There is no talk show whose viewers think as often as “Maischberger”: Oh, if only he would shut up! If only the moderator would let the interviewer finish just this once. When things start to get interesting. But no, Sandra Maischberger reliably cuts in when the person she’s talking to is about to deepen a point and the circumstances of the conversation promise revealing details. Why is that? What makes it so intrusive and invasive when someone doesn’t digress but instead takes a meaningful approach to answering the question?
We assume that there is some kind of economy in conducting interviews that requires us to stay on the surface and not allow deep statements to be made. What should be economical for moderators? The answer is clear: On the one hand, preparation can be done somewhere in between; I can limit myself to the aspects that have been the focus of the media; others need to be strangled; after all, you don’t want to let them take the reins out of your hands; The mainstream is also a model of assistance in this regard.
On the other hand, it’s about managing the workload in an overall overloaded show – there’s too much confusion in terms of topics and personnel at Maischberger. So, it is simple to complete all these things within the time frame. Therefore, the moderator is forced to give in, constantly interrupt and more or less encourage communication – you don’t want to call it a conversation. One would think: Only complete professionals can turn on the inner switch from now on and are therefore immune to psychological disorders, which are subject to the dalli-dalli format called one-on-one conversation with Sandra Maischberger. They can remain disengaged internally, no matter how often they are insulted. Another said: I don’t have to admit it.
Wagenknecht’s new role: Basic Values Commission
Sahra Wagenknecht, the best professional of the day, came (after Sigmar Gabriel at the same event, who, as usual, hung casually and eloquently in an armchair, thereby making the moderator with difficulty restrain his anger). Sitting down, Wagenknecht explained to Maischberger performatively what he had announced the day before: that although he was stepping down from the leadership of the BSW party, he wanted to continue playing a leading role in his namesake alliance. Substantive role. A role that transcends today. Concretely, the concept of a basic values commission is being discussed to form and lead it. Reason. Values. Commission. All of this is self-explanatory and represents something long-term and comprehensive. In other words, in the words that Sahra Wagenknecht discovered with Maischberger: adapted to her body.
Wagenknecht’s statement played on the broadcast, in which he explained with disarming candor why he no longer wanted a “full-time job” as party leader: as Herbert Marcuse paraphrased, the realm of necessity had pushed itself beyond the realm of freedom. He admitted that he did not want to discuss the daily life of a party leader. And then it happened: “Basically, you have video conferences and telephone calls almost all day long that are only concerned with the party leadership, that is, with the internal management of the party.” People understand impoliteness: video conferences and phone calls instead of reason and values and their public formulation in talk shows. Therefore, the question at stake in Wagenknecht’s future can be formulated as follows: When should we set up this talk show so that the Maischbergers feel compelled to chime in, well when – while you sit in front of the phone or on the phone all day, busy and doing and doing instead of thinking?
Wagenknecht: “I don’t back down, I don’t give up”
Of course Maischberger had something to complain about. Does he feel personally caught? Would he also prefer to turn to an intellectual oversight board on his show rather than spending long days at the switchboard and wasting time on the phone completing assignments? The tune is already mainstream when Wagenknecht goes into the studio, you just record it and it looks like you’re pretty much ready for this interview. When the current chairman explained his concept regarding the future distribution of tasks with the words: “I don’t back down, I don’t give up,” he didn’t finish. Sandra Maischberger explains: First, she didn’t like the whole direction. And second, he didn’t want to engage in the underlying argument any longer than necessary. Amazing, how concisely Maischberger’s desire for enlightenment, how clear his desire for dismissal!
But Wagenknecht was in his element there. There are journalists who can’t please, he said, mocking him with feigned innocence. And it continues with the same sentence: If you take all the control, they don’t like it. If you allow control to a certain extent, they don’t like it either. Of course Wagenknecht’s final thought was to please journalists in terms of content. Their business model is based on not being allowed to make excuses, parade around, and speak in a dismissive tone. For this game to work, a formal position as party leader is not required. Wagenknecht will continue to lead this party, regardless of how the BSW abbreviation will soon be disbanded and who will be the boss under him.
The man who is once again biographically receding but not receding knows that his position on the talk show is an impossible figure. By willingly filling them in and reliably ensuring rankings, he certainly pleases journalists and takes advantage of them, without those affected always understanding the dialectic of this approach. Wagenknecht lets every idiocy flow out of him, matter-of-factly and calmly and usually in a superior manner, responding to others, no matter how much they think they should sit still, giving the impression of being a know-it-all. Coachman? Oh, we’ll get to it soon, the talk show editorial team might think. No way, Ms. Maischberger, you heard from me! This is the moral of their political decline: I was there as if nothing had happened.
