Far worse than the culture of debate in Germany is evidently the related symbol photography. In the background of Markus Lanz’s broadcast late on Wednesday, pictures can be seen that, aesthetically and intellectually, reach roughly the level of a brochure by the test center for media harmful to minors. A Facebook thumb turned downwards can be seen, next to it the word-like string “H @ ss”. The motif of a keyboard appears repeatedly. Sometimes you can see the red colored button “Outrage”, later one for “hate speech”. What can a debate that is illustrated in this way achieve?
Markus Lanz wants to talk about freedom of expression, about the changing boundaries of what is considered by large majorities sayable is classified. And he wants to talk about the digital and public dealings with people who neither woke think or speak and who may never have heard the term as such. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work so well. The program does not get beyond the long-established, long-exhausting state of the debate. Everything has been said about what is supposedly no longer allowed to say in Germany and what should actually no longer be said.
Blogger Sascha Lobo, author Thea Dorn, say it at Lanz, time-Editor-in-chief Giovanni di Lorenzo and, least of all, political scientist Emilia Roig. Roig makes it clear several times in the program that she does not want to bring any investigation files for re-submission like those on the Jens Lehmann case. She makes it clear that she doesn’t really want to talk about whether one should still say this or that word.
Instead, she says, she would like to talk “about entire systems that are behind it”, systems of protracted disadvantage, disregard, and brutal disregard of various social groups in public debates. However, the moderator does not lead this complex and sometimes exhausting discussion. Correspondingly uninvolved, Roig looks at the end of his TV professorial DiMiDo routine when Lanz thanks her for the discussion, which of course was “fun” again.
Lanz becomes his own guest
The problem with this program is that Markus Lanz becomes his own pushing guest instead of appearing solely as a moderator. Obviously, he is driven by the observation that many no longer dared to say this or that because they were afraid of turning the tables on the next slaughter of some Twitter hooligans.
This observation is more than just a narrative snippet of anecdotal evidence. The starting point and basis of the broadcast is a much-cited Allensbach survey, according to which only 45 percent think that political opinion in Germany can be freely expressed. Another 44 percent say in the same survey that it is better to be careful with what you say.
An important, relevant conversation can be derived from this. Maybe it will happen again. On this evening a lot remains superficial and is also confused there. Everyone stumbles a little through their thoughts, which are neither false nor uninteresting, but the moderator rarely connects them to a real conversation. It’s like a family celebration, where everyone tells you without much preparation what comes up to him or her.
“I think” is how too many interlocutors began this evening. Sascha Lobo, special expert in I-believe-sentences, makes the point, besides a few other non-points, that there should be no contradiction in what Allensbach asked. Freedom of expression prevails in Germany – one can still be careful when speaking in public.
Cornelius Pollmer