All message control? – “Have frighteningly few good political actors”

„krone“: Mr. Plaikner, it seems like the subject of message checking is getting bigger and bigger. Is it just a feeling or is it really so?
Peter Plaikner: Professionalism has increased enormously on both sides of the river, in journalism and in politics. I don’t understand why message management often has such a negative connotation. For decades, it was unthinkable in commercial businesses other than communicating externally in a highly controlled manner, and that’s absolutely fine. Perhaps that’s why we sometimes enjoy it so much, because it sometimes seems awkward when the same five standing sentences are used in an awkward situation. The trick is to still look authentic. If this fails, message control is out of control.

So message checking isn’t necessarily negative?
It’s professional. The job of journalism is not to take over the agenda setting (NB: main topics) from politics, but to put self-chosen content on the agenda and say confidently: “Today animal welfare is our topic.”

Do you think this works well in the Austrian media landscape?
In my opinion it has gotten better, but there is still room for improvement. This is because we have high competitive pressure in journalism due to a highly concentrated media landscape.

How professionally do Austrian politicians deal with message checking?
That separates the wheat from the chaff. From my point of view, we have an alarmingly few good political actors. Skills in media representation are of paramount importance today. But above all, top politicians are the mediators of what their officials always have to do in detail. It is frightening at what level this is sometimes practiced. That’s why people stand out who are really good at rhetoric.

How can the slide in the ranking of press freedom be assessed?
You can see it as an early warning sign without overestimating it. We’re not that bad. It’s still a memory – after all, we were already in fifth place. It concerns structural problems: what is the status of the media in a democracy? It says: resist the beginning. A major disadvantage are attempts by governments to directly influence public broadcasting. On the other hand, the independence of the editors from the owners and the advertising department is a strong feature of press freedom.

A lot has come to light lately, keyword side letters – is that a good or bad sign?
That these things are now public is the merit of well-functioning journalism, and I think it’s a development for the better. That the whole construction of the ORF supervision, the ORF organs, is in dire need of renovation, is another piece of paper. Because it is designed in such a way that the influence of the parties is almost cemented. We are lucky that this is not exploited even more. Something urgently needs to change here.