Some time ago, leading representatives from politics and the (automotive) industry met in Berlin for the so-called "diesel summit". Alone the word "diesel summit" is already an issue in itself. The official "National Forum Diesel", or in the well-established abbreviation NFD, does not really make it any better.
G20 was yesterday - now with "Diesel Summit" we have a creative creation of verbal expression that is quite possibly a potential candidate for the "Word of the Year". Rudolf Diesel would turn in the grave. Result of the summit: 5,3 million vehicles must be retrofitted with appropriate software and a decent hand money is placed in the "National Fund Mobility".
But in addition to the actual decision, further "measures" were announced. They should promote a new "responsibility culture" - that would be the third suitable candidate for our ranking.
For example, the promotion of e-busses in public transport, procurement of low-emission urban commercial vehicles and taxis, expansion of public and private charging structures for electric mobility, uniform digital tickets for public transport providers, expansion of rail transport, promotion of bicycle traffic, etc.
Apparently well-thought-out possibilities, which so far not so bad sound and tidy what.
Question of measurability
All this sounds like well-weighed words, but let's take a closer look at the word "measure": "Measure" comes from "measure", resulting in a concrete "measurement result" as a reliable statement. What is sold to us as "measures" is in reality nothing more than a mere "idiot".
Communicative we move in Schramm distance to a label fraud. Or is there a reliable statement for the "promotion of e-buses in public transport, acquisition support for low-emission urban commercial vehicles and taxis"? And how do you measure "expanding the public and private charging structure for electromobility, uniform digital tickets for public transport providers, developing rail transport, promoting cycling, etc."?
The appearance is deceptive
But we do not want to be that strict! Let us see it in the best case and with indulgent generosity in the interpretation simply as well-intentioned declarations of intent. And yet it is sold to us as "measures" and the press is happy to accept it.
Let's take another example as a comparison: If we buy a jar of apricot jam, we do not get the idea that we'll find strawberry jam in it. So you read "measure" and think "great, something is being done" or "great, they are finally doing something".
Read between the lines
But once again it means for us consumers not only "look", but also "read" - which is now the last candidate for the word list in the starting blocks. Whoever reads that "measure" = "promotion of ..." comes to the bitter realization:
There is actually strawberry, where apricot draufsteht. Strawberry often tastes better than apricot, but it is simply better to have apricot on the glass, which the guests see, ...
A little clearer picture
Also nice are the TV duels before elections: They are popular and seen on many channels. The format has long been outdated. An example of little inspiring communication was the TV duel of Angela Merkel vs. Martin Schulz before the general election 2017. An analysis.
Not long in coming then always the political analyzes that already flicker directly on the screen. The opinion polls give a little clearer picture. A copy of the Rededuells itself. Also in the newspapers is often read "Schulz was better than expected, the gap remains". Hand on the heart: Such a verdict could have confidently formulated before.
Basically, it was a fair deal. Prepared questions were asked, attentively listened to, sometimes even right or mistakes admitted. The mutual Respect was present - between the candidates but also by the moderators.
The viewer feels that one basically knows and values each other. In retrospect, many complain about the lack of sharpness or conflict resolution. A newspaper even wrote of "cozy atmosphere".
Quite a "round conversation"
However, as a communication specialist I like "round discussions". Also, as the Urdemocrat, who is called to at least one election each year and ten ballots coming from a country that submits almost every permit for an aerial cableway to a community assembly, the style of the political debate appeals.
It is not a show, but part of the decision-making process and living together. Both need no gladiators, but responsible citizens and politicians. In the course of the 1,5 lessons, I also noticed points communicatively that give me something to think about.
Lack of passion
Not only that in around 2 / 3 talk time was talked about in the past tense, also in the remaining third it usually stayed in public places. Well-sounding, beautiful meant, but little concrete, because it was not said, what ultimately the person really does. Far more dramatic was the lack of passion.
It remains what was observed throughout the election campaign: In my perception, there are two technocrats who describe what was or is and what "one" would have to change. But everything is very flat. An "up-or-down" in the voice, a real enthusiastic facial expressions? Both were as good as not heard and seen.
Lack of presence
That does not even have anything to do with an open exchange. But the own vision of a modern Germany should really make the heart break out?
Anyone who is animated with a goal shows more voice, more modulation, larger gestures, the eyes shine more, he or she is simply more present. No, not rehearsed, but one lets the inner fire the window and so also other parts. That's it!
Always fair and correct
Almost hilarious the form of the "discussion". Once introduced at Nixon's election campaign, the viewer here experiences a pure form of prepared consumption. Four moderators take turns asking questions - the opponents respond in a timely manner.
This is fair, correct and can be so synonymous. But modern media is different today. The communication is (again) more dialog-oriented. Facebook is blogged, newspaper articles are annotated online, Twitter statements are further explained, justified and changed.
Too little involvement as a democratic good
All this shows that people today no longer simply "just sit there" and want to be sprinkled.
At least in the second part of such a TV duel would have used somehow, one wants to show that "Communication and participation" in democracy is basically the most important.
More knowledge - PDF download, eCourses or personal advice
Offline download: Download this text as PDF - Read usage rights, Because we do not automatically submit the title of this text for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed. After buying text exclusively Download at this URL (please save).
Your eCourse on Demand: Choose your personal eCourse on this or another desired topic, As a PDF download. Up to 30 lessons with each 4 learning task + final lesson. Please enter the title under "interests". Alternatively, we are happy to put together your course for you or offer you a personal regular eMailCourse including supervision and certificate - all further information!
Consultant packages: You want to increase your reach or address applicants as an employer? For these and other topics we offer special Consultant packages (overview) - For example, a personal phone call (price is per hour).