Image: Malte Daniljuk, Data: IFEM
The myth in foreign reporting using the example of Ukraine conflict in German media
The crisis around Ukraine has polarized the German publicity in unprecedented ways. However, not, as provided for in a liberal scheme of publicity, different opinions in the area of the media depicted publicity opposite. The ditch ran between coarse parts of the audience and the professional editors. The network media contributed significantly to reproducing this disintegration gap in the previously unknown manner.
Protest on the 24. November 2013 in Kiev. Image: Ivan Bandura / CC-BY-SA-2.0
The Ukraine conflict in the German media
As from 21. November 2013 The first demonstrations on the Kiev independent place, the Maidan, collected in protesting, on the other hand, that the Government of Yanukovich had suspended the Association Agreement with the European Union, editors were first surmounted by the European Union. Within a few days, however, a dominant reading of events prevailed, the connoisants of the domestic situation in Ukraine already as undifferentiated or. had to appear one-sided. This type of first reports already presented schemes that should be paid over the entire following year.
From the first day arguments hardly played a role against the agreement in question. The fact that there were also demonstrations against an EU association, highly besides caught. Reporting was not a social debate about a controversial topic, but named polar positions – for or against the agreement. Positions and perspectives of the then opposition took a gross space of gross space. Reports, partly, suggested that a totality ("The capital Kiev", "Ukraine") themselves "rebelled against Prasident Wiktor Yanukovich". As apparent independent experts, representatives of professive Think-Thanks as the Renaissance Foundation testified this dominant view.
The political spectrum of the euro Maidan was not completely depicted. Although it was partly mentioned that together with the parties of Vitali Klitschko and Julia Tymoshenko, right-wing radicals of the Swoboda Party took part in the federal government, which immediately had militant against institutions of the chosen government and the police. However, they were damaged in reporting ("Nationalists", "right populist"To). Your occurrence was either uncommented or completely concealed. The partially extremely violent forms of the protest was either ignored or unusually uncritical as a self-relative expression of a "Democratic opposition" taken against a non-legitimate ruler.
This strong degree of negative personalization, incoming the person of Prasident Wiktor Yanukovych, determined the reporting from the beginning. When asked about its legitimity, a faster view of the regional voice distribution in the past elections had already been sufficient to see that no governing party in the young history of Ukraine had a nationwide recognition.
Background to the political and economic system of Ukraine, their political core and parties, which cited frequently in view of the at least beginning "Orange revolution" Underlying basic knowledge, hardly played a role. Therefore, a striking loss represents this because parts of the EU, in particular Germany, with the Association Agreement u.a. invited the claim that the legislative politician Julia Tymoshenko was prematurely dismissed, as was still reported. The conflict was thus directly linked to the opposed nature of political parties.
Massive and consonant presentation
A comparison of the first reports on the emerging domestic conflict in Ukraine already shows that in the various professional mass media, private and public, in radio, print and television, was strongly uniformly reported. The absolutely convenient part of the contribution came from the coarse agencies Reuters, AFP and DPA, which led over different media to exactly equal reports about various media. Where own correspondents reported, they sort at this time in Moscow and Warsaw. Not a single German medium had its own permanently stationed correspondent in Ukraine.
From December 2013, the proportion of reports of Ukraine clearly increased without the need for the already introduced reading of the conflict significantly new perspectives. According to Infomonitor of the IFEM, the country already presented the most important international topic in December. The reporting was so extraordinarily massive that they drove up the proportion of German policy reporting overall, although the December otherwise is a politically evident month.
Image: Malte Daniljuk, Data: IFEM
In the next six months, the conflict remained not only the determining AUBENPolitic topic, but the main theme of the news above, whereby the Marz formed the absolute high point with the occupation of the Crimea. Only from June 2014, First, the Fubball World Cup and finally the offensive of the organization "Islamic state" in Syria and Iraq the topic of his top place. Since September, the scope of reporting is again at the already high level of December 2013.
In this way, Ukraine reporting was achieving the two characteristics that a topic of media policy can be particularly relevant. Media mediated content then develop a special effect on the view of relevant parts of the audience if they occur both massive and consonant. In a liberal mediendemocracy, this case should not actually occur. Different ownership forms and owners as well as various individual media with their respective editors should guarantee an AUBENPLURALITAT that a variety of providers ensures a balance in the achievable information.
In addition, the freedom of design and freedom of expression should provide a certain internal planitat within a media organization for a certain internal planitat. This refers to that even users of a single medium have to have the opportunity to get to know a varied spectrum of information and opinions. The principle of the internal plurality has a long time for the public broadcasting in Germany.