Arnstein vs. Freiburg: The Tagesschau’s inconsistent behaviour
About two months ago I published an article about the Tagesschau and its reactions concerning the Freiburg-murder (“Political dimension or public pressure? — The Tagesschau’s reason for finally reporting on the Freiburg- murder”).The Tagesschau, and especially its executive editor Kai Kniffke, tried hard to reasonably justify the decision to not report about the case until it gained a certain political dimension. According to Kniffke, initially the murder was only of regional interest and thus not a topic that had to be covered by a news orangisation whose principle is to concentrate on national affairs and politics instead of single crimes. In this whole affair Kniffke and his Tagesschau seemed to be very determined to defend theses principles and to point out the news organisation’s role and positions it takes up in the media industry. After a while the loud indignant voices on the internet became silent and the debate seems to be lived down. Yet, since I was already wondering if the Tagesschau was actually influenced by these voices and just had not wanted to admit it, I was really curious to see if the Tagesschau would change the way it sticks to its convictions in the future.
Well, waiting paid off! On Sunday, 29 January, 08:00 pm the Tagesschau actually mentioned the death of six teenagers whose corpses where found in an arbour in Arnstein, a Bavarian town. Even though the newsreader did not even talk a minute about this incident and there was no detailed report based on further images, the audience were informed about all the important facts and information the police could give so far: the amount and age of the teenagers, their relation to each other and to the owner of the garden, what they had been doing in the arbour and the ambiguity about their cause of death. Further, we got no know that the police did not assume a violent crime. A map in the background showing where exactly the town is located. To me it is absolutely understandable that this terribly sad case appears in the news. However, what about Kniffke’s previous explanation that the Tagesschau does not focus on regional deaths? Well, actually he said “crimes“ and “a murder case“. So, does this case now fit to the Tagesschau’s interests because the police does not think it was a crime or murder? Where is the logic behind that? Isn’t it even more important for the public to know that there is a murderer running free, as it was in Freiburg in December? Or did they mention Arnstein because six young people died instead of only one young jogger? Hopefully it is not the Tagesschau’s attitude to say one life is not as important as six; no, I do not think so. Please do not get me wrong! As I already said, I really think it was very good of the ARD programme to include the Arnstein case in their evening news programme. I am just wondering why they suddenly seemed to have forgotten their points of the Freiburg-statement, which, in this new context, do not make sense to me anymore.
This brings me back to my previous considerations about the people’s influence on the news media. The Freiburg-murder and the Tagesschau’s reaction caused a huge debate which endangered the programme’s popularity. As I have explained in an earlier article, it is quite probable that the Tagesschau’s sudden report of the incident in Freiburg was a reaction to the public’s pressure and its influence on the Tagesschau’s reputation. In this context, it stands to reason that the Arnstein-report could be seen as another reaction to the people’s demand. In my opinion, the Tagesschau wanted to avoid having to justify its actions again and causing another debate. Thus, the coverage of the dead teenagers in Arnstein could be considered as a proof of people’s democratic influence on the news media; a circumstance which, In my opinion, the Tagesschau does not have to be ashamed of.
