of bribery against the former Austrian Chancellor Kurz raise the question of whether something like this would also be possible in Germany. You can learn more about this on Tuesday evening than about party-political issues.
Am Tuesday evening can be found at “Markus Lanz” a diverse panel discussion. On some subjects, however, it only brings out hot air.
About the allegations of bribery against the Austrian Chancellor, about politics in Germany and about statements that are on gold scales.
As the first topic, moderator Markus Lanz raises the allegations of bribery against the recently resigned Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz in the panel discussion. The only Austrian in the group is not initially asked. The Berlin CDU state chairman Kai Wegner believes that something like this would not be possible in Germany. The author Elke Heidenreich disagrees. “That surveys are paid for, that pictures are polished with money, that is possible everywhere,” she says. The Green politician Jürgen Trittin recalls the “big fan club” that Kurz had in the editor-in-chief of “Bild”.
Then the two politicians should be specific about how they handle surveys themselves. Lanz wants to know from Trittin whether the survey institute really treats everyone equally. The Green politician says he appreciates opinion research institutes like Insa or Forsa less than the Wahlen research group or the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy. The reason: For him, surveys are about an honest opinion, and the institutes he prefers are “not suspected of being close to the Greens”. Wegner increases that a party commissioning a survey should not be equated with embellished results. “As a party, you can of course commission a survey, but you cannot tweak the values,” says the CDU politician.
The Austrian journalist Florian Klenk smiles at the direction the discussion has taken. In Austria, the question is not whether the hairdressing of an opinion poll is permissible or not, but the accusation that a hairdressed one was paid for with taxpayers’ money. According to the documents of the public prosecutor’s office, the pollsters were allowed to invoice the Ministry of Finance for the survey in question as an “anti-fraud study”. The core of the accusation is: “Producing fake news, spreading fake news and making the public pay for their own disinformation.”
Then the investigative journalist was accused of involvement with the Austrian media, which was declared a counter-deal: advertisements against benevolent reporting. “This is not a suitcase of money, but a monetary benefit,” says Klenk. He points out particularities in the Austrian media landscape, in which it is for the large party gang and many to spend millions on inmates – from the party coffers. In the deal that is now in focus, there are two winners: the politicians and the media editors die. The taxpayers are the losers. Klenk also analyzes: “It is not a journalist who is bribed, but a politician so that he can get tax money into the media lock.” Some examples cause amazement and amusement in the group.
An objection from Heidenreich that Austria is “always an operetta”, that is, somehow funny, is later taken up by Klenk. There is also a serious part of this operetta: A small clique is trying to unscrew the security controls – the media, public prosecutors, investigative committees, critical officials and scientists are massively attacked by them. Finally, Klenk comes back to the discussion about whether something like this would also be possible in Germany. The Austrian asks what would happen if the Zeit boss said: After a critical story about the CDU, the Ministry of Finance canceled all cooperation. Klenk gives himself the answer: “That would be the end of the finance minister.”
The panel discussion on the realignment and personnel issues at the Union or the content of the traffic light exploratory talks brings hardly any knowledge. Then Lanz invites those present to rate a statement made by Sarah-Lee Heinrich, who was not present. The spokeswoman for the youth organization of the Greens is under criticism for a tweet that she wrote when she was 14 years old. Lanz also plays a video in which the now 20-year-old speaks of a “disgusting white majority society” as a teenager.
While Trittin tries to classify the quote – “I would say she speaks from very painful experience” – and Wegner is just as understanding, Heidenreich bursts out. “What are they always so offended?” She says. The 80-year-old writer also criticizes Heinrich’s expression as inadequate and typical for people of their age who do not, in Heidenreich’s opinion, read books.
Lanz looks in Klenk’s direction. “I’m not from here,” says those. He questions the sense of putting statements by 14-year-olds on the gold scales, especially without knowing the context. In response to Heidenreich’s criticism of the language, the only question that occurs to him is who bears responsibility for dying if young people actually lack linguistic skills. Klenk also puts the essence of the talk show in a nutshell and says with a glance at Heinrich: “I would find the conversation with her more exciting than condemning her here.”