Is Trump still a Bohemian Grove member

The President of the USA in the Infowar: When a media landscape does not hear the bang

Donald Trump was a guest on the Alex Jones Show in November 2015 - Does that say anything about the journalism of the leading media?

Donald Trump's appearance on Infowars.com lasted over half an hour in November last year. Infowars, also known as "The Alex Jones Show", stands like no other media format for the struggle for interpretive sovereignty between the leading media and alternative journalistic formats. What does it mean when a man who has now been elected the 45th President of the United States of America campaigns in a medium in which the conflict between legitimate and illegitimate determiners of reality is almost symbolically condensed?

Above all, it means one thing: Both in the USA and in this country, almost an entire media landscape has not heard the bang. And it looks like he shouldn't be heard either.

Donald Trump was a guest at Alex Jones in November 2015. Perhaps it is advisable to read this sentence again, but nothing changes in its content. One thing is certain: a man who was to be elected 45th President of the USA a year later campaigned in a medium that, like no other, stands for journalism that the big media could hardly despise. Infowars, to use the battle term, is the epicenter of conspiracy theories, so to speak.

And it is precisely in this epicenter, in which the thesis of a 9/11 inside job and a power elite is out to establish a world dictatorship, that Trump has gone. What's going on there?

When an "illegitimate" presidential candidate (because that was and is Trump for a large part of the media) and an "illegitimate" journalist come together and in the end, despite their seemingly "illegitimate" position, one of them is legally elected 45th President of the United States of America and the other can say: "I interviewed the president of our country in my 'illegitimate' format", then something serious must have happened not only in society but also in the journalistic cosmos. Such a situation does not arise overnight.

One of the reasons: For a long time, a partial blindness on the part of leading journalists, editorialists and editors can be observed. Serious social problems are not recognized, denied, glossed over or completely wrongly assessed - this also applies to their handling of decisions by the political elite.

The fact that the new "president-elect" of the United States of America was a guest in a format whose creators got access to the Bohemian Grove and reported how parts of the American elite dressed up in robes in front of a large owl statue standing and practicing a ritual called the Cremation of Care to consolidate your "social cohesion" lets you look deeply.

The fact that Trump was a guest in a format whose creators already focused on the Bilderbergers' meetings when even seasoned political correspondents could only shrug their shoulders at the term "Bilderberg Group" reveals a lot about what just happened in the USA, but also in Germany.

Blinkers and populism

As a representative of a quality journalism that soberly, objectively, factually assesses and classifies information and facts according to journalistic standards, one can come to the conclusion that there must be excessive reporting with the keyword "Bobbycar". A secret gathering of 140 leading figures in the Western world can also be viewed as a coffee gossip that is of no public interest.

In the same way, the decision-makers in the editorial offices are allowed to come to the conclusion that reporting on steroids has to take place if a somewhat older politician makes a suggestive remark to a younger journalist at an advanced stage. And in the case of a spectacular series of murders you can certainly decide to do what you almost always decide - in one variation or another - when it comes to time-consuming investigative journalism: You fight for the limited number of places in court, lets the "devil" run in Munich with the drums of the boulevard, but otherwise the reporting is limited to what the agencies deliver and the investigative part is left to no more than a handful of colleagues.

This video from John Oliver's Show Last Week Tonight is recommended to anyone interested in journalism - a piece of satire that gets stuck in your throat. In short: a reporter presents a topic at the editorial conference. It's about the corruption swamp in your own city. Everyone at the table makes long faces. Nobody is enthusiastic. But there is a lot of enthusiasm for the suggestion of a young journalist who wants to make a "great story" about a cat that looks like a raccoon - from 3:00 p.m.

Media can certainly make such decisions. But then you shouldn't complain that media users are turning away from them and that at some point a social situation arises in which what should not be put together.

It can be stated that we are dealing with a downright schizophrenic situation. In both the United States and other Western democracies, representatives of the major media are complaining about the rise of the populists. They are appalled by Trump's election victory. But that her own operational blindness could also have contributed to the situation still seems completely absurd from her point of view.

In order to keep the focus on Germany, it is no longer unrealistic for the AfD to move into the Bundestag and perhaps even become the strongest opposition party. Should the AfD make greater use of those parts of the alternative media that have long had a reach and an audience that can no longer be overlooked, then Germany would stand to take a look at the year 2021, possibly also a "November 8th " before.

Just imagine what it would be like if Frauke Petry were to be a guest in Germany in December 2020 in one of those alternative formats that alpha journalists view with disdain and then achieve a government majority with her party in October 2021.

Now, as is well known, the Swedes are not Dutch and the USA are not Germany, but regardless of how realistic this scenario may be or not: One can only hope that the mere thought game alone will freeze the bowels of the mainstream media field. So that the shock freeze leads to journalism concentrating again on what media users expect: Taking off ideological blinkers, realizing that one's own ideas of political reality are not beyond doubt in order to finally deliver a socio-politically critical journalism.

Basis for the criticism of the reporting of large media

It is frightening: Anyone who takes a closer look at the reporting of the major media in Germany must realize that there is a real basis for annoyance or even anger at the journalism provided by these media.

And that means: The risk that candidates will appear on the political stage here too, who will skillfully absorb people's anger at a media landscape that reports past them in order to make politics, is real. Often enough, at the big, formative events, those who are actually responsible for facts were in post-fact mode.

When people from East and West embraced each other because the country was finally reunited, elites from politics and journalism got intoxicated at the event and tried to evaluate the problems as positively as possible (keywords unity plus postage).

When brave professors went to the Federal Constitutional Court and warned of the dangers of the euro, Ulrich Wickert stated in an interview with the world that the euro was "becoming a success story for historical, political, financial and economic reasons," while Theo Sommer, long-time editor-in-chief the time, under the heading "The good exchange" let critics of the single currency "rumble" and advised the readers not to be fooled by "no X for a U" - by the "pseudo prophets". In other words: on the whole, alpha journalists agreed: euros = good.

The dire, far-reaching consequences that the euro in the form in which it was conceived should have for Europe were either smiled at as naively or pushed aside with journalistic aggressiveness.

When the war in Kosovo came up, large sections of the big media closed their ranks. After all, it was about the really big cinema. Peace, freedom and such. The media would have said, "Breach of international law!" have to shout, but what is a breach of international law if there is a "horseshoe plan?"

In 2014, at a matinee for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder himself openly admitted to having disregarded international law: "Of course, what happens in Crimea is something that also violates international law. But do you know why I am a little more careful with the raised index finger? I am just about to tell you. Because I did it myself, violating international law. " For the public reception of this war today, at best, it has the character of a footnote.

And so many examples can be cited that show that the criticism of the reporting is not out of thin air. A short view:

  • September 11th = NATO alliance case? Of course. Finally, a member state of NATO was attacked by another country.
  • Stabilization deployment of the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan? Of course. After all, "our freedom" is being defended in the Hindu Kush.
  • Agenda 2010? Bravo! A necessary "reform". In addition: The personal responsibility, you live high!
  • Euro crisis? In no case is the euro to blame. The euro was and is and will remain "good", the financial crisis is to blame - and the "bankrupt Greeks".
  • Revolutions in Libya and Syria? Great. After all, there were or are evil dictators there. But wasn't there also deep political influence from outside? But please: Deep politics = conspiracy theory. End of discussion.
  • Ukraine and Russia? Quite simply: EU association agreement with Ukraine = good. Euromaidan = good. Pro-Russian separatists = bad, West = good. Russia = bad. Snipers on the Maidan = hm. Fire in the union building in Odessa, 48 fatalities = hm.

Certainly: This representation is provided with a pinch of irony. More differentiated considerations can be found on all of these topics in the major media. The problem: They are the exception rather than the rule.

The well-known Spiegel cover ("Stop Putin"), which can be seen as a kind of visible expression of a media landscape that seems to be of the firm conviction: the people outside of their editorial building live in a bubble of reality, sums up the location in an excellent visual manner Real reality only exists within the editorial offices.

When the many media users ran storm and complained massively about the imbalances in the reporting, many a large medium could not think of anything better than to close the reader forums (The battle for the reader forums). The reader should kindly buy the newspapers that are beyond any doubt, but please keep his opinion to himself (FAZ prefers to switch off). Such a media system is far from serious, critical self-examination.

Broadcast: ARD Press Club, November 6, 2016

Moderator: Jörg Schönenborn. Guests are: Michael Bröcker, Brigitte Fehrle, Alexander Kain, Margarete von Ackeren. The following scenario:

Schönenborn says: "Now from the bottom of my heart ...." and then wants to know from the group which government coalition would be good for the country. Brigitte Fehrle speaks up and says: "Black-Green". Little by little the others in the group also say what they think. Schöneborn states that, in principle, everyone agrees.

He asks: Is there anyone who contradicts Ms. Fehrle on the matter? A "nah" comes from the group and Schönenborn says: "Then we have a problem, because then the impression appears that this is another journalist thing and that everyone is here under one roof."

The bang, it wasn't heard. No, they emphatically refuse to hear him. You go on like you've always done. No course correction. Let the iceberg avoid it. Or even better: what looks like an iceberg. It is not at all.

Closing the corridor of opinion

There is talk of a "journalist thing" with a wink and pretend that when the group was cast it was not clear from the start that there is no one here, the one, well, let's say: a little more subversive Opinion. In other words: the diversity of opinion that should so urgently be found in the important formats is still not to be found there even in the current situation.

Even when media users rebel in droves when alternative media spring up like mushrooms in order to finally reflect the diversity of opinion as it exists in societies, large parts of the leading media refuse to represent a reasonable cross-section of opinion and into the hallowed halls of the legitimate Discourse production to grant access to those who have a different stable odor.

Who would seriously deny that the same guests sit over and over again in the big media, on the big political talk shows? Whether FDP-Lindner or FDP-Kubicki, whether SPD-Oppermann, CDU-Bosbach or CDU-von der Leyen or whether this or that expert from the same think tanks and foundations: Because the media system has contributed with all its might to the corridor of opinion To reduce the major social and political issues to the diameter of a bamboo cane, "the enemy" it is now trying to fight, has only just emerged.

The following words come from the former SPD politician and communication scientist Peter Glotz, and are many decades old: "Many journalists do not debate what moves society, but what they think society should move. Expression of Publicist ideology is the ethos costumed view that one shouldn't offer X or Y a podium. Many journalists say who I offer a podium to whom I decide. The result is an ever-widening gap between public and published opinion. "

Nobody should say they didn't see the iceberg coming. He appeared a long time ago. Far from the bow. But the collision has long since taken place. The outside wall was torn open. The water penetrates.

But the captains on the bridges of the major media react as if the ship were unsinkable. If you listen to the elites in the journalistic field, you might think that the SPD is standing in front of you.

Although the Social Democrats have plummeted from 40.9 percent (2002 Bundestag election) to 22.23 percent (current polls), that is, they have lost millions of voters, they would rather go down with a sign in their hand that reads: "Im In principle, Agenda 2010 was correct "when you finally recognized your serious mistakes and decided to correct your course completely.

It is similarly "difficult" when the editor-in-chief of a large medium says the following to the media magazine Zapp:

Of course we have to ask ourselves, how do we media deal with this? What are we describing now? Have we described society as it is? Or did we at the Spiegel now and then also have an elitist view of German reality? Because we're based in Hamburg, we're based in Berlin. In large German cities, we have now and then lost our view of - that is now a common word - provinces, small towns, and concerns that exist in Germany. I think so.

Spiegel editor-in-chief

You can tell from these words how difficult it is to make a fundamental course correction. With regard to this now and then, one should perhaps just note: now and then the iceberg was touched. It happens.

To give just one example of what "now and then" might mean: When the paritarian welfare association published its poverty report this year, Der Spiegel spoke of the "dangerous blues" of a "desperately poor Germany". One of the key messages: Anyone who talks about a poverty problem supports the AfD.

It is contributions like these that document in their entirety: For a very long period of time, journalists have talked about serious political and social problems nicely - in this specific case the problem of poverty.

Anyone who journalistically looks at the upheavals in their own country should actually hear the drums of the political seducers clearly.But no: There is no obligation to perceive the drumming. One can also refuse to acknowledge that Trump was with Alex Jones.

The current situation, in which the media are exposed to criticism in a way that has probably never been the case, also shows that parts of the journalistic elite have settled in comfortably. Outwardly one never tires of emphasizing how open-minded, cosmopolitan and tolerant one is, but in reality tolerance already ceases when their members encounter the language of the lower classes and strata.

Behind the scenes, in a more or less discreet group, one is snubbed how "they" talk down there, shaking one's head at "their" views and opinions. Every now and then, yes, you get involved in the world of the lost and stumbled. A reporter or a television team then knocks on the Meier family's front door. You sit down with Siggi on the sofa for 3-4 hours or listen to what Kevin and Chantal think about politics. And then you go back out onto the street, you drive home and first have to take a deep breath, after all: life as a reporter can be quite exhausting. In the evening you can enjoy a 2009 Pinot Noir or a Malbec from Argentina as a self-reward and talk to your partner (.....) about, uff, what you had to do to yourself today.

Yes, what a beautiful world it would be if all citizens were just like "we", here in the Juste Milieu.

But that's not the case. The "others" are there too. You are "out there". You are more active than ever. They go to the polls and actually decide on candidates and parties who are against the monopoly of reality in the big editorial offices. Some stand out on the street and shout loudly in the lying press, while others calmly discuss at the market or during their lunch break that the media have let them down.

And still others, who in principle are politically unaffected and have nothing to do with either the right or the left, go to the voting booth on election day and put their crosses in a place where they have never done it before. To wipe out those "up there" and enjoy the fact that the candidates and parties who favor the hated media do not win. And yes: Then there are also those from the right-wing conservative camp who, with full conviction, want a strong shift to the right in Germany and are just about to smell the morning breeze.

In such situations, a lot is politically conceivable. They are extremely dangerous. Dynamics of their own can arise that are capable of destroying the signal boxes of an entire social structure.

What, in these times of upheaval, is unfortunately often overlooked by those who criticize the existing conditions: The hope and belief that fundamental changes equate to improvements on the political level have often enough been disappointed in history .

Those who move up as outsiders may seem different, but on closer inspection they are not all that different from those against whom citizens rebel. Unfortunately, this also applies to the alternative media formats. The good thing is that they form a counterbalance of opinion to the leading media. They take up issues that are forcefully ignored by the major media. You practically tore open the corridor of opinion. Fantastic. The bad thing is: Often enough, like the big media, they develop into microcosms, in which essentially one's own view of the world is echoed.

At best, career optimists should hope for an overall good outcome given the current development.

To venture a prognosis: As the failure of the social elites is becoming more and more evident, they are trying ever harder to disguise or gloss over their fatal decisions. This only makes the "mistakes" even clearer, because many people can tell very well whether they have been "bitten by a dog" or not - even if the media elites in particular like to deny them this judgment.

Citizens react more and more indignantly to the attempts to appease them, and they point out the mistakes of the elites more and more clearly. But these - because for vanity or whatever reasons, one does not want to admit to oneself how severe the upheavals already are that have resulted from catastrophic decisions in politics - they go one better. They gloss over it even more violently and do not perceive that their situation is similar to that in which "Comical Ali", the propaganda minister of Iraq, presented himself during the invasion of the USA in 2003 ("I guarantee you three things: There are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

The nerves are on edge

It is the already mentioned schizophrenic moment that increasingly determines the perception, thinking and action of the political and journalistic elite.

Remember the long legendary appearance of the former "father of the Rhineland Palatinate", Kurt Beck, who delivered a piece of real satire that could hardly have been better. Beck was on his way to an event where he wanted to talk to students about citizen participation. Outside during an interview, a citizen interrupted him by saying "Nürburgring", which Beck saw as a stimulus. Beck's reaction: "Can you just shut up ... you are stupid." From failures like this one can see: Your nerves are on edge.

In the USA, Hillary Clinton insisted on calling half of Trump voters "deplorables", in this country people hurl a "pack" at the unpleasant part of the population or talk of "candlesticks". Not a day goes by on which the legitimate determiners of reality do not use the word "felt".

There is talk of the citizens feeling that they have been left behind - but that is not true. Nobody is left behind with us. There is talk of "felt poverty" - but nobody in Germany is poor. After all, "we" are a rich country. It is said that the citizens felt that "the elites" reacted over their heads - which cannot be, after all, we live in a democracy. It is said that citizens have the feeling that alpha journalists are too closely connected to the rulers, that the media do not report objectively and are politically biased - but also all of that: It cannot be. Why? Therefore.

While these lines are being written here, one can read on the side of a major online medium: "People who have the feeling that the political class no longer understands them use social media intensively." What more can one say about this statement? There is no longer any room in such a heading for the idea that "the political class" may actually "no longer understand" the "people".

Here we have it. That is the reason that Donald Trump was on the air with Infowars: Hubs like over there, it is not the citizens who refuse to look political reality in the eye, but rather an entire media system that refuses to recognize as a collective.

If one wanted to visualize the logic of the big media, the following picture would appear. A ship hit an iceberg and fire broke out. The coverage now declares that the fire (which is denied) is strong enough to melt the iceberg (which is also denied).

But then what about the fire on the ship? Well, don't be afraid of that. After all, it is like all fires: at some point, after there is nothing left to burn, they go by themselves. But: what about the people on board?

Well, they don't have to worry either.

Why?

Well, because there is no fire at all!

Don't you understand? Do you see breaks in logic?

Never mind. You don't have to understand everything either.

After all, the world is complex, not one-dimensional.

Donald Trump in the infowar? C'est la vie.

Read comments (202 posts) https://heise.de/-3509005Reporting errorsPrinting Telepolis is a participant in the amazon.de affiliate program advertisement