«Do you understand?»

The case Susanne Osthoff and the media

Susanne Osthoff is currently in the German media at the pillory. Spater at least since the 29. December 2005 — In an eviction — sent interview in the Today journal of ZDF, she is valid for many journalists and politicians as inaccurate. The Leipziger Philosopher Georg Meggle collects objection.

The case Osthoff — more concrete: Marietta Slomkas ZDF interview with her — occupies a lot:

  1. That Glonn in Bavaria — the place of residence of Susanne Osthoff’s parents family — Germans are close to light years than Baghdad in Iraq.
  2. That media can be lugged even if they tell the truth.
  3. That if a hostage survives, according to both the prevailing opinion and official politics, especially the ‘own’ people (politicians, intelligenceers, bka people etc.) to be recurred as merit.
  4. That the degree of general pro hostage sympathy is directly proportional depending on the one of which is one of us’s perspective — which is why this degree can be quite low when the hostage (a) Muslim is not, (b) Christmas, like It is believed to celebrate at Mama Unterm Christmas Tree Celebrating and herself (C) after her on the openly following BKA-Verhoh in German ZDF is fully veiled, while she would like to have it for the Arab sender Al-Jazira with a headscarf.
  5. And that with politically highly crystal topics for the media — and whose recipient — secondary things are much more important than the really important questions.

I feel about this last point.

What the public interests so all interests

What does our public in the case "Osthoff" not interested in everything?

  1. Why let Susanne Osthoff raise her daughter in a boarding school? — For daughters from higher circles, that was quite like, chic ". And goods the opportunity satisfied if Ms. Osthoff had taken her daughter in Iraq and thus also with the planned move from Baghdad to Arbil?
  2. How good Susanne Osthoff is indeed Arabic? — Even if Osthoffs arabic may be so good, why should she, if the English is still a bit easier, can not speak English at Al-Dschasira? Especially since you will know that your interview will also see many, who do not understand a word Arabic and that more Arabic speaking people understand English than vice versa?
  3. Why does not she call her brother after her free? — May be that Christian brother in Glonn in a conversion of the sister to Islam do not react much differently than Islamic brother in Saudi Arabia at a conversion of her sister to Christianity.
  4. Has she spoken with her debuts or not? — During the very much near-lying better question, however, the goods have been whether their debuters have, ‘spoken’ or not.

and so on.

— and what the openity is not interested

What so far often seems to be interested: What Susanne Osthoff said or. to understand us indirectly, D.H., Your own message. I think that for a scandal!

The general ignorance of this message is easy. With the syntactic and phonetically clear diction of the ZDF spokeswoman Marietta Slomka, the released hostages could not keep up. More than that: In fact, she lost the thread again and again. But that’s really surprising? Whom we were in different ways in this situation? (You do not bring the saused way into the game, with the Jurge Chrobog to report after his outdoors from the Yemen. The Yemeni Hospitality — also hostages against it — is of very different quality than the procedure of Iraqi Zarkawi groups.To)

Had, as Ms. Slomka maybe — rather an adventure report has not already had to teach himself by the first answer of the former hostage of another? "Ms. Osthoff, I pit her. How are you?". The answer was a single word: "bad!"- And this word also came after a terrible seconds of silence. Already the spotty — finally! — Against all conventions of LIFE interviews.

The privileged judgment: "total control loss"

All around the rest of the interview all agree: "total loss of control" (such the Mirror title of 02.01.06). Therefore, differences occur in the psychological explanations for this condition. The verdict is thus: Susanne Osthoff does not need to take a long time. And after her brother had to be admitted to psychiatry, certain nobody was surprised if over short or long happens the same with his sister.


I hereby contradict the final judgment of the Taz (30.12.05): "We talked to you yourself. We saw you. We know that at the moment you are not mistress of your situation."It is then closed:" We can not understand you."

Objection! I want to understand, not only what is going on here (in Iraq and with us as of Iraq) — I also want to understand what Susanne Osthoff wanted to tell us; and I think you can do that too.

Susanne Osthoff’s exercises by no means durable

In any case, not from A to Z. Despite her "total control loss", Susanne Osthoff was at least that most people in the context of TV interviews in my experience was unable to do that, they still had a self-confidence enough to reject some of the projects with significant words with their answers. who were simply amed by the questioner as true — certainly not in Boser’s intention. Auber the simple correction that (OSTHOFF) did not, as subordinated in the second question, was recorded three, but for four weeks, we find Z.B. Also not as simple as:

Slomka: You said you did not like the mouth. Was that your salvation that you have spoken so much with the hostage careers? Believe that you have also helped a lot yourself that they were released at the end?

Osthoff: You do not even know that I talked to those. Look, I did not tell you anyway. You do not know if I was allowed to talk at all. Whether I was gagged and something else.

Was in this point Mrs. Osthoff Mrs. Slomka not even clearly consider?

Reflections of undertakings that the interviewees obviously occur as ‘fully wrong’ can be found.

  1. For example, if it points to the fact that the day of your debut, the 25. November 2005, a Friday had been, which is why the claim to be horny in the media, she has remedied money on this day, not to vote at all. — "Any journalists "apparently did not know that free days in Islamic countries like our Sundays are: days with closed banks.
  2. Or for example if Susanne Osthoff asked for the question "is that wrong quoted in the interview with Al-Jazira that she liked in Iraq?"Replicated:" This question was not even asked. We did not come to such a private pipifax ". — Mind you: It’s not about whether these statements are true or false, but about how the interviewees react repeatedly. And indeed: she had not fallen on his mouth here.
  3. Or, for example, at least for our serious terroral analysis experts, probably highly relevant association whose (little) carefully within the Iraqi terrorist groups the creation of their cruel video clips is going on. The way Susanne Osthoff expresses this association — meaningfulness: how absurd to believe, Mussab Al Sarkawi or his followers also had to control the MUBE in the appropriate recordings, whether the wall was really freshly matured in the background — this Voting Susanne Osthoffs corresponds to cynical sarcasm, with whom she likes this and other "mistakes of the minds of the Germans". Cynical, yes — but therefore already wrong?

Furthermore, Susanne Osthoff had a rather sharp (and also sharp-printed) relevance awareness in the interview, D.H. A consciousness for what — from your point of view, is obvious — for the assessment of your own case is relevant and what not. Irrelevant are just those aspects for which our media are primarily interested in. For example,

  1. Why do not you feel like your family with your family etc. have reported — and not even for Christmas. — As a reminder: Christmas is, even if the birth of the prophet of Jesus is thought, no genuine Islamic festival;
  2. How the deployment came in detail in detail — she had already set out for the BKA according to her words before the interview.;
  3. Whether she was really scared of death — and as a public question to a person who had had to know what he had behind him, and his traumatization is then used after the interview as an argument against his believeness. Incidentally, OSTHOFF reacted completely adequately to this imposition: "I was quite informed correctly to whom it is. Namely a grouping of the group Abu Mussab Al Sarkawi … and since I will not be so blod then to be considered, … want to drink the now blob with me somehow tea. These were bang-hard facts.";
  4. How much money is Germany paid to your projects in Iraq, and:
  5. What is Blob in Susanne Osthoffs small plasticute in it?

What is important to the victim itself

Which for the victim itself — in the meantime no longer only that of terrorists in Iraq — is really important, that must have become clear to anyone who has read the interview once in peace. First, the victim own project in Iraq; And second, the US GB project IRAK -ALS part of the coarse project "New Middle Ages. Middle East".

Above all, I’m interested in the latter project: the current conclusion and the expected further developments in Iraq.

— Is not important to the media

In the context of the Osthoff case, this coarse project topic does not exist in the media. Rather, our attention is focused on the small project, on which by Susanne Osthoff — and not even on the basis of Susanne Osthoff. It is quite straight this, small ‘project, which was the anxious — just his whole food point for the victim itself -. How do people react when they see their life project destroyed? Just like man Susanne Osthoff too. I know many otherwise very reasonable people who do not affect no less, if they have lost only their homes.

For someone who is not in this small (OSTHOFF) project, are, of course, the sprung, the OSTHOFFs in fact make something panic-like executions, not very easy to understand. With a bit of empathy very well: a project, from whose continuing on the own existence also depends on 40 families, is on the cant. And here no egoist speaks: "I have … knew that people are still poor than me. They need a bit of feedback now."In order to continue the project, the project manager also needs a certain — also financial security. Ms. Osthoff sees this threatened by several sides. Is it so hard to understand the behavior of a person who breaks away among the feet? "Do you understand?"

If you are not deaf, you have to horns: from Susanne Osthoff’s project experiences speaks an abysmal bitterness: "I already died of Oopters because of the Germans, because they love me in the war."And as far as the warning of your project is concerned about German Burokrates:" That was a lamination of Germany, simply … the whiter screams to the sky "; And: "Fact is: The employee of the message made me prere and threatened a lawsuit". why? That seems to have somehow with forming blans and billing modalities to do. Declaration? From and on Burokrats page probably hardly. But if the "Cultural Repeater" in Iraq should actually be that Germany’s, interests’ best with another "billing site" instead of — as I complain about some colleagues: so far, quite a divergent — rich and detailed knowledge of our "arabists" or. "Orientalists" served, so … Well, who is actually stated for the evaluation of our sightseey cultural professionals. Goethe?

According to these considerations on what Susanne Osthoff itself — measured by what it really goes — has been indignanted as "Pipifax", and after my above — even from the world on Sunday (01.01.2006) — Pladoyer on fairness for Susanne Osthoff now finally to the core of the matter: to the situation in Iraq (from the point of view of Germany) — Wofur Susanne Osthoff’s unfamblings, their freezing and their respective media processing testimony.

Susanne Osthoff — and, our ‘Iraq

The core of the Embassy of the Archaologist Susanne Osthoff is meaningful this: Damn again, finally distinguishes between the personally took care of myself (a "short crime") and whose gross context: the "short crime" to me has a "long story"! In other words, how do you want my case — D.H., me — "understand" if the (historical) context does not matter to you?

This appeal was already in the third response of Osthoff — and until then, her sets were still largely grammatically correct. The appeal remained absolutely ineffective. The TV spokeswoman — and certainly not only you — was completely deaf on this ear. Context was not provided for in this broadcast. A deeper understanding does not belong to the program. "Do you understand?"Also this signal went into the emptiness.

There are some theses from Susanne Osthoff, who ask for explanations and then probably after further discussions.

T1: Your hostage is part of a salesman.

*T2: And her hostage sawn stood "under a very bad sign": in the history a "Judian intelligence officer" played a role.

There are further details to these theses from the Foreign BKA Vorad of Susanne Osthoff? May the public experience learned about this? And if not, why not? There is no journalist with us anymore, who can only be made here for clearing?

T3: The life qualitat in Iraq is so bad that the terror groups are increasingly multiplying.

That is not a rough news; You hear you again and again. But interesting is that the otherwise elections from the US and Great Britain will be contradicted by someone who would probably know the scene on site a little better than the occupation troops.

And finally a good news, which, of course — despite German Christmas context — so far nobody, absolutely nobody, so even horns wanted:

T4: In Arabia, there is not only terror; there is there — even in terrorist context — even grace.

This message is certainly not only relevant for the few among us who still want to believe in the possibility of improving intercultural understanding; For example, it could have — for example — very concrete application sequences — for the next OSTHOFF analogue. How do German terrorism experts in use?? Or do not want to do anything horen from "grace"?

T5: The "thinking of the Germans" is, which is concerned with Iraq (perhaps the whole Middle East) — probably in multiple terms — a faulty.

So with this "way of thinking of the Germans" just as far as before? That could be stupidity -The horse raid.

Total control loss? By no means. Not at Susanne Osthoff. Not in their ZDF interview. Rather, another case of failed communication between people from different worlds. And in which one person, self-resistant, unuitable characters extreme stress.

Before the victim is admitted to the Germans, the Jordanian or even in Iraqi, psychiatry ‘, you may be in peace — ie neither on television nor in the Bavarian Glonn, best probably not in Germany — talk to him So also belong to him. We could probably learn a lot. Anyway, Susanne Osthoff did not deserve the current German media pillory!

Only after the publication this article is the article by Patrick Bahner in the FAZ (30.12.05). There my main thesis is already formulated, according to which the ZDF interview with Mrs. Osthoff — the complete, mind you — by no means lashered on their "total loss of control". In addition, he also speaks aspects to which I had not received, Z.B. Susanne Osthoffs Thanks to Gerhard Schroder (who has addressed "the honor-fired") and that in the sent interview, the criticism of German cultural bureaucracy in Iraq of Short was also the victim to the sent interview.

Addendum of 04.01.06

Like the star interview with Susanne Osthoff (05.01.06) Shows, I had misunderstood a point in your ZDF interview. In the above reconstruction thesis T2 is therefore "An Israeli secret service officer" word "a" to delete and through "the accusation" to replace.

Addendum of 06.01.06

Georg Meggle is a professor for philosophy at the University of Leipzig. His work focuses on: communication, collective intention alitat and terrorism. He is currently leading the public university ring lecture Germany / Israel / Palastina.

Добавить комментарий