[Fake News] How the public broadcaster in Germany frames the public - Justification 2019-04-26

am
In 2017 Elisabeth Wehling wrote framing manual on behalf of the public broadcaster ARD in Germany in four parts. This framing manual gives instructions on how the public service broadcasting can be shown in positive light. Framing comes from communication science and describes how statements can be embedded in a context to evoke certain associations. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
  1. Teil 1 Unser Rundfunk ARD (Legitimation) [1,p.23]
  2. Teil 2 Freiheit (Unabhängigkeit) [1,p.43]
  3. Teil 3 Beteiligung (Beitragsakzeptanz) [1,p.51]
  4. Teil 4 Zuverlässigkeit (Reform & Zukunft) [1,p.64]
[1,p.6] In February 2019 the framing manual of Elisabeth Wehling was leaked by Netzpolitik.org. However the manual does not intend to turn the staff of the public broadcaster into better journalists. The manual serves to better defend the fee for the public broadcaster and to sell the reporting more effectively. In addition the handbook confirms the allegations that there is an internally agreed newspeak and language rules with wich are argued rather than facts and objectivity. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The public broadcaster is repeatedly criticized for its own reporting and its business model. The question therefore arises for public broadcaster how this can be justified. And the justification for public service broadcasting is an explicit part of the framing manual.
Let's start with the most important thing: If you want to bring your fellow citizens to understand the added value of the ARD and to stand behind the idea of a common, free broadcaster ARD - even and especially in times in which opponents of the ARD question their relevance and drive orchestrated campaigns that depreciate the ARD in strong images and narrative - then your communication must always take place in the form of moral arguments. In the form of arguments that communicate a moral urgency and give an answer to the question: why is the ARD good - not bad, as your opponents think; and why is it important and correct to preserve the ARD in its form - not superfluous and wrong, as your opponents propagate it.

This means that the words, slogans, and narratives you use must have a primary goal: the goal of always linguistically exposing their moral perspective when discussing facts about ARD and topics such as "contributions" or "structural reform". Do not think and talk primarily in the form of fact lists and individual details. Always think and talk about the moral premises first. [1,p.3]
However instead of defining a mandate for the press and also for public broadcaster the manual gives instructions on how to counter criticism. Public service broadcasting should be morally justified. [1,p.5/6]
Immediately the fellow citizen knows what morality one is dealing with in you - as opposed to your opponents. That is in a nutshell moral framing. At this level empirical research shows that messages generate the greatest power of persuasion.

Once you have penetrated the moral premises of your own attitudes and goals (such as the preservation of a common, free broadcaster ARD) you have to put them into words in the next step and to use a language permanently that has a strong effect on the minds of your fellow citizens and convinced them of the need for the common, free broadcaster ARD. On the one hand the present manual offers concrete advice in the form of narratives catchphrases and slogans on the four subject areas Our Broadcasting ARD (Legitimation), Freedom (Independence), Participation (Contribution Acceptance) and Reliability (Reform & Future). On the other hand it has an introduction that outlines the empirical foundations of the framing method as well as hints for the optimal linguistic implementation of all framings in daily communication. [1,p.5/6]
For this purpose a false equivalence is set up by comparing the public service broadcasting with the infrastructure, pensions and the police. The infrastructure, pensions and the police have an intrinsic value. The press has only a value, if it honestly reports, not if it is propaganda or manufacturing consent or opinion making. But this is not mentioned anywhere.
Here again the direct comparison: In everyday life we use the concept offer in the context of consumption, such as the "product offer" of a shop or the "service offer" of a car repair shop. But we never talk about the jointly financed and organized "street offer", "pension offer" or "police protection offer". What is organized together for the benefit of all and with the help of all we usually do not call offer. [1,p.25]
This approach is justified only with a superficial good-bad dichotomy. Allegedly the public broadcaster ARD is a joint broadcasting democratic and takes place with the participation of the citizens. All of this is wrong. [1,p.25] [1,p.26] [1,p.27] [1,p.28] [1,p.44] [1,p.53] [1,p.56]
ARD is not a product or service provider that advertises to customers that their offers are purchased. It is the jointly made broadcasting of the citizens. Among other things about the financial participation of all of us a broadcasting capital is created which is managed by the ARD with the primary aim to enable the citizen the necessary for their own and common well-being free media infrastructure. This infrastructure includes information as well as educational and meaningful culture and entertainment formats. This media infrastructure is used by the citizens. To inform yourself or to be educated or meaningful entertained. They are the users of their joint broadcaster ARD. They are not the "consumers" of the "diverse offer" of the ARD.

Private providers are profit-oriented providers of information and entertainment. They are commercial broadcasting or even commercial media or commercial television. [1,p.25]
The ARD (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland/Association of Public Broadcasters of the Federal Republic of Germany) was founded in 1950 by the occupying powers. The broadcasting-councils (Rundfunkräte) of the regional broadcasters (Landesrundfunkanstalten) are the supreme supervisory bodies responsible for controling the program. However these are not made up of ordinary citizens nor are they elected by them, but by associations such as trade unions, women's organizations, churches and political parties.
The problem is clear: The term "public law" (öffentlich­rechtlich) transports the legal nature of ARD but not the moral social premise of the ARD. It mentally leaves out that the ARD is a collective effort of all citizens: the use of the common broadcasting capital for the common welfare and free access to a content and technically excellent media infrastructure. Where we cooperate in everyday life we speak of "joint work", of "joint effort" or of "shaping", "organizing" or "enabling" something "together". Anyone who wants their fellow citizens to recognize the value and legitimacy of the ARD more clearly or to recall it, therefore speaks better of our joint, free ARD radio about the free access to an excellent media infrastructure at the highest level of content and technology. [1,p.28]
The distance from the audience and fee payers is probably known to the author Elisabeth Wehling. It is recommended that no reform of the structures takes place but a reinterpretation of the situation.
Our self-interest in the common broadcast infrastructure ARD is more comprehensive. Because it is the foundation of our private and economic well-being. Both when we ourselves make use of free access to the joint program and when we do not and instead only 'profit' from the social, democratic and economic stability that the ARD ensures.

Broadcasting is living personal responsibility for German culture, business and democracy as the basis of our individual well-being. Only in a country with a stable common broadcasting infrastructure can one live freely and successfully and pursue one's business. [1,p.35]

However the ARD does not produce a program as an entity separate from the citizen which is then consumed by the citizen as a passive second entity by "watching" as an "audience". Rather the ARD is the common, democratic broadcasting of citizens - who in turn enjoy free access to all broadcasts of their media infrastructure. We use the program - in many different ways - that we enable together. [1,p.44]
The framing manual calls for deliberately influencing the audience and the fee payers. This behavior is ultimately intended to justify public service broadcasting. But such behavior inevitably raises the question of whether and if so how it can be justified.
What should be criticized about that?!

Ralf Stegner (SPD) []
General secretary Susanne Pfab and ARD editor-in-chief Rainald Becker have defended the framing manual in various interviews. According to her statements the framing manual was and is not binding. However it is noticeable that the interviews are about the framing manual and not about the framing itself. In addition the interviews were not repeated several times and dismisses Pfab and Becker prematurely from their responsibility. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Of course we want to convince with our program. Framing does not replace substantive reasoning.

General secretary Susanne Pfab [7]

For me the realization was very important that we do not speak honestly here. The term "public welfare media" (Gemeinwohlmedien) expresses much better what we stand for as "public law" (öffentlich-rechtlich).

also General secretary Susanne Pfab [8]

I can not detect a scandal there as some have done. We did not pay anyone under minimum wage, we did not oppress anybody. I think that's an artificially inflated discussion.

ARD editor-in-chief Rainald Becker [9]

I am shocked by the allegations. Especially because the background is completely ignored. I have written an internal paper based on workshops with a working group of ARD 2017. The idea was to analyze individual terms in the transmitter's communication and to suggest alternatives.

Elisabeth Wehling [10]
A very similar behavior is also found by Elisabeth Wehling the author of the Framing Manual. Just like the representatives of public service broadcasting, Wehling downplays the framing manual as a non-binding recommendation. The representatives of the ARD expressed themselves equal. Both do not offer a justification or explanation for the procedure. Both pretend that such manipulation techniques are not a problem. [11] [12] [13]
Every debate of democracy is about facts. These are interpreted differently by words from different sides - depending on the point of view. The words that do this are always charged with different meanings. A conscious classification and use of language is thus central to a clear communication of the own classification of facts. Or as the thematic document states: "Communication of the principles is not only maximally effective. But it is also most honest, authentic and democratic to communicate these principles. "

Elisabeth Wehling [12]

...
Due to the unclear title of this is the paper writte by Dr. Wehling has now been attributed all kinds of meaning. It is expressly neither a new communication strategy nor a language or even instruction to the employees but proposals from a linguistic point of view.
...
Among other things the working document points out that it makes sense to disclose the underlying values through linguistic formulations. For example the phrase "public broadcaster" does not contain any substantive statement except to specify the legal organizational form. "Our common free broadcasting" however points to the charity-oriented mission of the ARD for the entire society.
...
Facts and substantive arguments are always in the foreground. We must and must convince with our offer for all.
...

ARD [13]
The costs for the framing manual and the related training were according to the ARD at 120,000 euros. 90,000 euros were accounted for by the documents and another 30,000 euros by the training courses. The decision was made according to the ARD because media were generally strongly criticized during this time. [14] [15]

[1] Öffentlichkeit - Wir veröffentlichen das Framing-Gutachten der ARD 2019-02-17
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wir-veroeffentlichen-das-framing-gutachten-der-ard/
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/02/framing_gutachten_ard.pdf
[2] Elisabeth Wehling zu Gast bei ORF Zeit Im Raum 2016-03-03
https://youtu.be/xc7gZ_c65HU
[3] Elisabeth Wehling: Politisches Framing - Wie Deutschland sich politische Wahrheiten einredet 2016-03-04
https://youtu.be/r8Radhef5eI
[4] re:publica 2017 – Elisabeth Wehling: Die Macht der Sprachbilder – Politisches Framing 2017-12-07
https://youtu.be/mrFtMGLPosc
[5] re:publica 2017 – Elisabeth Wehling: Die Macht der Sprachbilder – Politisches Framing ... 2017-05-11
https://youtu.be/3tuaXaXJ02g
[6] Ralf Stegner: Was soll daran eigentlich kritikwürdig sein?! 2019-02-18
https://twitter.com/Ralf_Stegner/status/1097756489199091713
[7] Wofür braucht die ARD denn ein “Framing Manual”? Generalsekretärin Susanne Pfab über den viel diskutierten Sprach-Leitfaden 2019-02-12
https://meedia.de/2019/02/12/wofuer-braucht-die-ard-denn-ein-framing-manual-generalsekretaerin-susanne-pfab-ueber-den-viel-diskutierten-sprach-leitfaden/
[8] ARD-GENERALSEKRETÄRIN - „Das Papier ist völlig ungeeignet zur kommentarlosen Weiterleitung“ 2019-02-18
https://www.welt.de/kultur/medien/article188982137/ARD-Generalsekretaerin-Pfab-Framing-ersetzt-keine-inhaltliche-Argumentation.html
[9] Rainald Becker - ARD-Chefredakteur nennt Kritik an „Framing Manual“ übertrieben 2019-02-19
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/rainald-becker-ard-chefredakteur-nennt-kritik-an-framing-manual-uebertrieben/24015000.html
[10] Elisabeth Wehling : "Ich bin schockiert über die Vorwürfe" 2019-02-27
https://www.zeit.de/2019/10/elisabeth-wehling-linguistin-framing-manual-ard-sprache
[11] Berkeley International Framing Institute
https://www.framinginstitute.org/mind-and-language
[12] IN EIGENER SACHE: KLARSTELLUNG ZUR AKTUELLEN DEBATTE
http://www.elisabethwehling.com/klarstellungzuraktuellendebatte
[13] Klarstellung von ARD-Generalsekretärin Dr. Susanne Pfab - Was hat es mit dem so genannten "Framing Manual" auf sich? 2019-02-17
http://www.ard.de/home/die-ard/presse-kontakt/pressearchiv/Klarstellung_Was_hat_es_mit_dem_Framing_Manual_auf_sich_/5314070/index.html
[14] Untersuchung zur Wirkung von Sprache - "Framing-Manual" der ARD kostet 120.000 Euro 2019-02-19
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/untersuchung-zur-wirkung-von-sprache-framing-manual-der-ard-kostet-120-000-euro/24014524.html
[15] ARD : Sender legt Kosten für umstrittenes Framing-Gutachten offen 2019-02-20
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2019-02/ard-framing-gutachten-kosten-offenlegung-rundfunkbeitrag-oeffentlich-rechtlicher-rundfunk

Kommentare

Kommentar veröffentlichen