Free journalism or the self-censorship-bias

Journalists attach great importance to freedom of the press and anonymization of their sources. What you unfortunately do not value is quality journalism, balanced reporting and critical illumination of important factual issues.

This is reflected in the work you deliver every day. Deplorable and pathetic, the poor workmanship is driving away more and more readers and subscribers. And rightly so.

But where does the discrepancy between self-perception and actual journalistic work come from? Why is there no look at other countries where quality journalism is still possible in marginalized areas and which could serve as a positive example?

Why is the level of your own standards so low that most published texts can only be subsumed under scribbling? Where is the professional pride and the ethos of the past to be enlightening and informative and to limit oneself to the important and essential?

The majority of content is cross-published, bought in or, it seems, agreed with competitors. Interchangeable and arbitrary content, interchangeable and arbitrary publishers, interchangeable and arbitrary authors.

Why are highlights of journalistic work so rare and the vast majority of publications completely irrelevant?

Journalists struggle with various adversities:

• Your own hubris
• The own inability
• The own phlegm
• The minimum value standards of one’s own work
• The learned scissors in the head
• The prevailing cost pressure
• Indirect pressure from politicians and publishers

As a result, mediocrity is still a euphemism to describe journalism published in Germany in the 21st century.

See also: Mainstream, Krüger Uwe