[Dossier] ARD Framing Manual

Tags:
Fake News , Manufacturing Consent

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]

[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

1. The Manual
1. Framing
2. Justification
3. The mandatory Fee
4. Attitude Journalism

The Manual

Framing

Framing is a process of communication and describes how statements can be embedded in a certain context. In this case associations with certain topics, qualities or moral dimensions can be evoked. Words and statements with the same content can usually be predicated on different expressions. As a result framing inevitably occurs. An exception are purely mathematical or scientific contexts.

Let's move to the next level - from moral concerns to language. Language is the most effective tool for mobilizing fellow citizens because of a simple truth: language activates frames.

Every single word activates a frame in the recipient's head. This is true for all languages. For example the word "salt" activates a frame that automatically implies concepts such as food and taste, and even thirst. The reason is that the brain relies on its world experience to give meaning to individual lexemes. Whatever the brain has stored in concrete experience to "salt" it activates to capture the semantics of the word. This even includes simulating taste. [1,p.10]

However the manual does not intended to turn the staff of the public broadcaster into better journalists. This is never mentioned in the entire manual. The entire manual also never writes about the role of the press or the public broadcaster.

Whenever you face such linguistic attacks you must not do one thing: pick up the concepts of the attackers in any form even if negated. Do not say that you find the term "lying press" (Lügenpresse) inappropriate. Do not say that the accusation that ARD is "stirrup of politics" (Steigbügel der Politik) is unjustified. Do not speak of the "so-called" lying press (Lügenpresse) or use quotation marks to rhetorically distance yourself from a concept, such as: "lying press" (Lügenpresse). In each of these cases you propagate the moral attack of your opponents. To negate frames means to activate them. [1,p.16]

The manual primarily gives instructions on how to better defend the fee for the public broadcaster. In addition the manual gives instructions on how to sell the coverage more effectively with moral associations or framing. For this Wehling does not shy away from advising success by repetition. Wehling's instructions are thus alarmingly close to propaganda. [1,p.17]

We do not perceive it and we can not influence it. But it has central implications for your communication: never, never, never use the frame of your opponents, and use those frames that make your moral perspective on the issues clear over and over again - from interview to interview, from Debate on debate, from document to document. Only through the constant repetition of new linguistic patterns over a longer period of time is it possible to cognitively enforce the new frames and thereby make them a realistic perceptual alternative. [1,p.17]

And not least because of such behavior the public broadcaster is regularly criticized. However reforms are presented as illegitimate or inappropriate as the public broadcaster is to be maintained for future generations and the public broadcaster is part of the media infrastructure. This way the public broadcaster becomes an end in itself. [1,p.66ff]

Everything else would neglect our media infrastructure and would thus lead to their decay in the long term.
... [1,p.67]

So do not talk about reform talk about the responsibility to always design the media infrastructure to meet the needs of citizens.
... [1,p.69]

Do not talk about the "tasks" or the "mandate" of the ARD but about the "responsibility" of those who manage the common broadcasting capital and use ARD for the common, free media infrastructure.
... [1,p.69]

In order to portray reforms on the public broadcaster as illegitimate or inappropriate various recommendations are made. Critics of the size of public broadcasting should be portrayed as if these want to take others something away. Thus public broadcasting is presented as without alternative. [1,p.71ff]

Anyone who wants to "downsize" the ARD calls into question the citizens' right to a comprehensive and thorough broadcasting service.
... [1,p.72]

Anyone who wants to "shrink" the ARD is willing to let it happen in favor of commercial broadcasters and at the expense of citizens for a partial media coverage. It is ready to gradually deprive citizens of free access to a complete and all-accommodating broadcasting infrastructure. One is prepared to let quite considerable parts of our German film and German culture which has been organized on the common broadcasting to get out of the way and to make room for profitably accessing our need for information, education and entertainment by international corporations and everything that is cheap to produce and sell at a high price. [1,p.73]

If you want to make your fellow citizens understand the tasks and goals of the ARD and defend them against the orchestrated attacks of opponents then your communication should not come in the form of pure fact arguments but should always be built on moral frames that those facts that you consider to be important are consider urgent and are interpreted them from your point of view - not those of your opponents. [1,p.77]

The press and also the public service broadcasting have the task to enlighten and to check the behaviour of the politics. The press should be neutral but not arrogant. The press should take things without prejudice and not be committed to anything.

Das hab’ ich in meinen fünf Jahren bei der BBC in London gelernt: Distanz halten, sich nicht gemein machen mit einer Sache, auch nicht mit einer guten, nicht in öffentliche Betroffenheit versinken, im Umgang mit Katastrophen cool bleiben, ohne kalt zu sein. Nur so schaffst du es, dass die Zuschauer dir vertrauen, dich zu einem Familienmitglied machen, dich jeden Abend einschalten und dir zuhören. [2]

That I learned during my five years at the BBC in London: Keeping a distance, not to ally with one thing, not even with a good one, not to sink into affliction in public, stay cool in dealing with disasters without being cold. That's the only way you can get viewers to trust you, to make you a family member, so they look at you at every night and listen to you.

This is a way of working that is attributed to the German journalist Hanns Joachim Friedrichs. Whether he is the author and whether Friedrich has always done justice to it is not the topic here. But the idea is essential because what the supposedly good thing is can change. And then something wrong can be done in the name of good. Anyone who has experienced a communist or socialist government or has relatives from that time knows such stories.

SZ: The letterhead of your ARD paper reads: Berkeley International Framing Instititute. Under an institute one imagines something with offices, coworkers, computers and perhaps laboratory. Is that it?

Elisabeth Wehling: It is a brand under which I advise. [4]

Elisabeth Wehling however also applied framing to her own benefit and in her own interest. Wehling has offered their work under the name "Berkeley International Framing Institute". An imprint, an address, contact details or employees are not mentioned. And the Berkeley International Framing Institute has nothing to do with the University of Berkeley. Wehling however sees no problem in this type of procedure. [3] [4] [5]

Elisabeth Wehling: I know there are a lot of crazy theories going on right now. But all my customers know the Berkeley International Framing Institute is my brand under which I offer consultancy. An institute with rooms never existed and that was never suggested - as I said it is a brand.

ZEIT: I spoke to people who asked you for interviews or events. Some thought their institute was located in the US others in Berlin or Hamburg. But everyone thought it was an offshoot of the prestigious University of California.

Elisabeth Wehling: I do not know who you spoke to. But the name can be better classified, if you know the history. I have been studying at the University of Berkeley for twelve years. Two years ago four colleagues and I realized that there is a need in Germany. We wanted to offer workshops on framing science everything was alright the concept, the brand. But then the colleagues had less interest in the German debate than me. So I went on alone. [5]

[1] Öffentlichkeit - Wir veröffentlichen das Framing-Gutachten der ARD 2019-02-17
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wir-veroeffentlichen-das-framing-gutachten-der-ard/
[2] Cool bleiben, nicht kalt 1995-03-27
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9176410.html
[3] ARD-"Framing Manual" - Elisabeth Wehling verteidigt sich 2019-02-23
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/ard-framing-manual-elisabeth-wehling-berkely-international-framing-institute-1.4341625
[4] ARD-"Framing Manual" - "Ich habe noch nie einem Kunden vorgeschrieben, was er sagen soll" 2019-02-27
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/elisabeth-wehling-framing-ard-linguistik-sprachwissenschaft-1.4346478
[5] Elisabeth Wehling : "Ich bin schockiert über die Vorwürfe" 2019-02-27
https://www.zeit.de/2019/10/elisabeth-wehling-linguistin-framing-manual-ard-sprache

Justification

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.

Was soll daran eigentlich kritikwürdig sein?! https://t.co/6b2RrMRrNe

— Ralf Stegner (@Ralf_Stegner) February 19, 2019

What should be criticized about that?!

Ralf Stegner (SPD) []

Secretary General 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. [3] [4] [5] [6]

Of course we want to convince with our program. Framing does not replace substantive reasoning.

General secretary Susanne Pfab [3]

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 [4]

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 [5]

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 [6]

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. [7] [8] [9]

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 [8]

...
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 [9]

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. [10] [11]

[1] Öffentlichkeit - Wir veröffentlichen das Framing-Gutachten der ARD 2019-02-17
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wir-veroeffentlichen-das-framing-gutachten-der-ard/
[2] Ralf Stegner: Was soll daran eigentlich kritikwürdig sein?! 2019-02-18
https://twitter.com/Ralf_Stegner/status/1097756489199091713
[3] 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/
[4] 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
[5] 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
[6] Elisabeth Wehling : "Ich bin schockiert über die Vorwürfe" 2019-02-27
https://www.zeit.de/2019/10/elisabeth-wehling-linguistin-framing-manual-ard-sprache
[7] Berkeley International Framing Institute
https://www.framinginstitute.org/mind-and-language
[8] IN EIGENER SACHE: KLARSTELLUNG ZUR AKTUELLEN DEBATTE
http://www.elisabethwehling.com/klarstellungzuraktuellendebatte
[9] 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
[10] 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
[11] 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

The mandatory Fee

In Germany, there are two broadcasters that are considered to be public. The group from ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio (German-Radio) as well as Deutsche Welle (German Wave).

The Deutsche Welle (German Wave) is funded directly by the state and is actually the foreign broadcaster. The annual budget amounts to 301.8 million euros per year. [2] The ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio (German-Radio) group is funded by a monthly fee of 17.50 euros and is actually the domestic broadcaster. The annual budget amounts to 8.1 billion euros per year. [3]

Due to the extensive coverage Deutsche Welle (German-Wave) is almost a full-fledged national broadcaster. And countering the criticism of these costs is an explicit part of the framing manual.

In short, within the payment frame the legally required contribution payment becomes a compulsion to conclude a sales contract: Compulsion to enter into contracts for things you do not want to buy; Forced to pay for things that you do not use yourself but other customers.
...

In fact participation in the ARD is an act of cultural and democratic self-care: We ensure (caution: not "afford us"!) through our monthly participation the free media infrastructure ARD which is the basis of our daily private and economic life. Through participation we obtain the shelter within which free, genuine information work and long-term educational and meaningful entertainment can live and thrive. Every month we contribute to this protection against the influence of profit and political influence - for a media infrastructure that guarantees our democratic, private and economic freedom of movement. [1,p.53]

However the framing manual is not about saving money or using the money as good as possible. It is only about the reinterpretation for the public service broadcasting to reinterpret.

Let's get to the fifth and final term the "fee". Among other things it became prominent in the context of the ARD through the introduction of the concept of "democracy fee". While the frame activated here in turn puts the issue of money in the foreground (we "pay" fees) the bigger problem lies somewhere else. Namely it semantically profiled the frame of the transfer of an object (here: money) from one entity (here: citizen) to another entity (here: the ARD). In this way due to its inherent frame semantics it directly opposes the moral concern of joint participation in ARD: the participation and joint organization and design of a free media infrastructure with the participation of all those who depend on this infrastructure as individuals business people and members of German society. [1,p.56]

...
In addition it is important to say goodbye to a language that makes the ARD otherwise understandable as an entity detached from the citizen. For example the ARD "does not finance itself" from the contributions of the citizens". It "does not spend the broadcasting fees for administration and program". Rather it manages and uses our common broadcasting capital and does so in a way that does not exclude, leave out, or neglect, according to the principle of equivalency any citizen involved in broadcasting or any region involved in broadcasting. [1,p.56]

It is advisable to reinterpret the levy as a membership although there is no forum for participation for the public and the contributors. It is advised to use euphemisms such as the democracy fee.

So the citizens contribute to the joint broadcast ARD. We all contribute to our joint ARD broadcasting. These formulations are strong partners of the participation framework. [1,p.57]

For the purposes of the ARD a good semantic comrade at the side of the participation framework (and implicitly also the participation framework) is the concept of "contribution". It generates similar to the 'participation' automatically a frame that puts the collaborative effort in the foreground. Because: You can not contribute to something that others do not contribute to. Who says: "I contribute to the house cleaning", who does not clean the house alone. [1,p.58]

The debate about costs is particularly interesting when compared to paying employees. On the one hand the directors and directors of the Land broadcasters earn enormous salaries. These range from 170,000 to 380,000 euros per year. On the other hand the conditions for the other employees are rather precarious. Only about half of the remaining staff have permanent employment contracts and are represented by trade unions. [4] [5] [5,pdf]

Landesrundfunkanstalt	BR	HR	MDR	NDR	RBB	RB	SR	SWR	WDR
Jahresgehälter 2017 der Intendant/in p.a. in Euro	373,000	272,000	275,000	345,000	255,000	271,000	242,000	343,000	379,000
Durchschnittliche Monatsgehälter 2017 der Direktor/innen in Euro	18,454	15,831	14,773	18,827	15,593	14,171	14,133	18,200	18,731

[4]

[1] Öffentlichkeit - Wir veröffentlichen das Framing-Gutachten der ARD 2019-02-17
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wir-veroeffentlichen-das-framing-gutachten-der-ard/
[2] Deutsche Welle erhält mehr als zehn Millionen zusätzlich 2015-12-01
https://www.horizont.net/medien/nachrichten/Etataufstockung-Deutsche-Welle-erhaelt-mehr-als-zehn-Millionen-zusaetzlich-137721
[3] RUNDFUNKBEITRAG : 8.131.285.001,97 Euro 2016-06-14
http://www.faz.net/-gqz-8i8dv
[4] Gehälter und Vergütungen in der ARD - Feste Mitarbeiter und außertariflich Vergütete 2019-03-15
http://www.ard.de/home/die-ard/fakten/Gehaelter_und_Verguetungen_in_der_ARD/4127124/index.html
[5] Beschäftigte zweiter Klasse? Gute Arbeit auch für Freie 2019 Januar
https://www.rosalux.de/publikation/id/39863/beschaeftigte-zweiter-klasse-gute-arbeit-auch-fuer-freie/
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studien/190125-Beschaeftigte-2.Klasse-Rundfunk.pdf

Attitude Journalism

A non-explicit but recurrent aspect is the justification of certain positions with moral arguments. The word "attitude journalism" (Haltungsjournalismus) has become established in Germany for this approach.

But not only is moral narratives have the greatest cognitive traction in mobilizing approval or rejection of a thing. But they are also the most honest. [1,p.4]

The work of the ARD is supported by moral principles. The ARD is committed to certain things because it is convinced of their moral need for social interaction. A communication of these principles is not only maximally effective where it comes to getting fellow citizens on board and to inspire for the ARD. [1,p.4]

For this it is recommended how to deal with the arguments of the other side. However it does not define or clarify a task for the press or public broadcaster or logical fallacies.

We do not take it and we can not influence it. But it has central consequences for your communication: Never, never, ever use the frame of your opponents and use those frames that make your moral perspective on the facts clear over and over again - from interview to interview, from debate to debate, from document to document. Only through the constant repetition of new linguistic patterns over a longer period of time is it possible to cognitively enforce the new frames and thereby make them a realistic perceptual alternative. [1,p.17]

In addition to this comes a strange relationship to language. One can assume that Elisabeth Wehling knows how framing and its influence work. But she also defends what she calls honest language and is also referred to as political correctness. Thus Wehling proves her split relationship to framing in good and bad framing.

Strategic Framings is a gradual process. Never try to deny a discussion - be it "participation" or "freedom" - completely overnight within the new narratives and buzzwords and abruptly drop all the terminology you are currently using. This creates confusion and makes it unnecessarily vulnerable - especially in times when honest language is increasingly defamed as 'Political Correctness'. In addition it can make it difficult for the fellow citizen to understand their goals and messages if he suddenly finds none of the standard ARD formulations. [1,p.18]

Das hab’ ich in meinen fünf Jahren bei der BBC in London gelernt: Distanz halten, sich nicht gemein machen mit einer Sache, auch nicht mit einer guten, nicht in öffentliche Betroffenheit versinken, im Umgang mit Katastrophen cool bleiben, ohne kalt zu sein. Nur so schaffst du es, dass die Zuschauer dir vertrauen, dich zu einem Familienmitglied machen, dich jeden Abend einschalten und dir zuhören. [2]

That I learned during my five years at the BBC in London: Keeping a distance, not to ally with one thing, not even with a good one, not to sink into affliction in public, stay cool in dealing with disasters without being cold. That's the only way you can get viewers to trust you, to make you a family member, so they look at you at every night and listen to you.

In fact journalists can commit serious mistakes. People may knowingly or unknowingly select or interpret information in a way that confirms their own expectations. This behavior can also be seen in the fact that people are more likely to remember events that confirm their own expectations. Such behavior is called confirmation bias. Another such mistakes is the misinterpretion by omission. This is not a direct lie but the deliberate omission of informations that does not confirm your own expectations. Such behavior is also called lying by omission.

The journalists Anja Reschke and Georg Restle from public broadcaste also suggest this. Both criticize the neutrality requirement for journalists. Both have called for journalism to report oriented on values and demonstrate their attitude. Restle admits that journalists always include their own attitude when selecting and sorting out news. Instead of a balanced, critical and neutral reporting he argues that journalists should be humanistic. Reschke directly paints the oversized straw man. According to her democracy is endangered in Germany and the political situation is comparable to the Weimar Republic. The threat is allegedly from the right. However she does not provide any evidence for this. So both want to cancel the neutrality requirement in favor of a supposedly good cause. [3] [4,S.44-45] [5] [6]

However when journalists do not focus on the facts but on an attitude then this is reflected in the reporting. So the question is what kind of attitude journalists have. According to a study on the views and voting behavior of journalists in Germany a quarter of the journalists choose the vote for the Green-Party. And almost half of the journalists choose the left-wing and Green parties. The conservative CDU/CSU and the marcet-liberal FDP account for only 9 and 7.4 percent respectively. Left and Greens are thus over-represented while other parties are dramatically underrepresented. [7,S.18]

The Framing-Manual like the case of Claas Relotius sheds a glaring light on the methods and arrogance of some journalists. And if the journalists do not draw conclusions then readers have to do it. Criticism of the press is therefore not just serving the wrong people. Because of such affairs it is even more important to say what is. If the truth supposedly serves the wrong people then something is odd about the right people.

[1] Öffentlichkeit - Wir veröffentlichen das Framing-Gutachten der ARD 2019-02-17
https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wir-veroeffentlichen-das-framing-gutachten-der-ard/
[2] Cool bleiben, nicht kalt 1995-03-27
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9176410.html
[3] Georg Restle 2018-07-03
https://twitter.com/georgrestle/status/1014133298245853184/photo/1
[4] print Juli/August 2018
http://print.wdr.de/2018-07_08/
[5] Anja Reschke: "Dagegen halten - Mund aufmachen" NDR 2015-08-05
https://youtu.be/i9kv-rmvGKg
[6] Haltung zeigen! - mit Anja Reschke 2018-12-27
https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/srfglobal/video/haltung-zeigen-mit-anja-reschke?id=7d4dc80c-8f00-4df6-9d9e-1de8056b0508&startTime=198.067514&station=dd0fa1ba-4ff6-4e1a-ab74-d7e49057d96f
[7] POLITIKJOURNALISTINNEN UND -JOURNALISTEN 2010-05
https://www.dfjv.de/documents/10180/178294/DFJV_Studie_Politikjournalistinnen_und_Journalisten.pdf