A fear specter of the conservatives: to the sun, for freedom, as an opinion.
Photo: dpa
In a short time, journalist Julia Ruhs succeeded in a remarkable promotion. Born in 1994 and grew up in the Swabian province, after studying political and communication science, she began a career at Bavarian Radio as a regional reporter. Her funding from the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation and its membership in the Ring Christian Democratic Students were certainly not a hindrance. The BR soon considered Ruhs to be suitable to appear nationwide as a conservative voice. She became aware of a larger public when she spoke a comment against gender language in the “ARD afternoon magazine” in 2021, which followed a tirade against “illegal immigration” in the “daily topics” in 2023.
The fact that the audience was once not shaped by an old man, but by a young woman from the right, should have contributed to success, as is the expected contradiction, such as by Jan Böhmermann. Ruhs was rewarded with a column on “Focus Online” and its own television program entitled “Clear”. The first episode already caused discussions again: Hair -raising one -sided and emotionally manipulative, Ruhs represented migration as a threat.
nd.kompact – our daily newsletter
Our daily newsletter nd. compact Bring order to the news madness. You get an overview of the most exciting stories from the Editorial team. Get the free subscription here.
As usual in the media industry, Julia Ruhs’s television prominence is now also combined commercially by a book publication. In addition to her television face, the title “Left-Green Opinion” is emblazoned on the cover, which already says everything essential about the content of the book. If Julia Ruhs has an unusually wide education or a special linguistic talent, she will be very successful in hiding this in her debut. The calculated plump book is certain of the bestseller success in Germany.
What is in Ruhs’ book would also have fit into a newspaper article. In order to fill 192 pages, the author quotes from fan mail from fan mail from angry citizens and writings of like -minded lateral thinkers such as Wolfgang Kubicki, Harald Martenstein or Vince Ebert. You won’t find original thoughts. Instead, there are “opinion corridors”, “posture journalism”, “good people’s lines”, a “Nazi club” and a “consensus republic”-even the good old “sweat spiral” rotates again. Where Ruhs is political, you know when you read that it considers the “FAZ” to be “middle” and the “taz” to be “very left”. Of course, she distances herself from the extreme right -wing condensation – Ruhs would like to keep her job at Bayerische Rundfunk.
The thesis of her book is simple: In the editorial offices, people with left-green attitude are far in the majority, which is why journalism is operated unilaterally in Germany. Uncomfortable opinions and facts would be kept secret. An ancient allegation of the conservatives, which was already used under Helmut Kohl. According to Ruhe, a large part of the audience no longer feels represented by the media and are looking for rights “alternative media”.
These filled the resulting gap, just as the AfD occupied a vacuum on the right edge. In the case of right -wing customers, this census has been caught for many years, all other objections should come to mind: The fact that left -liberals are overrepresented in journalism may be provable through surveys, but obviously right media also have no trouble filling their positions and regularly appearing with great success. Why should the diversity of opinion be endangered if the audience allegedly watched the manipulation effortlessly and then switches to right media? How strong can the left-green media power be if there are now right-wing parties all over the majority?
Ruhs’ claim that left -liberal journalists worked tendentively, looks silly in view of the one -sidedness of the right campaign journalism, into which their own contributions are also inserted. The accusation that left -wing used – for example when it comes to migration – the “pity”, Hohl sounds from an author who used the father of a girl who was murdered by a refugee to dramatize her theses. The call for people who have not been politically not come from a journalist who owes her career above all to political proportion. The goal of all of this is obvious and widely achieved: left -liberal journalists should strive for neutrality or balance from a guilty conscience, while right -wing journalists simply continue to make right journalism. Julia Ruhs comes too late with her book. She moves into a fight that has already been won. If there have been a left -liberal hegemony in the media, it is long gone.
A book like yours is also a trap. Because so many of their theses are steadfastly and obviously managed, it can seduce the left of feeling all criticism. Sometimes, however, resting weak points meets, if only because it aims with the shotgun. Just as amusing as it is correct, for example, the explanation of why leftists still want, but rights no longer want to go into the troubled journalism: “Conservatively minded are often less idealistic, money is more important to them.”
The author’s indication of the loss of economic security and prestige in classic journalism leads to fatal new dependencies. Also not completely dismissed is the thesis that an overly moralizing and pedagogical attitude of left -liberal media makers has achieved less information in recent years than a defiant “reactance” in parts of the audience.
Progressive journalists should definitely check self -critically why they have so often left the battlefield as a loser in the opinion fights of the past few years. It is not enough to refer to fake news and the influence of billionaires. You really don’t need the book by Julia Ruhs for such an analysis.
Julia Ruhs: Left-Green Opinion. The division of our country. Langen Müller, 192 pages, Br., € 20.
judi bola judi bola online judi bola online sbobet