opinion of the editorial "Johannes B. Kerner
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Baystat240a 3aat82b1b2
analysis of the conversation or the appeal to the Tribunal
That was the proper analysis of the October 9, 2007, held a conversation between Eva Herman, John Baptist Kerner and his aides Berger, Schreinemakers, Wippermann and Barth, . was kindly given to me by a visitor of my blog is available, which was also the editorial "Johannes B. Kerner" sent
This can be used as pdf be downloaded - thank you for the kind permission
! ZDF broadcast "Johannes B. Kerner"
conversation between Eva Herman Kerner and John Baptist
attempt at conversation analysis
I have read the transcript of the program several times. And wanted the mechanism to understand the approach of this conversation. I will try to run (yes, it is quite long) to demonstrate how my analysis of the conversation.
It begins to welcome even with a high-school teacher-like question. "Eva, on September 6 was the press conference where the book was to be presented What have you learned since then?"
as well-prepared presenter I open a dialogue not with such a question.
If I want to build my business partners "golden bridges", if I want to give him a fair chance, I ask, for example, "Eva, I did not understand the quote-established. What exactly you wanted to express it?"
would have seen Ms Herman is a real chance to present their opinion.
The question "What have you learned?" comes from a patronizing and arrogant Edukativmethode the late imperial period. Such a question calls almost out the self-flagellation.
And so it goes on in the conversation with EH.
Kerner: "Have just made another mistake or have you also made mistakes?" Closed
alternative question. How can a man than to answer. The question was again a call for self-flagellation dar. Mr. Kerner, please, ask something but not a moderator if he really wants to build golden bridges to the other, right?
Kerner: "Do you think that you yourself have made mistakes, or is it really true that all the others who have made mistakes?" Mr. Kerner
Och, that's really awkward to just before the wife of Herman with "We can even watch the whole quote," answered another question to ask. It would be better in my opinion was at this point to follow the suggestion of EH and immediately make the recording.
asks after the recording of the sound again quote Mr. Kerner concluded with a question: "Was really good, what was at that time with mothers, with children with families? "In this formulation, it implies
through the use of the word" really "that would argue in the previously-established Citation EH that what was in the 3rd Reich with mothers, children and families, would find well . are those suggestive formulations suitable for provocation, but to stimulate not an objective discussion
used After a brief explanation of EH to JBK which Prof. Wippermann with the words: "What do you think of the comments made by Eva Herman, which is ? it right what is wrong with "
And the answer this extremely controversial Prof W is shot like a shot:" It is wrong. You confuse fascism and Conservatism. She wants to defend the conservative women and maternal ideal is that their right, the 3 Ks lift namely church, kitchen, kids. "
With" It is beginning, "he answers non-specific and vague. What exactly is wrong?
In subsequently used Prof W, the terms "race breeding, racial extermination in the racial state." I wonder how a professor's statements EH can comment on these terms.
tells stories in the sequence W-free on the 3rd Reich and the former peculiarities, which EH with the sentence "So thank you for the first time in the history lessons ..." is now acknowledged
EH clearly distanced from any brown ideology. "... for I have before me this quote several times expressly dissociates itself from any proximity to the Third Reich, on the contrary, I have vigorously rejected by me ... "
That is now clearly
And again:" ... the brown leg is swinging from the start if one looks today committed to values for children and family, and it is assumed one, but I would caution against those who try ... "
Then the interjection of JBK:" I find that at all, sorry "
here. JBK tried to object to a thought that he still does not know, because he can not finish EH. He is the latest as of this moment is no longer the neutral moderator, but strong in the subject, the content involved. Fatal to a moderator. Better here would have been a question or - even better - just to shut up, and to bring the idea to the end of EH.
Next JBK: ". ... But you have to compare, even if it was misrepresented, you've got the terminology introduced Would you at least say that it was difficult to refer to this comparison?" JBK is again deep in conversation content, rather than hold out. The final question is again a closed question, which is peppered with suggestive elements only way ("You do not get the comparison ... the concepts introduced," "problem ... this comparison).
Not only that JBK here deep content argues, he is also still wrong content, because EH has not made this comparison.
And now cuts a new facet to JBK: ". .., I burn so under the nails
What is it for you for a feeling when you are ready to celebrate the website of the NPD and the DVU will go to demonstrate for you? "
The phrase "It burns with so under the nails" shows clearly how much of JBK is motivated, EH to push in the right corner! The question of DVU / NPD in this context is more than suggestive and manipulative. EH is set again with the right elements in relationship. Completely unnecessary for an informed discussion and only suitable for provocation. Then
EH ". A miserable and evil I am, of course proceeded against it with a lawyer that's perfectly clear So I mean this is no question that I reject the Third Reich ...." The second firm rejection of brown ideas!
JBK: "Would you not say that it was difficult to make this comparison at all?"
Hat JBK ever understood what EH has previously said? Has he ever seen? What is the purpose of the re-issue?
deflected As a result, EH attention to the values they think important discussion ("Why do we have problems with your values?") and there is a banter between EH and Berger had the lowest birth rates in Europe.
Thereafter, EH detail and refers to the day care issue.
The conversation now seems to turn to the matter.
EH: "And it is clear at this time in the Third Reich's family values have been abused and perverted And of course, by the 68ers is rejected because of it.."
much clearer one can not of 3 Reich distance. It is up to here the third time, the indication that the 68 generation family values therefore rejected because they in the 3rd Reich has been abused, Berger probably not understood, since it raises the question "How old were you, Eva, 1968? "
The purpose of this question can only be to EH would dispute the authority to talk about the '68 generation, and to define himself as an expert for that period. This is reflected in the sentence" But I've lived it. I have experienced it and lived. "The" but "expresses an objection and said," Unlike you ". This can be interpreted as" Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this time. " . This attempt to discredit Berger EH
In apparent contrast to statements EHs Berger notes: "... that women are at home to make virtually the valuable work, then I have to say, sadly, that the few women today as a free choice added. That's the problem. "
Just trying EH show too. EH and Berger must at this point actually agree. This would have JBK notice: he would have had at this point the chance to find a minimum consensus between Berger and EH.
Then there is the value that the children in our society today have
JBK: ". ... You say yourself, the Nazis perverted these values."
EH: Yes
Again, a clear rejection of Nazi ideology. ! now the fourth time
JBK: "Why do not you say that it was a mistake at all this Nazi comparison ... to mention? "
want to hear what JBK? What does the JBK earlier occasions been hooked question again insisting on? Since it does beg the interpretation that JBK want to hear a self-incrimination or "I revoke".
These kinds of questions that are accompanied by a regular time and again reminded of the meeting's leaders of Inquisition, yes, you should pardon the comparison, the interviewing of a people's court proceeding, Freisler, where similarly insistent questions were asked in order to extort a confession .
EH goes to this question, but rather poses questions about causes, "why we have problems with the values of why our society is divided Why do we have many distinctions Why do we have hardly any families? ? Which are there together and can remain "
JBK:" And why do you compare, do with the Nazi period comparisons "
The conversation turns in circles, especially on this point, the questioning nature of the conversation clearly shows JBK.. tried to blackmail EH rhetorically, and to press in the brown area that is what is called an indictment charges the other hand, should not belong to the repertoire of a professional facilitator This is in fact lower, rhetorical drawer
EH.... " ... if you are looking for the causes, but they can be found here. Here are the things, just things that have been abused, and was subsequently explained by the fact unsuitable for use. "
Again, now the fifth time in EH distances clearly from the Nazi era.
Now it is the fact that the JBK Prof. W brings into play the absolute climax of absurdity. Prof W. told with a distinctly arrogant, complacent and cynical intonation of one of his exam candidates. What a superfluous word garbage. The Verunsachlichung by the "experts" is hard to surpass.
Prof W: "They have praised the values of family values and children and motherhood, which were promoted in the 3rd Reich This is their quote and this is wrong I must say this is simply wrong..... "
If you read this sentence, you'll immediately notice that here is a massive W Imputation works. This assumption is due to the combination of the words "values", "Family", "Children," "Motherhood" with the "promotion of these values in the 3rd Reich. It's manipulative rhetoric in the highest degree. What is the intention of the "experts"? There remains no great
interpretation! He wants to push EH clearly in the neo-Nazi corner. A very ugly trial. A true expert does ask factual, sober, no waves of emotion is tangible connections, but he does not complain. And certainly not an expert involved in the indictment of a guest.
comes After a brief skirmish between EH and Prof W JBK again with the Neo-Nazi club, by addressing the NPD website. Now it is, I think, clear to everyone what happens here!
JBK: "The website of the NPD ..." EH
out: "Yes, it's bad and it is unbearable for me ...."
EH distances itself now for the sixth time clearly brown from the corner.
The subsequent exchange between EH and MSCH I will not comment further.
interesting however is the point at which EH is coming back to the lack of facilities with nursery places and MSCH agrees with her.
JBK also had the chance to build consensus noticed would have been offered for the second time the chance for an objective discussion. JBK but has either not noticed or do not notice it.
Surprisingly, Berger mixed with the question "How many have they been sold?" conversation. A totally inappropriate question at this point, as it was before the public discussion of the issues Kita etc..
Now the concession from Berger: "So I have to say honestly, I feel very uncomfortable with this discussion anyway, and also because I do not know these books but have only read about these books, so I can also be very.. hard to argue. "
Berger acknowledges that she is out of place really because they did not EHs in the books presented theses knows. It would have been good had JBK EH here given the chance, the theories briefly and clearly presented to Berger. Berger then had known what retail is all about. Said Berger talks in the episode as a blind man by the color. General observations on the role of working women are led by Berger.
MSCH now leads an initiative of the Housewife Association from 1978 to pay for work of a housewife who is obviously lost in the sand, which EH rightly.
is interesting is the observation of MSCH: "... as a young reporter I did the first report ..." Should well express, first, I know what I mean, the second for as long as I've been doing this job. It makes you want MSCH clearly show how great their experience and competence. It may be that the goal is to determine competence by EHs in question.
MSCH ". But it must be enforced but also politically, but because we're all here, the wrong partner!"
EH: Yes, exactly! " Once again, JBK
offers the opportunity for consensus building. Unfortunately he has not used again.
comes after a brief digression on the demographic development of the world population JBK with the first question, the EH is not in the brown area. Good! However
is again a closed question. Bad!
JBK: "I would be interested only if you really believe that by targeting the female determining the child in the first place and in the early days and beyond that the supply of the family as to whether the problems be overcome? "
EH answers with regard to the values.
now turns to JBK Mr. Barth, the short comments on his childhood with a happy mother makes. interesting thing is that Barth says that his stay with the kids mother was a happy mother. He confirmed therefore, the fundamental conviction of EH.
JBK had again the opportunity to build consensus to find among his guests.
He did not make it again.
After the interview a relative objectivity has approached JBK provokes comparison with the quotations EH / Rosenberg. EH
out: "Yes, now here we go again!"
rightly complained EH this new attempt to put them in the brown area. JBK what aim? Has he noticed the six spacers of EH did not before? He probably
had prepared intensively for the provocation and is now not able to be flexible to adapt to the opposite objectivity. Re-examination of the provocative nature becomes clear. They are from the perspective of rhetoric methods, the average age of the church, in later dictators such as for example in the 3rd Empire of the Gestapo and were used by the Stasi in East Germany to get people to push into a corner and from them a "confession" to blackmail.
EH: "... we really do not talk about such things anymore, we can no longer claim to make us strong for values, it holds only a great danger in our democracy if it no longer possible, to talk about such things ... "
JBK interrupts unnecessarily with the words: "So you were allowed more detailed talk anywhere in the last two months ..."
says For what purpose a moderator for such things? If he wanted to bring the great kindness of the ZDF expressed? If he wanted to create at EH gratitude?
he wanted to hear from EH the sentence "I am so thankful to you"?
This is highly arrogant.
EHs statement about the "true femininity" causes JBK, becoming involved in the following sentence: "What is the true definition of womanhood - it's not to sit at home and to bring up the children but the true definition of. Femininity is yet a fully recognized member of a society to be ... "
means Conversely, this means that a woman who cares about children and family at home, not a fully accepted member of society. This was a really fatal flaw in JBK.
There follows an exchange of words between the participants of the round, at the EH, however, is silent. This exchange is it to different opinions between Berger and MSCH.
Berger: "There are big problems, but there is no hostility to children."
MSCH "Hui, hui, hui ..."
JBK steers the conversation to the reactions to EHs books that are, according to EHs else is represented as in the press, and asks the question: "You have complained and the formulation was about the" synchronized press "in this matter .
The strategy is clear. As Kerner knew that even the Nazi era of "conformity" language, it connects again, a statement EHs with Nazi ideology. Why, one wonders? Actually, it can be only one answer. JBK tries almost militant, EH to put into the right corner and discredit it. Commonly referred to as "bullying".
EH JBKs affirmative the question, after which - and now the intention is clear - JBK says: ".. This is not a happy choice of words, because this word comes from the Third Reich as we can tell the historian"
"What we can say the historians." That's interesting. How did JBK what the historians will say the same? Then you could see an agreement made before the broadcast.
Prof W: "Of course," uniformity "a Nazi term ... And they have a Nazi term used.." Re committed thrust of the "experts" EH to insinuate ideas brown. However, an almost ridiculous attempt. At this point, the obsessiveness of the Prof W shows very clearly.
Now comes another painful climax.
Prof W: "And that's why they're doing now ideologies and conspiracy talk of lost tapes, to which one no longer rankommt."
EH: "Yes."
Prof W ". This is a conspiracy of pathology, they have there, Well, that's very problematic."
This personal attack well below the belt line was completely inadequate and shows with great clarity, the real intention of Professor W. He wants EH maneuver by all means wide. Even before the harshest personal attacks, he did not shy away. This would immediately have to JBK
punished with a yellow card. This is absolutely unworthy of an expert. This is puerile and tasteless!
is amazing how confidently EH deals with this personal attack!
The concept of "uniformity" EH has rightly pointed out: "You only need to enter Google And since they can go through every newspaper, which newspaper this term has been used.."
JBK: "But also wrong, even wrong"
JBK is again involved in the content, as he evaluates what he should not do as moderator.
EH: "Of course he has been used since, but so are highways have been built at that time. and we go on it today. "
Undoubtedly EH right that the term is the uniformity in the media. However, you should consider this term again in the context of use.
But this was nothing for it.
The reference to" highways "is of course a huge buzz word in Germany
That should have EH know as a media expert This will provide the.." experts "and their critics through ball, which the Prof W most cynical of course use immediately without mercy, as he loudly losprustet: Yes that's the beauty. Adolf built the motorways - yes, that was it. The highway is the best argument. "It seems as if the only Prof W waiting to place a further blow. High motivated, he strikes.
EH: "We're sitting here in a program and I feel I will be constantly in your head right and I'm just not." The seventh
distancing from ideas of brown!
MSCH: "Or not considered excused time, then you will not put."
like they are right. The expression of EH was apparently born out of anger at the Prof.
JBK: ". It's not about the thing not the description of values, it is about the comparisons and the terms, I think," He certainly has
right, it is in no way more for the cause, but rather EH in the brown area to ask. Whereas, it EH to the representation of values was what she emphasized several times and always tried to steer the conversation to that level. The focus on "Comparison and terms" of the Nazi period is more than superfluous in a program where it should go to the "roles for men and women.
had to de-escalate JBK Here are a facilitator role rather than to pour gasoline on the fire. This task, he was apparently not (more) increased. Fortunately, Berger
goes to this comparison, an unspeakable, but rather turns to the contents such as "How will you define values This is about lost values, the world has changed, how can you value... . Define I find it a great good that men and women together have emancipated. "
Once again, the moderator JBK offering the option to call back on line. But he failed again, the conversation about the show due. Instead, he asks: "You have filed suit against the NDR. What reach do you want? "
focuses Again, JBK instead of EH on the subject of his mission. In addition, JBK know, of course, that EH answer to this question can not, because it is an ongoing process concerns. In light of this knowledge can be JBK assume again a provocation. Further evidence of his inquisitorial behavior.
The method is simple. It is a question of who can speak the other person interrogated or not, without burdening themselves. Very transparent!
JBK insists on answering the question and repeated his question twice.
the following question: "Where are you in five years?" To irrelevance in this context is hard to beat.
But now comes an interesting twist. JBK draws on his initial question and make it again: "Do you want only the others have made mistakes Do?"
We notice immediately that wants to hear JBK. The rhetorical figure, in his opinion has not closed, his head in circles but one thing he always wants to, the EH to marginalization is.
EH concedes that have not only made other errors. It is rhetorically a step toward JBK. This is an offer to talk peace, a proposal to eliminate contamination of relationship. But what makes JBK?
JBK: "Your wording was not faulty would you do today again and I will treat you very fairly I'll give you every opportunity to enlarge?..
He WILL hear it now! With all the power he urges EH to a self-mortification, though he bit at the beginning of the round on granite. What has JBK into his head? What is the mission he may have had?
The phrase "I want you all . Fair deal "he could have saved himself, because everything that was said before pointing in the direction to discredit EH and placed in the brown corner
EH out." It will be more careful. I need to learn: you can over the course of German history does not speak in order not to be in danger. "
After a slow murmur of applause and some in the audience is beginning to MSCH states fierce opposition
MSCH." You can not. Excuse me. I can not. This level can not. I have to disassociate myself from sitting here. This is unbearable. We love you, but I'll elevated pulse. Sorry.
What MSCH wanted to express? What value of MSCH was This remark by EH hurt that they reacted so violently and apparently came under severe stress (increased heart rate)?
JBK is now on his facilitation skills end.
JBK: "At the point where I can tell you that we are not content, we must have it I wanted, Eva indicate the end of the conversation, the opportunity to say that you might something look different, you said.. that you do not see. And then we end the conversation here. That's just fine. And now, Margaret. " The gracious
JBK you wanted to give a chance. Even if that should have been his initial request, he has not done. He did not talk objectively with EH. And in any case, he wanted to talk about "The role of husband and wife."
Because then he would behave differently, and certainly not invited an "expert" in modern history, but a social scientist, an expert on family policy, or a psychologist.
MSCH: "I am sorry if Eva refuses to deal with a designated professional who has made more than three thoughts and far from being polarizing only entertain"
One may wonder where this " designated expert ", more than three ideas did. During the conversation, but it was not clear.
But the conversation goes on. JBK interviewed EH now finally, after the thesis of her book: "Then we get even the theses of the book: a theory: it has sustained and negative consequences for children when they are not bound by their mothers but foreign to education staff."
Good! But why does he provoke EH again with the attached "How long were you at Bishop Mixa in teaching?"
EH leads to attachment research and makes comments on the parent-child bond, which is acceptable to Berger. Once again, JBK offering the possibility of forming consensus, but he does not take up again.
And now there is a surprising turn in the conversation history. Although Berger and EH
about birth rate and unemployment relatively factual exchange, Berger has suddenly feel they have to go.
What happened in this key moment? What was going on in the head by Berger?
Berger: "Young people in Saxony-Anhalt create any jobs but You have to work that is their right and then they can start a family..."
you respond to the factual level, noting possibly at the same time that it is the arguments EHs not grown, because she says: ".. I go I can no longer lead this discussion then I must prepare myself better and read their books
."
This is a clear insight, which is located still on the factual level. The desire to have to go concerns me in any way the previous discussion of EHs opinions of the family, but simply to keep up to objectively can not. The addition of temporary incompetence is very honorable of Berger and shows the sovereignty of this woman.
JBK But what made it?
JBK: "There are moments where there is concern about how to make more I decided that I guests with three more and make you, Eva, now, goodbye, thank you.." He throws out
EH!
instead to build on the functional style of the previous meeting between Berger and EH, he noted that he and his and Prof W's provocative way of Interviewing his goal is not reached. He makes it a scandal.
Conclusion:
JBK wanted to discuss the role of husband and wife, but instead a EHTribunal it done. This goes back to one of his own initiative and partly on the initiative of the editors, who had been invited with a sure hand for a Provocative Prof W.
to the people in detail: first
Johannes B. Kerner JBK
has missed the beginning of the subject matters themselves completely. Through his preparation for the mission was his perception of the statements made by its main score EH heavily filtered, so that it is not the seven distancing from Nazi thinking by EH perceived exercise and has not wanted to or could.
He has left the path of the neutral facilitator from the start and thus contributed significantly to the escalation.
second Eva Herman EH
responded in most factual and impressive form to the allegations by JBK and Prof W. It has contributed their comments to clarify their "misleading" or misunderstood. The multiple distancing by the Nazis were in clear, simple and understandable presented. They could not ignore or misunderstand at all.
third Senta Berger
Although it has other convictions of family as EH, but mostly within their means tries to discuss values and express their opinion. The little slip-up ("How old were you in 1968?") Had forgiven her. The knowledge of being inadequately prepared content was correct. The enunciation of this insight will be appreciated.
4th Margarethe Schreinemakers
was also MSCH in some places the call and willing to objectively deal with the arguments of EH. However, their nonverbal communication behavior was characterized by adolescent rejection.
5th Professor Wippermann
As one of the most provocative participant, I am speaking from his objectivity and expert knowledge. Someone who is swinging away such irrelevant and emotionally to a host of JBK should will not in future be invited as an expert.
He has certainly outed as the biggest loser next JBK itself.
6th Mario Barth
As comedian largely overwhelmed with a serious discussion about property values of our society.
JB
Wiesbaden
This can be used as pdf be downloaded - thank you for the kind permission
! ZDF broadcast "Johannes B. Kerner"
conversation between Eva Herman Kerner and John Baptist
attempt at conversation analysis
I have read the transcript of the program several times. And wanted the mechanism to understand the approach of this conversation. I will try to run (yes, it is quite long) to demonstrate how my analysis of the conversation.
It begins to welcome even with a high-school teacher-like question. "Eva, on September 6 was the press conference where the book was to be presented What have you learned since then?"
as well-prepared presenter I open a dialogue not with such a question.
If I want to build my business partners "golden bridges", if I want to give him a fair chance, I ask, for example, "Eva, I did not understand the quote-established. What exactly you wanted to express it?"
would have seen Ms Herman is a real chance to present their opinion.
The question "What have you learned?" comes from a patronizing and arrogant Edukativmethode the late imperial period. Such a question calls almost out the self-flagellation.
And so it goes on in the conversation with EH.
Kerner: "Have just made another mistake or have you also made mistakes?" Closed
alternative question. How can a man than to answer. The question was again a call for self-flagellation dar. Mr. Kerner, please, ask something but not a moderator if he really wants to build golden bridges to the other, right?
Kerner: "Do you think that you yourself have made mistakes, or is it really true that all the others who have made mistakes?" Mr. Kerner
Och, that's really awkward to just before the wife of Herman with "We can even watch the whole quote," answered another question to ask. It would be better in my opinion was at this point to follow the suggestion of EH and immediately make the recording.
asks after the recording of the sound again quote Mr. Kerner concluded with a question: "Was really good, what was at that time with mothers, with children with families? "In this formulation, it implies
through the use of the word" really "that would argue in the previously-established Citation EH that what was in the 3rd Reich with mothers, children and families, would find well . are those suggestive formulations suitable for provocation, but to stimulate not an objective discussion
used After a brief explanation of EH to JBK which Prof. Wippermann with the words: "What do you think of the comments made by Eva Herman, which is ? it right what is wrong with "
And the answer this extremely controversial Prof W is shot like a shot:" It is wrong. You confuse fascism and Conservatism. She wants to defend the conservative women and maternal ideal is that their right, the 3 Ks lift namely church, kitchen, kids. "
With" It is beginning, "he answers non-specific and vague. What exactly is wrong?
In subsequently used Prof W, the terms "race breeding, racial extermination in the racial state." I wonder how a professor's statements EH can comment on these terms.
tells stories in the sequence W-free on the 3rd Reich and the former peculiarities, which EH with the sentence "So thank you for the first time in the history lessons ..." is now acknowledged
EH clearly distanced from any brown ideology. "... for I have before me this quote several times expressly dissociates itself from any proximity to the Third Reich, on the contrary, I have vigorously rejected by me ... "
That is now clearly
And again:" ... the brown leg is swinging from the start if one looks today committed to values for children and family, and it is assumed one, but I would caution against those who try ... "
Then the interjection of JBK:" I find that at all, sorry "
here. JBK tried to object to a thought that he still does not know, because he can not finish EH. He is the latest as of this moment is no longer the neutral moderator, but strong in the subject, the content involved. Fatal to a moderator. Better here would have been a question or - even better - just to shut up, and to bring the idea to the end of EH.
Next JBK: ". ... But you have to compare, even if it was misrepresented, you've got the terminology introduced Would you at least say that it was difficult to refer to this comparison?" JBK is again deep in conversation content, rather than hold out. The final question is again a closed question, which is peppered with suggestive elements only way ("You do not get the comparison ... the concepts introduced," "problem ... this comparison).
Not only that JBK here deep content argues, he is also still wrong content, because EH has not made this comparison.
And now cuts a new facet to JBK: ". .., I burn so under the nails
What is it for you for a feeling when you are ready to celebrate the website of the NPD and the DVU will go to demonstrate for you? "
The phrase "It burns with so under the nails" shows clearly how much of JBK is motivated, EH to push in the right corner! The question of DVU / NPD in this context is more than suggestive and manipulative. EH is set again with the right elements in relationship. Completely unnecessary for an informed discussion and only suitable for provocation. Then
EH ". A miserable and evil I am, of course proceeded against it with a lawyer that's perfectly clear So I mean this is no question that I reject the Third Reich ...." The second firm rejection of brown ideas!
JBK: "Would you not say that it was difficult to make this comparison at all?"
Hat JBK ever understood what EH has previously said? Has he ever seen? What is the purpose of the re-issue?
deflected As a result, EH attention to the values they think important discussion ("Why do we have problems with your values?") and there is a banter between EH and Berger had the lowest birth rates in Europe.
Thereafter, EH detail and refers to the day care issue.
The conversation now seems to turn to the matter.
EH: "And it is clear at this time in the Third Reich's family values have been abused and perverted And of course, by the 68ers is rejected because of it.."
much clearer one can not of 3 Reich distance. It is up to here the third time, the indication that the 68 generation family values therefore rejected because they in the 3rd Reich has been abused, Berger probably not understood, since it raises the question "How old were you, Eva, 1968? "
The purpose of this question can only be to EH would dispute the authority to talk about the '68 generation, and to define himself as an expert for that period. This is reflected in the sentence" But I've lived it. I have experienced it and lived. "The" but "expresses an objection and said," Unlike you ". This can be interpreted as" Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this time. " . This attempt to discredit Berger EH
In apparent contrast to statements EHs Berger notes: "... that women are at home to make virtually the valuable work, then I have to say, sadly, that the few women today as a free choice added. That's the problem. "
Just trying EH show too. EH and Berger must at this point actually agree. This would have JBK notice: he would have had at this point the chance to find a minimum consensus between Berger and EH.
Then there is the value that the children in our society today have
JBK: ". ... You say yourself, the Nazis perverted these values."
EH: Yes
Again, a clear rejection of Nazi ideology. ! now the fourth time
JBK: "Why do not you say that it was a mistake at all this Nazi comparison ... to mention? "
want to hear what JBK? What does the JBK earlier occasions been hooked question again insisting on? Since it does beg the interpretation that JBK want to hear a self-incrimination or "I revoke".
These kinds of questions that are accompanied by a regular time and again reminded of the meeting's leaders of Inquisition, yes, you should pardon the comparison, the interviewing of a people's court proceeding, Freisler, where similarly insistent questions were asked in order to extort a confession .
EH goes to this question, but rather poses questions about causes, "why we have problems with the values of why our society is divided Why do we have many distinctions Why do we have hardly any families? ? Which are there together and can remain "
JBK:" And why do you compare, do with the Nazi period comparisons "
The conversation turns in circles, especially on this point, the questioning nature of the conversation clearly shows JBK.. tried to blackmail EH rhetorically, and to press in the brown area that is what is called an indictment charges the other hand, should not belong to the repertoire of a professional facilitator This is in fact lower, rhetorical drawer
EH.... " ... if you are looking for the causes, but they can be found here. Here are the things, just things that have been abused, and was subsequently explained by the fact unsuitable for use. "
Again, now the fifth time in EH distances clearly from the Nazi era.
Now it is the fact that the JBK Prof. W brings into play the absolute climax of absurdity. Prof W. told with a distinctly arrogant, complacent and cynical intonation of one of his exam candidates. What a superfluous word garbage. The Verunsachlichung by the "experts" is hard to surpass.
Prof W: "They have praised the values of family values and children and motherhood, which were promoted in the 3rd Reich This is their quote and this is wrong I must say this is simply wrong..... "
If you read this sentence, you'll immediately notice that here is a massive W Imputation works. This assumption is due to the combination of the words "values", "Family", "Children," "Motherhood" with the "promotion of these values in the 3rd Reich. It's manipulative rhetoric in the highest degree. What is the intention of the "experts"? There remains no great
interpretation! He wants to push EH clearly in the neo-Nazi corner. A very ugly trial. A true expert does ask factual, sober, no waves of emotion is tangible connections, but he does not complain. And certainly not an expert involved in the indictment of a guest.
comes After a brief skirmish between EH and Prof W JBK again with the Neo-Nazi club, by addressing the NPD website. Now it is, I think, clear to everyone what happens here!
JBK: "The website of the NPD ..." EH
out: "Yes, it's bad and it is unbearable for me ...."
EH distances itself now for the sixth time clearly brown from the corner.
The subsequent exchange between EH and MSCH I will not comment further.
interesting however is the point at which EH is coming back to the lack of facilities with nursery places and MSCH agrees with her.
JBK also had the chance to build consensus noticed would have been offered for the second time the chance for an objective discussion. JBK but has either not noticed or do not notice it.
Surprisingly, Berger mixed with the question "How many have they been sold?" conversation. A totally inappropriate question at this point, as it was before the public discussion of the issues Kita etc..
Now the concession from Berger: "So I have to say honestly, I feel very uncomfortable with this discussion anyway, and also because I do not know these books but have only read about these books, so I can also be very.. hard to argue. "
Berger acknowledges that she is out of place really because they did not EHs in the books presented theses knows. It would have been good had JBK EH here given the chance, the theories briefly and clearly presented to Berger. Berger then had known what retail is all about. Said Berger talks in the episode as a blind man by the color. General observations on the role of working women are led by Berger.
MSCH now leads an initiative of the Housewife Association from 1978 to pay for work of a housewife who is obviously lost in the sand, which EH rightly.
is interesting is the observation of MSCH: "... as a young reporter I did the first report ..." Should well express, first, I know what I mean, the second for as long as I've been doing this job. It makes you want MSCH clearly show how great their experience and competence. It may be that the goal is to determine competence by EHs in question.
MSCH ". But it must be enforced but also politically, but because we're all here, the wrong partner!"
EH: Yes, exactly! " Once again, JBK
offers the opportunity for consensus building. Unfortunately he has not used again.
comes after a brief digression on the demographic development of the world population JBK with the first question, the EH is not in the brown area. Good! However
is again a closed question. Bad!
JBK: "I would be interested only if you really believe that by targeting the female determining the child in the first place and in the early days and beyond that the supply of the family as to whether the problems be overcome? "
EH answers with regard to the values.
now turns to JBK Mr. Barth, the short comments on his childhood with a happy mother makes. interesting thing is that Barth says that his stay with the kids mother was a happy mother. He confirmed therefore, the fundamental conviction of EH.
JBK had again the opportunity to build consensus to find among his guests.
He did not make it again.
After the interview a relative objectivity has approached JBK provokes comparison with the quotations EH / Rosenberg. EH
out: "Yes, now here we go again!"
rightly complained EH this new attempt to put them in the brown area. JBK what aim? Has he noticed the six spacers of EH did not before? He probably
had prepared intensively for the provocation and is now not able to be flexible to adapt to the opposite objectivity. Re-examination of the provocative nature becomes clear. They are from the perspective of rhetoric methods, the average age of the church, in later dictators such as for example in the 3rd Empire of the Gestapo and were used by the Stasi in East Germany to get people to push into a corner and from them a "confession" to blackmail.
EH: "... we really do not talk about such things anymore, we can no longer claim to make us strong for values, it holds only a great danger in our democracy if it no longer possible, to talk about such things ... "
JBK interrupts unnecessarily with the words: "So you were allowed more detailed talk anywhere in the last two months ..."
says For what purpose a moderator for such things? If he wanted to bring the great kindness of the ZDF expressed? If he wanted to create at EH gratitude?
he wanted to hear from EH the sentence "I am so thankful to you"?
This is highly arrogant.
EHs statement about the "true femininity" causes JBK, becoming involved in the following sentence: "What is the true definition of womanhood - it's not to sit at home and to bring up the children but the true definition of. Femininity is yet a fully recognized member of a society to be ... "
means Conversely, this means that a woman who cares about children and family at home, not a fully accepted member of society. This was a really fatal flaw in JBK.
There follows an exchange of words between the participants of the round, at the EH, however, is silent. This exchange is it to different opinions between Berger and MSCH.
Berger: "There are big problems, but there is no hostility to children."
MSCH "Hui, hui, hui ..."
JBK steers the conversation to the reactions to EHs books that are, according to EHs else is represented as in the press, and asks the question: "You have complained and the formulation was about the" synchronized press "in this matter .
The strategy is clear. As Kerner knew that even the Nazi era of "conformity" language, it connects again, a statement EHs with Nazi ideology. Why, one wonders? Actually, it can be only one answer. JBK tries almost militant, EH to put into the right corner and discredit it. Commonly referred to as "bullying".
EH JBKs affirmative the question, after which - and now the intention is clear - JBK says: ".. This is not a happy choice of words, because this word comes from the Third Reich as we can tell the historian"
"What we can say the historians." That's interesting. How did JBK what the historians will say the same? Then you could see an agreement made before the broadcast.
Prof W: "Of course," uniformity "a Nazi term ... And they have a Nazi term used.." Re committed thrust of the "experts" EH to insinuate ideas brown. However, an almost ridiculous attempt. At this point, the obsessiveness of the Prof W shows very clearly.
Now comes another painful climax.
Prof W: "And that's why they're doing now ideologies and conspiracy talk of lost tapes, to which one no longer rankommt."
EH: "Yes."
Prof W ". This is a conspiracy of pathology, they have there, Well, that's very problematic."
This personal attack well below the belt line was completely inadequate and shows with great clarity, the real intention of Professor W. He wants EH maneuver by all means wide. Even before the harshest personal attacks, he did not shy away. This would immediately have to JBK
punished with a yellow card. This is absolutely unworthy of an expert. This is puerile and tasteless!
is amazing how confidently EH deals with this personal attack!
The concept of "uniformity" EH has rightly pointed out: "You only need to enter Google And since they can go through every newspaper, which newspaper this term has been used.."
JBK: "But also wrong, even wrong"
JBK is again involved in the content, as he evaluates what he should not do as moderator.
EH: "Of course he has been used since, but so are highways have been built at that time. and we go on it today. "
Undoubtedly EH right that the term is the uniformity in the media. However, you should consider this term again in the context of use.
But this was nothing for it.
The reference to" highways "is of course a huge buzz word in Germany
That should have EH know as a media expert This will provide the.." experts "and their critics through ball, which the Prof W most cynical of course use immediately without mercy, as he loudly losprustet: Yes that's the beauty. Adolf built the motorways - yes, that was it. The highway is the best argument. "It seems as if the only Prof W waiting to place a further blow. High motivated, he strikes.
EH: "We're sitting here in a program and I feel I will be constantly in your head right and I'm just not." The seventh
distancing from ideas of brown!
MSCH: "Or not considered excused time, then you will not put."
like they are right. The expression of EH was apparently born out of anger at the Prof.
JBK: ". It's not about the thing not the description of values, it is about the comparisons and the terms, I think," He certainly has
right, it is in no way more for the cause, but rather EH in the brown area to ask. Whereas, it EH to the representation of values was what she emphasized several times and always tried to steer the conversation to that level. The focus on "Comparison and terms" of the Nazi period is more than superfluous in a program where it should go to the "roles for men and women.
had to de-escalate JBK Here are a facilitator role rather than to pour gasoline on the fire. This task, he was apparently not (more) increased. Fortunately, Berger
goes to this comparison, an unspeakable, but rather turns to the contents such as "How will you define values This is about lost values, the world has changed, how can you value... . Define I find it a great good that men and women together have emancipated. "
Once again, the moderator JBK offering the option to call back on line. But he failed again, the conversation about the show due. Instead, he asks: "You have filed suit against the NDR. What reach do you want? "
focuses Again, JBK instead of EH on the subject of his mission. In addition, JBK know, of course, that EH answer to this question can not, because it is an ongoing process concerns. In light of this knowledge can be JBK assume again a provocation. Further evidence of his inquisitorial behavior.
The method is simple. It is a question of who can speak the other person interrogated or not, without burdening themselves. Very transparent!
JBK insists on answering the question and repeated his question twice.
the following question: "Where are you in five years?" To irrelevance in this context is hard to beat.
But now comes an interesting twist. JBK draws on his initial question and make it again: "Do you want only the others have made mistakes Do?"
We notice immediately that wants to hear JBK. The rhetorical figure, in his opinion has not closed, his head in circles but one thing he always wants to, the EH to marginalization is.
EH concedes that have not only made other errors. It is rhetorically a step toward JBK. This is an offer to talk peace, a proposal to eliminate contamination of relationship. But what makes JBK?
JBK: "Your wording was not faulty would you do today again and I will treat you very fairly I'll give you every opportunity to enlarge?..
He WILL hear it now! With all the power he urges EH to a self-mortification, though he bit at the beginning of the round on granite. What has JBK into his head? What is the mission he may have had?
The phrase "I want you all . Fair deal "he could have saved himself, because everything that was said before pointing in the direction to discredit EH and placed in the brown corner
EH out." It will be more careful. I need to learn: you can over the course of German history does not speak in order not to be in danger. "
After a slow murmur of applause and some in the audience is beginning to MSCH states fierce opposition
MSCH." You can not. Excuse me. I can not. This level can not. I have to disassociate myself from sitting here. This is unbearable. We love you, but I'll elevated pulse. Sorry.
What MSCH wanted to express? What value of MSCH was This remark by EH hurt that they reacted so violently and apparently came under severe stress (increased heart rate)?
JBK is now on his facilitation skills end.
JBK: "At the point where I can tell you that we are not content, we must have it I wanted, Eva indicate the end of the conversation, the opportunity to say that you might something look different, you said.. that you do not see. And then we end the conversation here. That's just fine. And now, Margaret. " The gracious
JBK you wanted to give a chance. Even if that should have been his initial request, he has not done. He did not talk objectively with EH. And in any case, he wanted to talk about "The role of husband and wife."
Because then he would behave differently, and certainly not invited an "expert" in modern history, but a social scientist, an expert on family policy, or a psychologist.
MSCH: "I am sorry if Eva refuses to deal with a designated professional who has made more than three thoughts and far from being polarizing only entertain"
One may wonder where this " designated expert ", more than three ideas did. During the conversation, but it was not clear.
But the conversation goes on. JBK interviewed EH now finally, after the thesis of her book: "Then we get even the theses of the book: a theory: it has sustained and negative consequences for children when they are not bound by their mothers but foreign to education staff."
Good! But why does he provoke EH again with the attached "How long were you at Bishop Mixa in teaching?"
EH leads to attachment research and makes comments on the parent-child bond, which is acceptable to Berger. Once again, JBK offering the possibility of forming consensus, but he does not take up again.
And now there is a surprising turn in the conversation history. Although Berger and EH
about birth rate and unemployment relatively factual exchange, Berger has suddenly feel they have to go.
What happened in this key moment? What was going on in the head by Berger?
Berger: "Young people in Saxony-Anhalt create any jobs but You have to work that is their right and then they can start a family..."
you respond to the factual level, noting possibly at the same time that it is the arguments EHs not grown, because she says: ".. I go I can no longer lead this discussion then I must prepare myself better and read their books
."
This is a clear insight, which is located still on the factual level. The desire to have to go concerns me in any way the previous discussion of EHs opinions of the family, but simply to keep up to objectively can not. The addition of temporary incompetence is very honorable of Berger and shows the sovereignty of this woman.
JBK But what made it?
JBK: "There are moments where there is concern about how to make more I decided that I guests with three more and make you, Eva, now, goodbye, thank you.." He throws out
EH!
instead to build on the functional style of the previous meeting between Berger and EH, he noted that he and his and Prof W's provocative way of Interviewing his goal is not reached. He makes it a scandal.
Conclusion:
JBK wanted to discuss the role of husband and wife, but instead a EHTribunal it done. This goes back to one of his own initiative and partly on the initiative of the editors, who had been invited with a sure hand for a Provocative Prof W.
to the people in detail: first
Johannes B. Kerner JBK
has missed the beginning of the subject matters themselves completely. Through his preparation for the mission was his perception of the statements made by its main score EH heavily filtered, so that it is not the seven distancing from Nazi thinking by EH perceived exercise and has not wanted to or could.
He has left the path of the neutral facilitator from the start and thus contributed significantly to the escalation.
second Eva Herman EH
responded in most factual and impressive form to the allegations by JBK and Prof W. It has contributed their comments to clarify their "misleading" or misunderstood. The multiple distancing by the Nazis were in clear, simple and understandable presented. They could not ignore or misunderstand at all.
third Senta Berger
Although it has other convictions of family as EH, but mostly within their means tries to discuss values and express their opinion. The little slip-up ("How old were you in 1968?") Had forgiven her. The knowledge of being inadequately prepared content was correct. The enunciation of this insight will be appreciated.
4th Margarethe Schreinemakers
was also MSCH in some places the call and willing to objectively deal with the arguments of EH. However, their nonverbal communication behavior was characterized by adolescent rejection.
5th Professor Wippermann
As one of the most provocative participant, I am speaking from his objectivity and expert knowledge. Someone who is swinging away such irrelevant and emotionally to a host of JBK should will not in future be invited as an expert.
He has certainly outed as the biggest loser next JBK itself.
6th Mario Barth
As comedian largely overwhelmed with a serious discussion about property values of our society.
JB
Wiesbaden
Friday, October 12, 2007
Can I Join The Army If I Have Eczema
ZDF: Stop this disgraceful state finally!
responsible ZDF editors, Talk "master" Her Kerner!
Sorry, but I can not open this letter with "Dear ..." Beginning of respect for those you have (still) do not deserve! As a public service broadcaster, ZDF has the duty and responsibility for a neutral, thorough and unbiased Reporting and opinion.
I urge you therefore to:
first You have to make cuts in programs in the library now clearly marked! The viewer needs to know if parts were cut out of programs and missing.
I and many others will be not be tolerated by your reprehensible abuse of press law and freedom! If even the suspicion is that editorial cuts may influence the formation of opinion, this has to cease. I would draw your attention to your duty, all by yourself and JBK editorial spread messages carefully BEFORE Check CONTENT, TRUTH AND COMING to have!
is ZDF German Television degenerate into a censored?
second You have to react against us viewers and paying duty fees, and finally to the diverse and sometimes legitimate complaints and take appropriate related to the broadcast position. This must include a statement of the responsible editor, the "Masters Talk" the show and director of the ZDF. The law and the quasi-public commission to participate in the formation of opinion, to spread opinions and to inform the public also means that you are the public accountable for your behavior.
third I urge you to disclose, as the guests of the show (Eva Herman Senta Berger Margarethe Schreinemakers and Mario Barth, and Mr. Wippermann) by the editors were prepared and briefed.
were apparently not all the guests about the intended content or planned course information of the program, especially Senta Berger, this has several times publicly complained in the show, also has the Mario Barth expressed.
This would be another way for you to inform the public fairly, openly and honestly, so that anyone can do a final picture of why it came to this scandal and the conduct of the other guests is!
4th My last request command decency and courtesy:
Johannes B. Kerner must work for his behavior towards the host Eva Herman over public apology (not for his opinion and not for his questions, not even for his unprofessional moderation, but for his rude behavior a guest who has no role in this guilty of).
also have to apologize to ZDF executives to network among viewers for the miserable crisis management after the show and the scandalous comments and distorted representations to the broadcast (eg in the V-text, press reports here in the media library, etc).
When I read the comments in the forum, germinates in me respect for responsible citizens. I and many others Herman theses not support, but not the ethically and morally reprehensible treatment of the ZDF with our fundamental social values, freedom of the press and a single person to be accepted.
Since this and similar here in the forum already has tens of times required, but until now was not satisfactory for the audience reaction on the part of the ZDF, please send me a personal message from the editor that my contribution was noted.
How can I end this letter? Whom shall I be friendly greetings send? To whom could I express my appreciation? Until now, no one who bears responsibility for this program. Therefore I can only repeat:
FINALLY STOP THIS appalling conditions, SHOW RESPONSIBILITY AND APOLOGIZE TO U.S. AND FOR EVA HERMAN!
Signed: Alfred Neumann B, 17 October 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)