Interview with Dieter Fahrer: "We have the journalism we deserve".

Advertising Week: When you agreed to be interviewed, you said that everything always has to happen at such short notice for us journalists - half smiling, half knowing. You yourself have more time for your films. You started with "Die Vierte Gewalt" three years ago. Is that right?

Dieter Driver: Exactly.

At that time, there was no republic and fake news was a foreign word for many people. With what ambition and what questions did you approach your project?

Unlike journalists, I approach a project less with a question than with a feeling. This feeling came when I sat in the empty apartment of my parents, who had moved into a retirement home. That's how the film begins: me in that empty apartment. I remembered that the only media in our home was The Covenant was. As a child, I was only interested in the daily newspaper to make a fire or to stuff hiking boots. My parents, however, read the Confederation regularly, even in the nursing home. The newspaper accompanied them through their lives and gave them a sense of security. I became aware of everything that had changed in the last few decades, since the time when I still went to school with a quill and inkwell. I felt an impulse to follow this change. I was interested in the following: Who are the people I read about in the newspaper, listen to on the radio and increasingly consume online?

The trailer of "Die Vierte Gewalt" gives an insight into the documentary by Dieter Fahrer.

Usually, journalists are the ones who ask the questions - they rarely let people look over their shoulders themselves. Was it difficult to convince the editors to take part in your film?

Surprisingly, all the editorial offices quickly opened their doors to me. Perhaps that also has to do with the fact that they saw from my earlier films that I don't rely on simple polemics. At Watson I was looked at askance when I came up with consent forms. I still think, quite old-fashioned, that a person has a right to their own image. But today a photo is immediately uploaded to social media, liked and shared.

Did you give your protagonists the opportunity to view the film clips before release?

Yes, I did - and the confidence I had in the beginning has given way to a certain pressure. You want to come across well, you're worried about upsetting financiers or readers. As much as you like to ask critical questions yourself, you don't like it when critical, sore points are addressed in a film. Be it native advertising in Watson or the cost-cutting measures at the Confederation in connection with Tamedia. A camera, a film is like a mirror, a consciousness generator. Suddenly you see delicate or painful processes condensed on film. That's not just easy for everyone.

Did you respond to change requests?

I fought for most of the scenes and explained why they were important to the film. However, I deleted one statement, for example: Someone criticized in it the NZZwhich was not important at the point - I myself make a similar comment in an off-text. The person was worried about being out of a job at some point and having to work for the NZZ to no longer have a chance as a result. Such fears were clearly felt again and again.

Are all the editorial departments that you have filmed really doing so badly?

No, of course I have also observed that many journalists show a lot of commitment. But the time and economic pressures have increased dramatically. At Confederation more and more savings are being made, Tamedia is setting up competence centers. That triggers fears. But also the purely advertising-financed model of Watson is not only funny for those who work there. In between, they work as copywriters in a sense instead of journalists. No one can afford to be inconspicuous or differentiated in this industry. That leads to frustration, especially among older print journalists. I sense a similar development in my field of cinema: The younger generation is no longer willing to pay 18 francs for a Swiss documentary. Many young people find YouTube, Netflix, constantly available films in portions much cooler. Watching a long film and thinking about it - that's often not popular with the young, any more than reading print magazines.

No one can afford to be inconspicuous and differentiated in this industry.

Many people in the media industry are probably observing this development. Have you also been able to make observations that have amazed or perhaps fascinated you?
Yes, these four editorial teams I met were committed, with very different ideas about how journalism can still be sold.

Which model appealed to you the most?

I discovered things that fascinated me on all the editorials. Republic provokes by touting themselves as saviors of journalism and democracy before they have even started. For them, journalism is more than a business. At Confederation it was the local team that finds the big in the small, that seeks proximity to the people outside the office doors. The people who work at the "Echo der Zeit" are very committed: I found it highly exciting to listen to their discussions. Moreover, they (still) have sufficient resources and a network of correspondents like hardly anyone else. And Watson has this playful approach, this lightness of dealing with events.

Do you have an example of this?

Yes, we were shooting on election night - Trump, USA. I don't think anyone expected Trump to win. On most of the world's editorial boards, I think, articles were pre-produced on Clinton's victory, with headlines like "The important women: Clinton, Merkel, Theresa May." Instead of disposing of them clandestinely, the Watson At 6 a.m. in the morning, I pulled these pre-produced texts through a shredder, filmed them and spread them on social media. I thought that was great: being self-deprecating about having misjudged the situation like most people. Although I'm generally not a fan of constantly mixing information and entertainment.

Just as you don't primarily want to entertain with your films, but to hold up a mirror?

Yes, the film reflects how the editorial offices work, what kind of people are behind them. But I also question myself, integrate my thoughts in an off-rail. My parents also appear again and again in the retirement home with their daily newspaper - as an allegory: the dying of print and the dying of my parents. My father actually died this summer. Even though I don't address this in the film, you can still sense that something is coming to an end. That there is a certain uncertainty about the world.

In your opinion, was everything better in the past, when you still went to school with "Schreibfeder und Tintenfässli"?

No, for God's sake! I was born in 1958, a child of the boom. There was a Cold War. Many media reported very uncritically and perpetuated myths, for example regarding the military or banks. Today, we have access to more information than ever. Journalism should help us to better understand the facts. But unfortunately, the opposite often happens.

Journalism should contribute to a better understanding of the facts.

You yourself want to proofread not only the text but also the title and lead before publishing this interview. You have become skeptical about this, you said, explaining your desire. How did this distrust come about?

It has become clear to me that the media often deal with issues in a populist way, and it is no longer just the SVP that does this. Recently, for example, the Sunday newspaper published an interview with Giacobbo/Müller. Giacobbo mentioned that SRF had screwed up in his efforts to find a successor. Taken out of context, the statement became a headline. The No Billag climate is all about a power struggle. When people or institutions are put on the spot like that, it makes me sick.

What is your theory now that you have spent three years studying journalism in Switzerland: How can journalism function as a fourth estate in the future?

Talking about a crisis in journalism today falls far short of the mark. Social change is evident in journalism, but it permeates all areas of life. Republic says in its manifesto that journalism assumes responsibility for the public. But I ask myself: How much responsibility does the public assume for journalism? How media-savvy are we anyway, when over 50 percent of Switzerland doesn't know more than 20 minutes and yet wants to claim something about everything? The media stoke this clamor with populist headlines. But I believe we have the journalism we deserve. Or, to put it more actively: We have the journalism we are willing to pay for. We are challenged by society as a whole. We are happy when Alain Berset announces that the economic engine is humming. After all, we all want things to get better. More wages, more comfort, that's great - but at what price? How many people are exploited for it? How much environment is being destroyed? I think we are all driven by our prosperity, including the media. To what extent does our democracy still function in this way? Such questions occur on the margins of the film, but these are the questions that occupy me even after the film is finished.

If you look at your film critically: What are you satisfied with? And what did you not succeed with?

We succeeded well, I think, in combining a classically observational documentary with a very personal film. It's entertaining, but also self-reflective. What's missing: I should have questioned the journalists' fears.

What do you hope to trigger in viewers with your film?

I hope the film succeeds in showing how committed journalists are to their work. What fantastic, interested, cosmopolitan minds are trying to do their best in the most diverse editorial offices. And I would like to initiate a critical debate with regard to the cutbacks and the penetration of the media with commercial and political interests. I know that I won't change the world with a film. But sometimes something sticks.

Interview: Ann-Kathrin Kübler

Thefourthviolence.ch

This article first appeared in Advertising Week Number 1, January 12, 2018.