Hacker News Reader

Comment by evilsetg | Hacker News Reader

I like the model of ths German Bundespressekonferenz where an organization made up of journalists invites the German goverment for press conferences instead of the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespressekonferenz#Organisa...

View on HN

Surely that can only work at the will of the government - if I'm the German chancellor and decide I don't like it, I can just tweet that I'll be making a statement outside my front door; the first time all the blogger hacks will show up and get a great scoop; the second time everyone will?

So instead a foreign company gets all that power?

That’s the UK system. Almost all the press is owned by foreign billionaires.

Well for one Twitter was just an example, more that that is what I imagine they would probably use than anything else, not central to the point.

But also, I'm not saying it's better or whatever or making any sort of judgement? I'm just saying I don't think the media-led organisation has 'all that power' - they'll just go where all the news is, because it's their job, and the government (currently) lets that be where they want?

Twitter doesn't have any more power in that example, it's also just the avenue my hypothetical chancellor self chose to announce a press conference, he could have done it on Facebook, or Volksbook, or whatever, it's up to him, that was my point.

Can the journalist organization exclude its members if they break ranks, so to speak?

Tilo Jung[0] has bee annoying the government spokes persons with uncomfortable questions for years. I read that some other journalists are uncomfortable with his questions since they fear that the government might decide to just not show up anymore (everybody is aware that the Bundespressekonferenz is a quite unique arrangement) but they still let him show up and ask questions. He does really valuable work imo and publishes all Bundespressekonferenzen on his youtube channel[1].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilo_Jung [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1WDP5EiipMQ__C4Cg6aow

> I read that some other journalists are uncomfortable with his questions since they fear that the government might decide to just not show up anymore

The thing in his early days was that he asked and "demanded" a proper answer. But often times the politicians don't want to answer to the question stated. Now you can waste everybody's time and ask again and again, without getting an answer (which is useful if you stream the event) or accept that there won't be an answer and move to the next topic (which is good if you want to write an article)

But meanwhile Jung doesn't play that game that much anymore, but asks good and precise questions and more often then leaves it there.

I'd love to see more follow up questions of the sort "Excellent answer, if I had asked about X (e.g. who to blame for high taxes), but instead, my question was Y (what are your plans regarding tax policy?)".

It seems that Scottish interviewer Andrew Neil has a reputation for this kind of implacable questioning. Any others?

That can work in a 1:1 setting, where you are trying to pin down somebody.

In that described setting here, you have journalists who want to write an article about current topics. In the article they can write "they avoided answering XYZ" and given limited time it is more worthwhile to switch topics. Repeating a non-answer doesn't make the article longer.

In the 1:1 setting the way they try to weasel out and avoid answering can be educational to the audience and can narrow down the topic a bit.

Yeah I wonder how dumb journalists are sometimes for accepting evasive answers from politicians.

If they don't want to say something they should just say that. I totally agree with this guy tbh.

No.

https://www.bundespressekonferenz.de/verein/satzung

I'm going to contradict sibling and say "Yes".

It's just a Verein (untranslateable, but let's say 'private association/club') with members.

They can refuse to accept members for any reason, and they can kick out members for the reasons they themselves specify.

Currently this section (§14) reads they can kick out members "that are a danger to the purpose of the association or are harmful to its reputation or interests".

So (read cynically) pretty much any reason.

Note that in this case, a two-thirds majority in the general assembly of members have to confirm the kick-out, which is judging by my experience in other associations a really high bar to clear.

In any case, such a decision can be review by civil court as well whether it actually met the conditions laid out in their charter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com