Journalism and all that

I’m a journalist. I report the news. Yes, I have a very informal writing style and I don’t hold back when it comes to expressing my opinion on certain matters. And I’m a moralist. But I always try to keep my distance from the subject of my reporting. I don’t always succeed – I have a very special relationship with PEN-F, for example – but I do try.

I make fun of a company when it does silly things. I write about problems with its products. And personally, I like some of the people who work there less than others. But I don’t write, ‘That company is rubbish’. And when they do good things, I’m always ready to write that they’re doing good things.

That’s journalism. When I interview a candidate, I must also give the opposing candidate the opportunity to comment. The ‘I won’t talk to you because I don’t like you’ approach isn’t journalism, but propaganda. If the opposing candidate doesn’t want to talk to me, that’s not my problem, but his.

Now, if people who don’t like my reporting try to let off steam in the comments sections, I allow it, because they usually end up discrediting themselves in the process. What I moderate out are comments that are relevant under criminal law or simply blatant insults with no basis in reality.

Of course, it’s easier to take it out on the bearer of bad news than to confront the person who messed things up. As Cassandra already realised – though that didn’t end well for the people who refused to listen.

Unlike Cassandra, I can’t see into the future and I don’t have any divine ancestors either. More of a tradesman. A roofer. A master painter. That’s why I make mistakes too. Like recently with the ownership structures of Japanese battery companies. So I’m grateful for corrections. If someone knows something better, they’re not a know-it-all – they’re very welcome. And if anyone has something serious to say – feel free to come along and have your say on camera.

And – unlike all those wannabe political influencers and ‘podcasters’ who only invite people whose reach they can tap into – I’m happy to have people on the stool who nobody’s ever heard of. The main thing is that they’ve got something important to say. And I’ll reply, too.

Because I have the huge advantage of not being reliant on advertising revenue from YouTube. I don’t just pretend to be independent. I really am. Anyone who writes to me will get a reply. (OK, once every three months an email slips through the net. My apologies.)

And anyone who writes to me with information can count on me to protect their source. And if the information isn’t ready to be made public yet, then it won’t be made public. That’s the job.

Nevertheless, I’m not a ‘news channel’ here. Nor am I purely an ‘opinion site’. This is a blog. A web diary, as they used to call it. Things occupy my mind – and then I write about them. Sometimes in the form of fairly straightforward news items, as with the recent repair list, sometimes in the form of very personal opinions on social developments, which I view from a moralising standpoint. Mostly something in between.

Strictly speaking, of course, this is not allowed. News and commentary must be clearly separated and labelled accordingly. Unfortunately, however, I get the impression that this approach has now become extremely outdated. Everywhere I look, things are categorised according to opinion, because, after all, we mustn’t expect readers to form their own opinions. In the Tagesschau’s coverage, the Polish President Nawrocki was rebranded as a ‘former amateur boxer’ simply because he boxed for four years as a youth. The fact that he was a footballer for 14 years and scored 24 goals in 90 matches for EX Siedlce Gdańsk is simply glossed over. (No, I don’t find the bloke likeable, but facts are facts.)

I’m doing research every day. I get information and things are emailed to me. A few days ago, I received an email with a photo of a damaged 12-100 (cover photo), which was subsequently repaired by OMDS. It took them 10 days, including postage, and the sender thought I’d write an article about it – after all, it’s nice to say something positive about the shop for a change.

Right. If I pay the flat-rate fee, the lens gets repaired. Sure, I can write an article about it. But: what exactly is the point? Someone doing what they’re paid to do? When I buy a train ticket, I expect the train to take me to the booked destination at the booked time. If that works out, it’s not a “Wow, that’s brilliant” moment – it’s just what’s expected. I get positive feedback because I a) send my books out quickly and b) pack them so they survive the journey. I’m certainly pleased to receive the feedback – but what does that say about the other senders?

We’ve now reached the point where we’re prepared to accept substandard service at the full price, because, after all, the supplier ‘needs to make a profit’. We’re prepared to accept rubbish journalism, because otherwise the journalist won’t get any more cameras from the manufacturer to review.

We need to rethink things.

A few more facts. A YouTuber who has ‘monetised’ his channel is paid between 1.12 euros and 12 euros per 1,000 views. It depends on what the YouTuber is talking about. The pay is higher for financial services than for simple gaming channels. (Which explains why there are so many finance channels.)

So do I earn two euros per PATLive? No. My channel isn’t monetised.

Why do I do it, then?

Because it means I can have a bit of fun with Rudolf once or twice a month.