Dream job journalist? Why the profession is so important

The first post on this blog deals with a fundemantal topic. It addresses the question of what role journalism plays in our society, what the tasks of a journalist are, how to recognize good (and bad) journalists - and whether it is still worth becoming one today.

A journalist writes about journalism. Not particularly original, you might think. But you have to start somewhere, don't you? Opening a blog with a post like this gives me the opportunity to explore my understanding of the profession, to define the concept of journalism, to provide you, the reader, with some basic knowledge and - after a decade in very different areas of the media landscape - to sound a critical note.

This topic is interesting for me (and possibly also for you) for two main reasons: Firstly, it allows me to say a few words about my biography, i.e. to give you an insight into my professional career. This may not be entirely wrong for us to get to know each other. Secondly, it gives you an indication of the basic orientation of this blog, the author's self-image and the perspective that is taken on the main topic of “media criticism”. So far so clear?

What's the point of journalism?

The media are generally regarded as the “fourth pillar of democracy” or the “fourth estate” in the state. In addition to the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, media such as radio and television stations, newspapers and internet services are widely considered to play a central role in societies in which political power depends (more or less) on the decisions of the electorate, i.e. the “sovereign”. Democracy therefore depends on freedom of opinion and freedom of the press. Without the free flow of information, the civic order as a whole is unthinkable. In this context, the role of journalism is crucial for our society.

It can be said that the better informed a public is, the more open and honest the culture of debate, the greater the transparency and objectivity of media reporting, the better it is for democracy. And there is a lot of truth in this. The power of the media in the context of political rule should not be underestimated. The media makes kings, and overthrows them again. The media creates meaning, produces “hype”, shapes narratives. And with great power comes - as you know - great responsibility.

Freedom of the press

At this point, however, we must take a critical look at the situation. To assume that all media (and thus all journalists) are solely and exclusively committed to the purity law of objective reporting in the sense of flawless and smooth democratic decision-making (or even just feel committed to it) is, of course, a mistake. In fact, a whole cascade of obstacles stands in the way of this noble ideal.

First of all, there is the human factor. Since journalists are “only” human, it is no injustice to them to assume that they have a fundamental tendency towards subjectivity. There is no such thing as an “objective” journalist in the world - and therefore no such thing as “objective” journalism. What there is: journalists who do their best to be honest and transparent, and those who cannot distinguish between news and commentary even if you hold a gun to their head. Point one.

Point two: the fundamental guarantee of freedom of the press, as enshrined in our constitution, does not mean that we also have a “free press”. What do I mean by that? In principle, there can be a free press. It is therefore formally allowed today - in stark contrast to earlier, darker times. In reality, however, it hardly exists, because almost all press organs, media houses, newspapers and publishing houses are subject to economic constraints (with the exception of a few truly independent and genuinely free journalists). (And not infrequently also to the private ideas of their owners and shareholders, which the reader does not necessarily have to be told...)

Who pays for the chapel?

In other words, it is not the “objective truth” that is at the center of reporting, but rather the desire for circulation, subscribers, viewers, clicks – in other words, influence. It is in the nature of things: those who earn their money with “news” also want to sell it as successfully as possible, and thus exert as much power as possible over public opinion. That is why there are “clickbait” headlines, and why polemics and populism are celebrating a comeback. Reporting the “truth” is therefore by no means the primary goal of journalism in our time. At least this can be said without reservation about the commercially oriented media companies.

Of course, this is not to say that people are lying everywhere. But it does mean that the economic rules of journalism dictate that scandals, waves of outrage and "shitstorms" are significantly more lucrative in the sense of the new “attention economy” than factual and “objective” reporting. Ideally, good journalism therefore conveys facts and figures, sticks to the truth, serves to provide honest information, separates facts from opinions, without at the same time neglecting effective stylistic devices to retain readers. As you can imagine, it is a fine line. The new currency is attention. Many things are subordinated to it.

As a third and final objection to the ideal of “objective” journalism, I would like to, indeed I must, mention the influence - perhaps even the unavoidable influence - of certain interest groups on the “fourth estate”. In the case of privately run media, the controlling influences in the background are not always easy to recognize. When a medium like Der Spiegel receives millions from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – as it openly admits on its own website – it can be found strange. However, the Hamburg-based magazine fights tooth and nail against the accusation that the subsidies from the Microsoft billionaire would call journalistic objectivity into question. Should we believe them? There are many similar cases.

The illusion of objectivity

The dilemma of objectivity in state media is much easier for readers and viewers to recognize. The public media apparatus in Germany - which now devours a whopping 10 billion euros a year - presents itself as objective, even incorruptible. Accusations that it reports in line with the government's agenda, that it deliberately agitates against the political opposition and that it repeatedly adopts a noticeably left-leaning “stance” on key social issues are vehemently rejected – which does not help, however, as the influence of the governing parties (also through the appointment of party friends to broadcasting committees) cannot be denied. Here, objective reporting is pitted against the cold calculation of power. This is a sobering realization for the democratic process.

What does this mean for journalism as such and for the role of journalism in a democratic society? At the very least, it means that it is not an easy task. The role of the media is undoubtedly incredibly important. They wield incredible power. The responsibility that goes with this is a heavy one. Many fail to live up to it. Some journalists don't even try. Does this perhaps give you an idea of how dangerous character-flexible personalities can be in front of TV cameras and behind editorial desks? And does it help you to understand the pitfalls and abysses that lie in wait for journalists in our time?

What is a journalist?

Now that we have said a few things about journalism as a social playing field and about the importance of the media as a whole, we would like to turn our attention once again to the protagonists of the media landscape itself. A wise person once said: “A journalist is someone who is willing to be disappointed by the truth.” Another, the famous German journalist Hanns Joachim Friedrichs, summed up the profession of journalism in the mid-1990s: “A good journalist is someone who does not align himself with a cause, even a good cause.”

I was impressed by these quotes when I first read them many years ago. And they have strongly shaped my understanding of the ideals – honorable ideals! – that true journalism should hold dear. When you think about it, these sentences contain everything you need to know about a good journalist: he should seek the truth sincerely – even if some relativists today flatly deny the existence of truth. He must leave personal opinions and inclinations aside in his search and strive for objectivity – even if many journalists today see this quite differently – or “must” see it differently for economic reasons. Perhaps most importantly, he must be prepared for disappointment and strong enough to cope with it, instead of clinging to the “truth” that suits him best.

My personal decision to become a journalist was based primarily on the belief that good journalists have a particularly important role to play in an increasingly complex world. They do what ordinary people cannot: they keep themselves constantly informed, keep pace with world events, ask the crucial questions, look behind the scenes. Through their publications, readers (ideally) are given the opportunity to see more, understand more, make better decisions and walk through life better informed.

The better the journalist, the wiser his readers. This also means that journalists are expected to communicate in a way that is understandable, clear, precise and, above all, honest. Journalists provide the knowledge that people need to find their way in this world. They are therefore service providers. Their audience relies on their conscientiousness and in return gives them their trust. Honesty and trust – both of these are precious commodities that have become rare and valuable in today's world.

Uncomfortable but happy

The expectations of journalists are high, and rightly so. The pressure on journalists is therefore enormous. Some nights are long. Some days are hard and dreary. What it means for the body, mind and soul to constantly see all the evils of the world spread out on your desk is something that many readers can only imagine to a limited extent. Nevertheless, I have never lost my joy in researching and writing creatively, nor my fascination with the detective work of journalists and reporters.

Admittedly, as a freelance journalist I am in a particularly privileged position. I don't have to please anyone. I can write what I believe to be true and right. No editor breathing down my neck. No institution, no sponsor, no economic pressure that could tempt me to compromise between “objectivity” and “circulation”. I never calculated that I would get rich from it. And that's not what it's about either. What it is about: being a voice that can be relied on.

What it's also about: recognizing your own limitations, constantly learning and always being willing to correct yourself. And yet there is one thing I cannot deny: to me, being a good journalist means above all being uncomfortable, speaking uncomfortable truths and making yourself unpopular with those who do not want to be bothered with the truth. For this reason, figures like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Peter Scholl-Latour and John Pilger have always been, and remain, great role models for me. In George Orwell's novel “1984”, it says: “Freedom is the right to tell others what they do not want to hear.” I have nothing to add to that.