Once Markus Lanz freezes. So the person, not the program, although it briefly seems as if the latter is just as still. Actually, she could have stayed in it: In the still image of Markus Lanz, his hand in front of his chest, a stare at Tino Chrupalla, both are silent. Lanz looks as if he is looking for some kind of access to the AfD boss. In order to understand, because Lanz, a full journalist, also wants to understand AfD bosses. He is looking for solutions, he is looking for them himself in all the hair-raising things that Chrupalla says that evening. He says “Hm” and scratches his forehead when Chrupalla talks about what he believes are the real reasons for the German shortage of skilled workers (the neglected education system). “Hmm, hm. That’s right. And how do we solve this?” Lanz wants to squeeze them out, the solutions.
It’s just stupid that he presses almost exclusively at Chrupalla, although there are other guests sitting to the left who can also say something about war and crises. Even tangible. Migration researcher Gerald Knaus, for example, warns of the harsh winter of war in Ukraine, from which another two million people could flee to the EU – in addition to the almost five million who have already fled. This can only be managed “by mobilizing the civilian population”, the state must support private households. In addition, one must ensure – he addresses the AfD federal spokesman – that the “division of society that Vladimir Putin hopes for and that you are promoting does not work.”
And back to Chrupalla, around whom the discussion is spinning, including this night review. Lanz devotes endless screen time to the politician and master painter from Görlitz anyway. Maybe to probe him, maybe to embarrass him. Both succeed, but at the expense of debate quality. Because Chrupalla can spread. With his somewhat stiff way of speaking, his German flag on his lapel and his crooked shirt collar. But above all with AfD content. Chrupalla says of Vladimir Putin: “I’m not in his head.” But vice versa.
Grand Masters of Whataboutism
Putin a war criminal? Chrupalla: “For me, he’s not a war criminal, it’s not up to me to judge.” No matter how many pictures Lanz shows of the corpses from Butscha, for Chrupalla the verdict on the massacre is up to the “competent courts”. And besides, isn’t George W. Bush a war criminal, or aren’t all great power leaders somehow? “Why weren’t these things cleared up?” Chrupalla, the Grand Master of Whataboutism. And now also an occasional pacifist: He thinks the war is “cruel” and doesn’t want to prolong it with western arms deliveries. Peace negotiations are needed, “the sooner, the better”. But how credible can someone call for peace and justice who cannot even distinguish perpetrators from victims? “War has several fathers,” he says. Putin is only partially to blame.
He explains to Lanz at length what he means by that. A mini digression into conspiracy theory theory is worthwhile: The American political scientist Michael Barkun has identified three basic characteristics of conspiracy theories, summarized compactly in one Guidelines of the Bavarian State Parliament: “Everything follows a plan, nothing happens by chance, and dark forces are at work in the background.” Chrupalla may have read the guide as well, but in his role as a conspiracy theorist he sticks to it in an exemplary manner. “One has to ask,” he says: “Cui bono, who is benefiting from this war?” The question leads directly to the dark forces, for Chrupalla “clearly” the USA. According to Chrupalla, the United States “at least … to that extent … probably had a hand in the attacks on the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline at the end of September – the background to which is still being determined”. Lanz: “And you believe that?” Chrupalla: “If it had been the Russians, we would have known it a long time ago.” That’s the moment when Lanz briefly falls into shock.
And then there’s Hunter Biden
Perhaps the Tübingen American studies professor and conspiracy expert Michael Butter would have helped here, writing: “In a world without coincidence, unwanted side effects or systemic effects, those who supposedly benefit from an event or a development must also be exactly those who are responsible for it. ” Chrupalla has internalized that. Because according to this logic everything is secretly connected, the right-wing populist brings Joe Biden’s son into play. Hunter Biden got into a Ukrainian gas company in 2014 and is being investigated for tax violations. Donald Trump and his supporters have been abusing the wild, sometimes very personal story surrounding Hunter Biden for years to attribute corruption and conspiracies to the family.
Chrupalla apparently wants to import the scam to Germany. “What companies did he build there?” he asks, referring to Hunter Biden in Ukraine. “Which?” Lanz asks back. Chrupalla: “Yes, that needs to be cleared up.” He has understood that he doesn’t have to prove anything, he doesn’t even need to argue. Because fogging up, sowing doubts until even the most obvious truth becomes blurred, that is part of the basic craft of conspiracy weaving. Lanz recognizes the fog and finds beautiful Lanz words for her: “It’s this funny narrative, this murmuring of something,” he says to Chrupalla. “They are now whispering that in this group and on German television.”
This is exactly the problem with the show: Lanz lets Chrupalla whisper for almost 75 minutes. Although this exposes the right-wing populist, it harms the quality of the broadcast. The more Lanz tries to raise the conversation to a factual level with “interesting facts”, the clearer it becomes: conspiracy myths are immune to it. And even if Lanz ties it together again at the end: “The problems will remain, but we’ve exchanged ideas for now. I think that’s good”, other words tend to resonate. For example, that of the journalist Eva Quadbeck, who hardly gets a chance, but points to the disinformation war that Putin has been waging for much longer than the one in Ukraine. You see, unfortunately: “It catches.” And so a bit of right-wing murmuring will be caught somewhere.