A commonplace of german politics

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer



7 February, 2010 (17:38) | elections, media | By: Aerar

(German version published on 28 Oktober, 2009)

Is it impossible for “quality media” to resist catching the focus of their readers by cloudy headlines? Especially when the reader just reads his feedreader he is left behind with open questions if he does not visit the complete article on the website.

So Focus Online titles: Eine Stimme zu viel für Carstensen (German) (my translation: “One vote too much for Carstensen”)“.

What has happened there? Did they count wrongly? Did the federal governer introduce afghan election means to Schleswig-Holstein and invented an extra vote which did not exist? No, what you learn when you actually read the article is: “Zudem erhielt er eine Stimme aus dem Oppositionslager…” (my translation: “In addition he managed to get a vote from the opposition”).
So the opposition vote is the one which is too much, because someone had the impertinence to make use of his own opinion? Would it have been better then not at all to vote for Cartensen? But that would mean that more than one vote was too much.

But were do all these “too much” votes doe come from? The FAZ knows the answer to that question and titles its article with “Merkel als Kanzlerin wiedergewählt – neun Stimmen fehlen (German) (my translation:” Merkel reelected as chancellor – nine votes are missing”)“.

Again this is no case of election fraud or scandalous loss of votes by technical mistakes. No, everything seems to have run properly except that: “Aus ihren eigenen Reihen votierten indes offenbar nicht alle für Merkel” (my translation: “Obviously not everyone from her own ranks has voted for Merkel.”). But it is good that we could read the whole article properly to get sure. “Merkel reelected as chancellor” would have been suffiecient information in my oponion.