“None of our politicians since Franklin has found such a direct contact to the masses”. Eleanor Roosevelt about John F. Kennedy (Photo: http://bit.ly/iWNn4)

In these days, Barack Obama is negotiating with the Republicans over the national debt limit and, in the end, over America’s creditworthiness and the country’s future rating on the financial markets. The talks prove to be extremely complicated for the man who had been carried in the White House on a wave of enthusiasm. And the next election campaign is just around the corner. The question is: Can he repeat his success from 2008 where he ran a brilliant grassroots campaign?

While reading Robert Dallek’s fascinating biography on John F. Kennedy, I found so much support for the common comparison between Obama and JFK 50 years earlier.

Both were members of a minority in the US (JFK: catholic, Obama: Afro-American). Both were considered to be the underdog in the election campaign or throughout the nomination process (Nixon, Clinton). Both did not come from families, which had run the White House before.

Both were young and sympathetic. Both were Democrats. Both were criticized for being too young and inexperienced. Both held great speeches. Both had similar slogans and themes for their campaigns (JFK: “the new frontier” / “let’s get the county moving again”, Obama: “yes we can”).

Finally, both won the elections because they had been able to activate minorities in the vote, i.e. the non-white, non-protestant, non-mainstream voters. Eleanor Roosevelt said about JFK: “None of our politicians since Franklin has found such a direct contact to the masses”.

Yet, from my point of view, here also lies the decisive difference between the campaigning of JFK and Obama.

While both won these minorities, they achieved this goal through different strategies: Whereas Kennedy strongly benefitted from the massive funding of his campaign by his father, mostly via the mass media and advertising, Obama won due to his revolutionary grassroots campaign in which he won thousands of volunteers to actively support his campaign.

Hence, one could well argue that the following quote by Henry Brandon (Sunday Times) about JFK suits both candidates: “He is a child of his time. He knows intuitively how to make use of the modern communication technologies for his aims”. Being a child of JFK’s time meant to make use of the mass media, their omnipresence and to travel the country. Campaigning in 2008 meant dealing with social media and participatory forms of communication as well.

Obama’s grassroots campaign became part of his image as a presidential candidate who seeks the direct contact with the voter and thereby fosters the democratic spirit. Therefore, the Obama campaign fostered the widely supported belief that “personal contacting by the major parties is only likely to grow in significance and importance in future presidential contests” (Panagopoulos/Francia 2009: 328).

The question for 2012 is: Can Obama repeat this success? Is it possible to reactivate all this volunteer energy after four years of grim negotiations and political arguments in office?

While classic mass media campaigning proved to be successful over and over again, JFK did not have the chance to make the case for himself a second time.

Max Frisch turned 100 (Source: http://bit.ly/iOtP6c)

Bob Dylan just turned 70. And Max Frisch turned 100. Well, at least he would have. Both artists are very important to me. The way both Dylan and Frisch express (or expressed) themselves somehow speaks to me. Why is that so? I think it’s the same reason why I like the paintings of Edward Hopper. Everything these people create has some kind of beauty.

„The retreat of the human being to an artistic figure is the aesthetic sign of this book. It helped the author to develop a new kind of sovereignty”, Guenter Bloecker once said about Frisch’s Mein Name sei Gantenbein. I think it is exactly this sentence, which defines Dylan, Frisch and Hopper for me.

In their music, in their paintings and their writing, the human being is an artwork in itself. While a lot of their fictional characters are complicated and broken people (actually, most of them are), everything they do shows some kind of aesthetic behavior. They spend their time thinking about things they either lost or they will never reach. Yet, the language they chose to express these failures appeals to the audience. These characters are unsolved puzzles, which are are beautiful because of the way they try to solve themselves – and not because of a nice and complete picture that comes up at the end. After all, this is the reason why one reads Frisch’s novels or listens to Dylan’s music. It’s because their characters are beautiful.

I am well aware of the fact that Dylan and Frisch (and Hopper) are old – i.e. they are artists from yesterday. One could argue that they are no longer able to express the problems of today’s society and that the work of newer artists is therefore much more interesting.

Yet, I don’t think this is true. Their central topic is individuality and the question how human beings try to cope with the fact that they sometimes fall in love and that they have to die someday. Besides the fact that these topics will always be of relevance to us, I still find their work especially important today because I think that the aesthetic handling of life’s circumstances is something that can provide meaning for our times as well.

Sure – the heyday of individualism is over. Today, we are more than ever aware of the fact that there hardly is such a thing as the “perfect hero”. We also know that the biggest challenges today require a joint approach to answering them – be it climate change or poverty. Somehow, it has become objectionable to be the “lone wolf” as the facebook universe wants you to link up with everybody.

Yet, from my point of view, the beauty of silence and of the lonely thinker is more valuable to today’s noisy 24/7 society than ever. While everyone has to get back to his or her busy smartphone life the next morning, an evening with Max Frisch or Bob Dylan provides you with something that gives you strength. It’s the beauty of life, the beauty of individuality – the beauty of complexity.

Noam Chomsky (Source: http://bit.ly/gYOtrn)

Of course I was disappointed. When I followed the German news on the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, I got the feeling that the world was unable to adress the size of the challenge ahead. I fully agreed with the coverage in German newspapers, which emphasised that this had probably been the last chance to turn the game around – and that we failed to take it. Yet, facing the the rather uniform coverage on Copenhagen, I started wondering whether media in the US or China would be treating the topic in a similar way.

Or were the media, as Noam Chomsky would say, caught in a propaganda model that caused a strongly biased view upon Copenhagen? A view, that was favoured by national elites? This question became my master thesis. During the development of my dissertation, the focus of the study switched from Copenhagen to the Propaganda Model. Therefore, the project became more of a critical assessment of the theory.

I applied the Propaganda Model by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to the coverage of Copenhagen in four American and four German quality newspapers. I picked up several suggestions of earlier studies in this field and especially tried to address various earlier methodological shortcomings.

The model expected the media coverage in both countries to be biased towards the interests of national elites through the influence of ‘five filters’.

“(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and ‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anticommunism’ as a national religion and control mechanism.” (Herman/Chomsky 1988: 2)

Hence, this study assessed to which degree, if any, the Propaganda Model could predict or explain the coverage of Copenhagen and of topics related to climate change in both countries during December 2009.

The results of both a quantitative and a qualitative content analysis indicated an ambivalent validity of the model’s expectations: On the one hand, the Propaganda Model was able to provide some significant explanation on the surface of the coverage in both countries. On the other hand, the model suffered from its neglect of possible alternative explanations and falls short of anticipating the more detailed characteristics of the coverage as well as the framing of several key issues.

A quantitative content analysis showed that the German newspapers paid indeed more attention to Copenhagen and to climate change and its victims, but less attention to ‘Climategate’. Official political sources dominated the coverage in both countries. Furthermore, there was at least partial evidence for the assumption that the national delegations would be depicted in a rather positive light (US papers) and that the German papers would be more critical towards the progress in Copenhagen. Finally, a qualitative analysis revealed that the German papers are indeed less pleased with the Copenhagen Accord than the US papers.

However, the quantitative analysis also showed that there is plenty of space for alternative voices, both in Germany and the US. The German newspapers did not focus as much on national sources as the US papers. Furthermore, the US newspapers did not frame Copenhagen differently with regard to environmental or economic issues. The German papers neither gave more importance to the protests in Copenhagen, nor published more front-page articles or portrayed their delegation in a rather positive way. Moreover, the US papers actually provided more evidence in favour of climate change than against it. The latter finding was further supported by the qualitative content analysis, which revealed that both countries dealt with ‘Climategate’ in a rather critical manner.

Hence, my thesis finally contended that, despite several significant findings, it would be wrong to assume that the model is able to predict or explain the American and German coverage of Copenhagen to a large extent.

Yosemite National Park from Glacier Point.

I loved every second. From the touchdown in LA to the helicopter flight through the Grand Canyon. I surely did one of the most travelled trips through the states at all (LA – Sequoia National Park – Yosemite – Death Valley – Vegas – Grand Canyon – LA). Yet, the beauty of this country made me forget my “Ze-German-Tourist-on-his-way”-appearance completely. I was too impressed to feel embarrassed.

Every day seemed to compete with the other ones. Touching General Sherman Tree in Sequia National Park. Being frozen to nearly zero degrees celcius on the camping ground on 2000 metres (put your food in the bear box!). Taking a glance from Glacier Point in Yosemite. Driving through the Death Valley and passing by the “Death Valley School Bus” (no joke). Avoiding the depths of Las Vegas. Swimming in Lake Mead. Passing the Hoover Dam. Looking for the Colorado River between the cliffs of the Canyon (smaller than I expected).

As soon as I found the right video converter, I will post something here… better than squeezing this trip into several lines, I guess.

Abel Tasman National Park in New Zealand.

The media had only one topic in the days right before my visit to New Zealand: The earthquake in Christchurch. Even though I had been a bit worried at first – it did not affect my journey at all. I was lucky to have a nice trip through the whole northern and  a small part of the southern island. Yet: It was winter.

Approximately 10 out of my 12 days at the Tasmanian Sea were rainy and cold, in Henmar Springs there was even snow. Hence, I surely did not get to know the amazing blooming landscapes of New Zealand.

However, besides my red nose and a sour throat, the road trip paid out anyway: Especially the volcanic region around lake Taupo was extremely fascinating. While I had been to the Vesuvius before, the size and liveliness of this region was very different: You can walk for miles and find smoking stones and hot water at every corner.

On the other hand, I did not really fall in love with Auckland and Wellington. I got nearly swept away by rain showers and spring storms (even though I was lucky not to catch any ferry or plane on the worst days). Therefore, after nearly two weeks of rugby, kiwis, wind and rain it was time for a new destination – California.

Hong Kong from Victoria Peak.

No, it’s not rain. When there is clear blue sky and 33 degrees celcius in Hong Kong, the only water coming from above is the tiny cool drops running out of the thousands of air conditionings on the walls of every building. When I first crossed Nathan Road in Kowloon, I wondered how much energy this city would possibly consume on a single day. Yet, the beauty of Hong Kong struck me from the very first moment of my journey.

The amazing view from Victoria Peak over the bay and the countless skyscrapers was probably the most impressive highlight of my first day. When looking down on the giant ships moving through the harbour and all the global banks, you forget about the financial crisis for a while. It really feels like standing in the middle of one of the nervous centers of Asia’s economy.

Moreover, the glooming advertisements on the streets at night time, the exotic smell from the Chinese markets and the amazing food in the countless restaurants convinced me very quickly that Hong Kong definitely deserves its reputation as one of the world’s most interesting cities.

After a 12 hours flight from London over central Asia and a quick ride in the airport express to Hong Kong Central, life was not too complicated: By looking at the road signs, the street names and the bank buildings, the old British colony reminded me many times of London. Everybody I asked for direction or any kind of help was very kind. For somebody without any Chinese language skills like me, this was a great deal: I made it to Repulse Bay, Hong Kong’s most popular beach, by bus on my first day. There’s more to come!

This afternoon, I came across an interesting passage in Anatole Kaletsky’s “Capitalism 4.0″ (2010):

“The media, influential academics, and the political establishment usually hold the same view. These powerful opinion-formers have risen to prominence under the old system. Their intellectual conservatism is often even more entrenched than lobbyists’ pragmatic economic interests” (ibid: 24).

I don’t like the book only because George Soros seems to like it (at least that’s what the cover says). I like it because Kaletsky’s theory about the evolution of capitalism is at the same time complex and straightforward.

Yet, the quoted sentence struck me.

It reminded me of Herman’s and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model (1988), which contends the view that the media in many democratic countries are part of the establishment and ‘protect’ the interests of the ‘elites’ due to the influence of several filters like ownership, profit-orientation or advertising (also the topic of my master thesis; to be published here later this year).

Hence, this sentence made me suspicious and it made me think. Is Kaletsky right when he claims that the media “usually hold the same view” as the establishment? Besides the fact that this claim was, of course, a simplification: Does journalism really not tell us something new? Are the media, in general, only a non-watchdog mirror to society?

The question is related to the never-ending theoretical discussion about whether “the media” are more some kind of an external stimulus (‘transmission view’) or a product from within society (‘ritual view’) as outlined by James Carey. Who influences whom?

I will not resolve this debate in my leisure time blog. The only thing I am trying to say is: 400 pages about the development of capitalism come along with a rather short hypothesis about the relationship between the media and society, which is taken for granted. Kaletsky is a journalist himself with a great track record and he knows the system from within. If a top-class editor of The Times, Financial Times and The Economist says that this is the way it is – why should he be wrong?

He probably is not. Yet, two questions remain in my head: Firstly, will there ever be a time when claims like this one need a minimum amount of socio-scientific backing like, for example, the economic or political claims in this book? (Answer: Probably no). Secondly, If it is true that academics, political establishment and the media do hold the same view – why do some theories still call the press the fourth estate? Will there be anyone to be aware of the next systemic crisis who can awake the rest of us because he/she is an external and balanced observer? (Answer: If Kaletsky is right – then probably no, too).

Well then, turning to page 49…

No – it’s not a typo! Last week’s Economist published an article under the headline: “Newspapers: not dead yet”. For years it seemed as if the death of newspapers was only a matter of time. The Internet and its free content promised to be their grave digger. However: “German and Brazilian papers shrugged off the recession … Even American newspapers, which inhabit the most troubled corner of the global industry, have not only survived but often returned to profit”, says the article.

And it goes on: “The profit margin on its German national newspapers is a startling 27% … In emerging markets one must look hard to find any sign of crisis at all.” Because of the newspapers’ drastic cost-cuts, print journalism might actually have a future. According to the Economist, in the US “13,500 newsroom jobs have gone since 2007. Readers are paying more for slimmer products.”

This surely is stunning news. Could it be that a big mantra in media studies – the moaning over the death of good old print journalism – might actually be outdated?

On the other hand: What does it all mean for journalism itself? Only because the technical platform, the medium newspaper, might survive, this does not necessarily have to be good news for society.

Just a short reference to Robert McChesney’s 2003 classic article about “The Problem of Journalism” (mainly in the US context). McChesney is, of course, a rather extreme and very critical author. However, his political economy analysis raises many insights that are widely recognized: He talks of “lowballing editorial budgets” that “has proven extremely profitable, at least in the short term” (308).

However, from his point of view, “the effects of this budget-cutting mania on journalism arguably have been entirely negative … Fewer reporters means it is easier for public relations executives to get their client’s messages into the news unadulterated by journalism … International coverage has been a victim of corporate cost cuts. Likewise, investigative journalism … is now on the endangered species list” (309).

Well, this text is seven years old. And in the one way or another it has haunted me throughout my whole student life. But when I read in the Economist that “More radical surgery will be needed” and that in the US “many newspapers have plumped for local news and sport, leaving everything else to bigger outfits or to wire services like the Associated Press”, it seems more valid then ever: Print journalism is dying, no matter if the medium itself survives.

What kind of journalism are we hoping to get, when we buy a newspaper? What does it help if the papers survive – but their content becomes more and more a re-print of central news agencies? The discussion about the Reuters’ photo policy is just one example of this problem.

The fact that the German WAZ group withdraws from Serbia shows that there is a desperate need for growth – sometimes at a high price.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel for newspaper journalism? I will not pretend to know the answer. But I have a point of view: The medium survives, the content declines. What does it matter then if newspapers “may be able to contemplate more than mere survival?” What kind of life would that be?

Hi and welcome to my blog.

Finding the right words for a good start is never easy and therefore I just started typing. The picture you see above was taken during a car ride through Lower Bavaria in 2005. And basically it shows the state this blog is in: I’m on my way. This is a blog about various things I come across in my life. Mostly it will be about my field of studies and work, media and communications. However, I will also cover all the interesting things I come to know during my journeys and the conversations with inspiring people – things which otherwise would just be locked away in my head.

So please feel free to comment on my stories and let me know how you think about my points of view. Or about the current performance of Bayern Munich. Or about anything you want to tell me … I am really looking forward to hearing from you and I hope that I can give you something in this blog in return.

Regards, Christoph