by Peter Löcke //
When emotions boil over, when opposing points of view clash, moderation is a good thing. Moderare The Latin speaker and Wikipedia clicker knows that moderation equals moderation, guidance or regulation. A moderator is a person who ensures, as neutrally as possible, that disputants behave respectfully and, in the best case, find compromises and solutions.
Everyone knows moderation from the private sphere. When the children argue, you as the responsible parent become the mediator. Adults themselves need a moderator here and there, such as a supervisor in an unresolvable conflict with an annoying work colleague. Couples therapists, coaches, supervisors, teachers - the ability to moderate well is part of the job description of entire professional groups. But what do you think of first when you hear the word moderator? That's right. TV presenters, talk shows. You think of Maischberger, Lanz and co.
How should a good TV presenter act? Actually, like a good referee in soccer. A good referee is an inconspicuous referee. If everyone is talking about the game at the end of the match and nobody is talking about the referee, then the referee has done a good job. More and more often, however, after the end of the show, people talk about the host's leadership and performance, while the topic of the talk show fades into the background. Plasberg's successor Louis Klamroth is currently being heavily criticized. Is Luisa Neubauer's partner a neutral presenter or an insensitive, biased activist? To stay with the soccer metaphor: The referee Louis Klamroth all too obviously dons the jersey of his preferred team and clumsily commits verbal fouls and own goals. As a result, the ratings plummet. That's tough, but fair.
Personally, I am not very interested in the hotly debated talk shows. I prefer to get my information directly from the source, such as the source of the German Bundestag. Here, too, there are debates led by moderators. The only difference is that they are known in the upper house as the President and Vice President of the Bundestag respectively. Formally, President Bärbel Bas from the SPD even holds the second highest office in Germany. Her four deputies are Aydan Özoğuz (also SPD), Yvonne Magwas (CDU/CSU), Wolfgang Kubicki (FDP), Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and Petra Pau (Die Linke parliamentary group). The representatives proposed by the AfD are generally rejected by the other parties. It is debatable whether this is a moderate democratic solution.
In theory, the five presidents of the Bundestag are impartial moderators. They ensure that the Members of Parliament adhere to the rules. They conduct the sessions in a fair and non-partisan manner, ensure that speaking times are respected and maintain a minimum level of netiquette during heated debates, while always forgetting their own party affiliation. This is also laid down in the Bundestag's rules of procedure. Does the gray theory correspond to the gray everyday life in Berlin? Or do the five leading moderators tend to behave like Klamroth?
On June 22, 2023 Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz his latest government statement . This is always an opportunity for all parties to send their prominent heavyweights into the race, i.e. to the podium. In the case of the AfD, this is Alice Weidel. Here their general account with the policies of the German government. Whether you find the Chancellor's speech pale or convincing, whether you consider Ms. Weidel's speech to be right-wing populist or whether it speaks to your heart, I leave it to the reader's responsible judgment. My focus is on the behavior in the plenary and the moderating president Bärbel Bas from the SPD, who chaired the debate. In the last third of the speech, the mood in the chamber got out of hand. Sometimes derisively amused, sometimes aggressive and indignant, tolerated by the President of the Bundestag, people shouted into Alice Weidel's speech. Bärbel Bas intervenes, not on her own initiative, but only at the express request of the speaker. The plenary session calms down and a Member of Parliament who had been gasping for breath a short time earlier can finally return to her smartphone and laptop.
Moderating may mean moderating. Perhaps it also means that the performances of Bundestag presidents and talk show hosts are becoming increasingly moderate. Incidentally, teachers often sit in the Berlin gallery with their school classes. How the teachers can credibly teach social skills and cultivated rules of conversation in politics lessons the day after, how they demand the non-use of smartphones during a heated discussion, is beyond me. As a pupil, the whole thing would seem Spanish to me. As a teacher, I would be at my wit's end.
Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher.
English 
German 
Spanish
9 Responses
The legitimate question is therefore how to find suitable moderators in the Bundestag, i.e. Bundestag presidents and deputies, with the right expertise and character. But certainly not by systematically excluding and preventing MPs from a single opposition parliamentary group.
I am therefore all the more surprised that the author of this article, which otherwise calls for fairness, apparently considers it debatable whether it is a moderate democratic solution if all other parties reject the representatives proposed by the AfD for the Executive Committee as a matter of principle. Real democrats should not have to discuss this. The parliamentary majority of the other parties disqualifies itself if it rejects all candidates proposed by the AFD as a matter of principle, regardless of the fact that the AFD is entitled to a corresponding office under the rules of procedure. It is precisely this bloc party behavior that leads to more and more people who are unsuitable as moderators gathering in the parliamentary bureau.
Dear Heinrich Heine (nice nickname),
The word "debatable" was meant here ironically and deliberately provocatively. Like you, I take a very critical view of AfD MPs being ignored when vice presidents and other posts (committee chairs) are awarded. I would also criticize this if candidates from the Left, the Greens, etc. were generally excluded.
The point is: all other parties use exactly the same means that the AfD is accused of.
AfD MPs are marginalized because it is supposedly a party of exclusion. The AfD is being fought with undemocratic means because it is supposedly an undemocratic party.
There is an unwritten law, a gentleman's agreement among the "old" parties. Their own candidates and the candidates of other parties who are classified as "democratic" are generally waved through, while those of the AfD are generally rejected.
If the media landscape continues to develop like this, the Bundestag will soon be reading an anti-dumbing-down law; after all, nobody can want the whole of Germany to be confused by fake news. At some point, it will probably no longer be enough to keep our distance from the news of deluded deniers of all persuasions, not forgetting those of the thinkers and understanders. We can't imagine the chaos that will ensue. The only salvation will be compulsory television viewing, more clearly: everyone everywhere will have to prove that they have received a certain dose of "Hart aber fair" or equivalent spoken and/or video contributions. It's not impossible, is it?
I have rarely heard such a factual and rhetorically good speech in recent times. It was finally of quality. Chapeau to Ms. Alice Weidel and her self-control.
Btw I had the feeling that Ms. Bas preferred to scribble along.
Snap breathing instead of arguments.
Isn't that what you learn at school?
Yes, I completely agree with you! It's unbelievable how these moderators take sides on certain issues! When a non-party member, one or the other of the AfD holds his speech, they are put in their place, that their time is up? and what about the left parties, SPD, Bündnis 90 Grüne, Linke and CDU? no reminder, no restriction?! Is that possible in a democracy? An absolute NOGO!
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Löcke, for giving a voice to voters who are listening in amazement.
I'm not an AfD voter, but I'm still amazed at what these rabble-rousers from the 'old parties' say - and how they present themselves:
snotty.
Never having overcome the phase of adolescence, a pack has gathered in the Bundestag that I really can't think of any other way of describing my observations: the Bundestag has degenerated into a heap of filth.
This is not because indignation is unruly often and also widely unarticulated, but because this ranting, this 'expressing oneself' represents an unpleasant nudity in my opinion - in no way comparable to Herbert Wehner's 'you are a gentleman rider' accusation at the time.
No.
What these snotty noses and late adolescents offer 'their audience' - which should be the responsible German citizens (?) - is the deepest schmuck.
The last lines of your column in particular clearly show the whole chimera, the real disaster:
They don't have a clue, they know a lot about it and they open their mouths.
I have to express myself in this way; I want to be understood.
For Bible-believers this would be something like: 'for they know not what they do'.
Fully coked up and ignorant?
Boosted and therefore possibly plagued by side effects?
It seems to me that it's much worse, because worse is always possible.
That may be what the pupils visiting the Bundestag 'take away'.
.... my opinion.... one can only hope that this left-green traffic light, which presumes to redefine democracy, at least has the decency to step down soon and not wait to be voted out of office...
The quality of the protagonists tends to be close to zero. Both politically, professionally and in terms of civic, social education. I am glad to have grown up in a time of school, academic and general state/education. This polite, respectful and always benevolent pattern of behavior towards others is no longer recognizable to me in large parts of society. I am glad to have reached the last quarter of my life here. I certainly won't shed a tear for this world one day!