I have
chosen two articles from major German newspapers that portray a controversy
about the decision of the Greens to support the Veggie Day Initiative. The
Veggie Day initiative supports Canteens and Cafeterias to have one meat-free
day a week. I have chosen two obviously biased articles to consider what the
differences in reporting are.
The first
article was published in the Bild-Zeitung and is the article which first
covered this aspect of the Green agenda. The title is rather biased as it says ”The
Greens want to forbid us to eat meat!“. This can be considered as an outcry of
indignation that gives the article a strong emotional touch. Thus, from the beginning of the article the author
already gives up any attempt for impartiality. Within the article he seeks to
reestablish this by using quotes voicing different opinions but ending with a
negative quote he seeks to persuade the reader towards his opinion.
Another
article published in the Spiegel takes a step back from the first emotional
reaction reflected in the article of the Bild-Zeitung and examines the factual
background of the controversy considering whether the fear of a „Green
re-education“ is reasonable. It is an answer to the media hype that evolved
around the Veggie Day. The author describes how the initial article and other
articles in the Bild-Zeitung which used the voices of opponent parties to condemn
the Greens as „Eco-Dictators“. Half of the article examines the previous media
coverage. Therefore, it becomes apparent that not the news itself is in the
centre of attention anymore but that in order to inform the public news
coverage itself has to be taken into account. In the other half of the article the
history of a meat-free day a week is examined and the independent realization
of the Veggie Day in different towns is described. The author further strengthens
his argument with ironic remarks concerning prior chancellors and their
experiences trying to control public behaviour. The article has a formal
conclusion saying that there is no need to fear the „Green re-education“.
In both
articles the headline makes a first statement concerning the opinion that is portrayed
throughout the article. Interestingly, the Bild-Zeitung article does not pursue
a logic argument against the Veggie Day. It rather gives reasons for the Veggie
Day, then ending with the example of a canteen in which customers successfully protested
against the Veggie Day that was to be implemented in their canteen. Thus, the
focus is clearly on emotions while the article from the Spiegel is rather fact
based and addresses the humorous side of the reader.
In my
opinion, the whole story about the Veggie-Day-Initiative was constructed to
harm the Greens from the beginning. It is one of those topics that do not
actually help the German citizen to make a decision about whom to vote, but it
is an emotional subject for Germans and thus was used to discredit the Greens.
For me personally a Veggie Day would be fine.
by Isabel Mayer
by Isabel Mayer
Sources:
http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/vegetarisch/gruene-wollen-einmal-die-woche-in-kantinen-fleisch-verbieten-31661266.bild.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/veggie-day-gruene-regen-fleischverzicht-an-a-915657.html
What an interesting example! As a veggie myself I recognise that defensiveness, but it is also a common way of delegitimising activists as moralising and self-righteous in contrast with the liberties of liberal individualism that can be interpreted as the right to do whatever you want without criticism. The emotional aspect of this argument is well-observed, and ironic given that activists and campaigners are often criticised for being angry (about injustice). The legitimacy of emotion in democratic debate is an interesting topic to consider.
ReplyDelete