At the end of this week there was a memorable moment in Paul Ronzheimer's podcast: "Inside Kanzleramt" was the title of the episode to which Ronzheimer, deputy editor-in-chief of the "Bild" newspaper, invited Michael Bröcker from "Table.Media". The topic was the Federal Chancellor fighting for his power. Of course, one almost has to say. Since the election results in Saxony-Anhalt, which were devastating for the CDU, there has hardly been any other topic in so-called political Berlin and the media reporting on it. And because some political journalists give the impression that their main task is to be as close as possible to political personnel and to generate news from this proximity, “Inside Chancellery” was a very appropriate title. “Inside CDU” would have been even more accurate.
For ten days after the election, people were fed news that didn't actually deserve the name. On closer inspection, there were more rumors about who in the CDU was said to have said what about whom. Names were not mentioned, but there were whispers about the “overthrow of the Chancellor” and “exchange of the Chancellor” scenarios were played out. Then it became known that the eight CDU prime ministers wanted to end speculation about the political future of Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Together they issued a statement Wednesday assuring people could trust them to address their problems. And Paul Ronzheimer couldn't believe it and laughed into his microphone, dumbfounded.
“When I read the signatures, I thought to myself: How hypocritical can you be?” he said to Bröcker. "In all seriousness, you write that the path to people's new trust in Christian Democracy leads through listening and political action and not through personnel discussions? And the same people who had exactly this personnel discussion themselves signed it, including with journalists in the background, also with other politicians. Is that just normal, or how do you see it?"
At this point at the latest, the two of them could have paused and asked themselves how credible and useful reporting can be that is completely dedicated to the personnel debate and reports on CDU WhatsApp and Signal groups as if they, as journalists, were part of these groups themselves. They could have simply reflected on their own role; for a moment it looked as if they were actually doing this.
Bröcker, however, immediately dismissed any criticism: "It's not true that we don't talk about policy! It's simply not true!" he shouted at Ronzheimer. "On the contrary, I would like to talk all day about economic and social policy and pension policy. But if we get surveys and learn every time in conversations with CDU officials that we can no longer hold elections with this Chancellor, then we have to write it down."
Over the past week, however, much of the media has been about much more than just “writing” something down. One could rather get the impression that a “Twilight of the Chancellor” (“Frankfurter Rundschau”) was lustfully created based on the “speculations” leaked “from Union circles”, and in remarkable unison. The cover story of "Welt am Sonntag" on September 13th made Friedrich Merz look glum: "Can Merz still be chancellor? Election defeats, disputes over reforms, resistance to the budget: the Chancellor's power base is eroding. The succession debate begins in the Union," was the story in which journalists Gordon Repinski and Rasmus Buchsteiner announced: "The chancellor exchange speculation is back."
"Never before has a Federal Chancellor been more unpopular, new electoral defeats are looming. Can Friedrich Merz still stay in office? And if so: how?" said an article in the "Spiegel" a day later, which spoke of the "collapse of all government authority": "The parliamentary group leader," one read there, "did not spare the Chancellor in front of the assembled members of the CDU and CSU. A new government must be formed under a new leadership. The Chancellor may Please agree to ensure a smooth transition. Finally, the Chancellor stood up and announced: 'I'm not stuck in my chair.' That was the end." However, this did not mean Merz, but rather a political moment from 60 years ago, “when the Union removed its Chancellor Ludwig Erhard from office because of ineffectiveness, the economic crisis and, beware, the successes of right-wing radicals.” The “Spiegel” journalists Sebastian Fischer and Christian Teevs suggested this to ask: “Is it that time again? Is Friedrich Merz threatened with the Erhard scenario?”
In the following days it continued like this: "Succession debate: Söder? Wüst? Dobrindt? Rhine? Or no one? In Berlin there is speculation about who could replace Friedrich Merz as chancellor. The possible candidates cannot be seen in the cards," wrote the "Süddeutsche Zeitung". “Does Friedrich Merz still decide his own fate?” asked “Wirtschaftswoche”. “Project: Overcoming Merz” was the title in “Focus” or, with a large cover illustration of a sad, worried Chancellor with his head in his hand, “What else does he have in his hand now?” at the time".
It was no surprise that the Chancellor himself did not like this personnel discussion, as he expressed on the podium at a business conference in Berlin. But that's not the point. It was and remains irritating that after the election result in Saxony-Anhalt, which many had not expected because the AfD's success was so much greater with high voter turnout and the CDU's losses were much more dramatic than previously assumed, the reaction of many capital media simply said "Merz": "Merz is obviously the wrong man in this office in these times," wrote the "Spiegel" on the evening of the election, which already opened up the prospect of replacing the chancellor here. Because if he is the wrong one, the question immediately arises as to who could be the right one. Immediately it was no longer about the voters' diverse reasons for voting for the AfD, but only about the Chancellor.
One could consider this to be a problem in capital city journalism: In a kind of automatism, the most complex problems are often subjected to the “Berlin” logic, and every state election is interpreted almost exclusively as a mood picture for the next federal election and the personnel issues that may arise from it. One can also assume that the media's fixation on people is an economic decision. People simply click better, as Victoria Reichelt, presenter of "ZDF today live", put it surprisingly candidly on Wednesday evening in the "Maischberger" program: "In an ideal world, we would discuss politics primarily on a content level. From a media maker's point of view, I can say: People are often not as interested in that as the personnel debate, and top politics in particular thrives on personalities."
But the effect is fatal. If many voters say that they want to give the federal government a “reminder” with their vote, it is also because they do not feel that their concerns and problems are being noticed and addressed enough by the federal government. So they go to the polls and cast their vote - only to then follow a debate about a “chancellor exchange”, which not only has nothing to do with their reality and their problems, but also reinforces the impression that something is being decided in Berlin over their heads in a kind of game of multiple personnel scenarios that takes on a life of its own. Trust in politics is only eroding further.
As long as some capital city media see their purpose as being as close as possible to capital city politics and present these inner worlds as the relevant reality for them, they will reinforce this effect. But they also reinforce it where personnel debates become substitute actions because the question of why the AfD is so successful and how it can be stopped seems too complex. There is always a debate about the Chancellor, in some WhatsApp group someone “from Union circles” will definitely comment on Merz. We still have to face the complexity.
