The top rated comment hits the nail on the head.

"So viel zur politischen Korrektheit der Linken...."

There's probably an unpalatable truth that he doesn't want to admit.

It is mind-boggling. And Germany's population pays north of 8 billion Euro per year to get this sort of government-approved news. And of course all the other quality programs that lecture us how to speak.

https://www.t-online.de/unterhaltung...dahinter-.html

I don't mind seeing this sort of thing in the private media where there is an editorial agenda, indeed it is to be expected. In publicly funded news however it is becoming ever more visible.

I think the core of the issue is that so many journalists these days have a similar education and political views. They then rub shoulders with other journalists and editors and it's hard to maintain impartiality.

There's knock on effects too. For example Wikipedia, which is becoming ever more a parody or its reputation, requires that citations be made from "reputable" media. If the media has a inherent bias, then that transforms onto Wikipedia.

__________________
Thou/Thee

Agree, it is more this than active state influence. There are political appointments on the top, and then a huge echo chamber below.

I do. Private media with an editoral agenda has been a major threat to democracy. Because they have created the bubbles so many people live in and made open, factual debates impossible. Most famously fox news. In the past have people looked at the facts and then debated about their opinions what to make out of a situation. By now are we at the point where the media channels dont agree on the factual situation anymore - so there is no common ground to have a conversation. Its impossible to have a debate with some trumpist who genuinely believes that an election was stolen... The US is extreme, but certain European tabloids are copying the same. In the US is it mostly a right winged problem, in other countries are left winged opinion pieces just as daft.

The social democrats - from British labour to the Swiss SP - have the same history: they are educated people from the lower middle class who want to speak for the workers and make their societies more fair. Journalists are on average exactly that: degree educated but lower income. It's for me completely natural that they on average will lean towards the left. The right wing, especially the populistic parts of it... deeply distrusts any media. So becoming a journalist isnt really a dream job in that circles...

Given the amount of rubbish on the internet do I think a "reputable source" policy is not a bias but absolutely necessary.

I guess it's a salutary lesson to read a broad range of material from all sides of the political spectrum. Having said that, it's sometimes difficult to swallow some of the journalism the further out you go on either side of that spectrum but, hey, it's an opinion same as anyone else's.

I forget who it is (TonyClifton or the Kiwi fella?) that often links to the New York Post, for example. The vacuous style and level of reactionary hysteria of that kind of publication is an instant turn off, so I only read that when it's linked on a thread here.

Conversely, stuff like The Guardian provides a lot of information and detail which you can then use as a springboard to further research. You don't always have to agree with what's written but if it's presented in a balanced way with bags of fact-checkable context and background I feel it's likely more reliable.

I agree, in particular for private media. As Treverus points out, there are some horrific examples of how private news media's role in becoming pure "opinion shows".

But my point was that the "public" (öffentlich-rechtlich) media in Germany - that is funded so generously precisely to be able to report objectively - has become so biased and caught up in political correctness. This type of journalism that feels like they constantly twist the news to fit cultural preferences is what pisses people of, and frankly drives people into the arms of the right. The term "Lügenpresse" and its use is testament to that.

I completely disagree in the case of the German state media. Like pretty much everything in the German bureaucracy was the oversight of the channels designed to be a impartial as possible. There is not one kingpin who decides on an agenda, but a dozen or so regional channels who will be matching the political landscape of the country - the Bavarians will be more right winged, the Berlin guys more left and so on.
The problem - like with most German government topics - while the goals were great is the system so helplessly overengineered that it simply doesnt work. The CSU - equivalent of the SVP in Germany - repeatedly complained about the perceived bias... however, their president, Markus Söder, sits in the oversight board... he just routinely doesnt show up to the meetings... so if the oversight doesnt work are the CEOs doing their own thing... all the way up to the corruption scandals in the Berlin branch.

If you stopped the clock around the year 1700, yes. Somehow the Enlightenment happened and the crazy ideas of individual freedom and tolerating people from all faiths.

Maybe I'm wrong, but any place around the wold had or has a religion full of dogmas. There has been tolerance in the past for "other religions" with the caveat of believing in at least 1 deity and the king/emperor/whatever. But, if there's anything special about the "West" is that our current lives are out of the grasp of the claws of religion. One is free to join, but there's no obligation to join.

one of the really sad parts of all this is it highlights all the money and resources being wasted on ungrateful people who have no respect for the country - such a disgrace when at the same time you have ukrainian women and children fleeing their country.

Can you expand on that at all, and add any substance to your vague statements?

Who are you and what did you do to the real vushka that started a thread about how the refugees from Ukraine are treated better than other refugees?

https://www.englishforum.ch/internat...-refugees.html

if germany wasn't so naive and hadn't taken in all the ungrateful people that are now causing problems in the community they could have better used the money and resources on people that really need it like the ukrainian women and children who are now fleeing war.

Indeed.
Currently, thousands of Ukrainian refugees are temporarily living in Germany.
From June 1, Ukrainians in Germany receive Hartz IV basic unemployment benefit in the amount of 449 euros.
Recently, the country's government officially announced an increase in financial aid for unemployment.
Ukrainians will be able to receive new increased payments as early as January 1, 2023.

Do you have any evidence that Ukrainian women and children do not get a fair share?

I assume not

Your strawman has no legs.

Look, I have a few criticisms to Germany's immigration policy - but this just makes zero sense.

unless germany has an unlimited amounts of money and resources for refugees, it just seems that the money wasted on some of the ungrateful 'new germans' could have been better spent - for instance on the women and children fleeing ukraine.

You said this three times now. Maybe we shoud not give anything to thw Ukrainians. Maybe in 5 years, we will need the money to feed the Brits (Jackie, just an example, not an invitation to you).

They are indeed at times
The attractiveness for the other's emigrants, perhaps including Austria as it's the same language and culture. If you compared UK's and CH's attractiveness as destination, you wouldn't be interested in how many of each country have emigrated to China, or how many seniors enjoy their last years in less expensive Thai care homes.