"Babylon Berlin" star Volker Bruch does not hide behind criticism of Corona measures. Even more: He seeks proximity to the "lateral thinker" party. The actor also took part in the latest protest marches in Berlin last Sunday, which had been banned in advance. Later, on the same day, he was interviewed on publicist Paul Brandenburg's Youtube talk format.
Under the title "Cancel Culture, Framing and videos" both spoke for about 45 minutes in a live stream about the protests. They complained that critics of the Corona measures were being placed in the right-wing corner with the aim of hiding their criticisms. In the process, the two created a lesson, so to speak, for what they eloquently debated: framing.
Framing: What the term means
The term comes from psychology and communication science. He describes a theory according to which, by formulating a message differently, different Frame (engl. frame) arise. This frame may determine the interpretation of what is heard, read or said.
An example of such a deliberate interpretation of a message provided a Study from the USA in 2007. The study investigated how politicians and media representatives spoke about the topic of "abortion prohibition" and found out that supporters preferred to use the word "baby", while opponents spoke of "fetuses", which are aborted.
How framing works
An experiment on this showed that readers who exclusively read texts that talked about fetuses, Abortion bans were rather negative – those who only read about babies, on the other hand, were positive about such bans. According to the study, this can be explained like this: When people think of "baby," they think of a living being, with hands and a face; "fetus," on the other hand, describes a clump of cells that lacks human characteristics and whose abortion is therefore more likely to be judged as unproblematic.
Thus, certain formulations are often associated with certain intentions. One of the controversial ies in framing research is how much recipients of a Message can be influenced by them.
The term "framing" was coined in the 1990s by the U.S. communications scientist Robert Entman. He identified four components of a "frame": problem definition, attribution of causes, evaluation and solution – and it is precisely these four components that can be discovered in the Youtube video with Volker Bruch.
Volker Bruch in video: The problem definition
At the beginning of the conversation, actor Bruch first describes his impressions of the protest march. He talks about helicopters and "robocops" that would have panicked people. The mood had been "peaceful", the participants had only wanted to exercise their right to free speech Expression of opinion exercise their right.
Later in the video, Brandenburg describes the mood in the protest marches as "folk festival-like". Signs of Right-wing extremists among the participants, for example imperial war flags or Frakturschrift, both do not want to have seen.
The problem locate break like Brandenburg thereby on the one hand in the prohibition of the meetings peaceful in their eyes by the higher administrative court Berlin Brandenburg (OVG). On the other hand, the two interlocutors complain that the police's actions are. It is "highly problematic" that the officers "with such a aggression" against the people, for example, the actor Bruch finds.
The attribution of causes
The two see the cause for police action and banning of the assembly in the alleged framing of the "Lateral thinkers" and critics of the Corona measures as right-wingers or even right-wing extremists," says Bruch.
"Framing Nazi cudgel appears," says Bruch. Many people no longer dared to say what they thought for fear of being put in the right-wing corner. "That's why this framing is so bad," Bruch says. Without framing, more people would "open their mouths".
Brandenburg and Bruch agree in their assessment of what was perceived. With the Event bans by the OVG had crossed "boundaries of the democratic," finds, for example, the book author.
Bruch, who has rated the tactics of police officers dehumanized as "robocops" as aggressive, agrees. The judiciary and the executive, two of the three pillars of the democratic separation of powers, thus acted in the eyes of the two undemocratic.
In the last quarter of the conversation, Bruch and Brandenburg then discuss how to solve the problem that people no longer dare to express their opinions freely. "How do we change the current state?"Brandenburg takes up a question from the audience of the Live streams at.
Bruch returns that the "justified fear" of framing must be overcome. People would have to continue to express their opinions, regardless of the supposed consequences, such as job loss, termination of tenancies or friendships.
Brandenburg and Bruch also have a solution ready for the "pro-government" side: they should reflect on their "repressed fears," come to terms with mistakes and admit error. This does not happen in Bruch's eyes, he refers to "Divigate" and the Mask scandal, both allegedly had not been worked up, Brandenburg does not contradict this.
"Missionizing," that is, convincing others of one's own point of view, on the other hand, is not a solution, he said. "I don't do that at all," says Bruch, adding that it doesn't do any good. Brandenburg also sees no sense in it, you can "not save anyone from themselves".
In the almost 45 minutes of conversation, Bruch and Brandenburg thus portray the participants of banned protests on the one hand as predominantly peaceful citizens who are forbidden to speak out by the state, while at the same time they are associated with police violence against the people.
This includes the insinuation that in Germany, opinions and even partly legitimate Criticism at Corona measures suppressed. scandals are not dealt with or remain inconsequential, which puts those responsible in politics in the vicinity of a corrupt power elite.
The alleged Oppressed Both advise not to let themselves be suppressed. To their opponents, they impute fears that drive their actions and from which they do not want to be saved. Thus Bruch and Brandenburg deny their opponents the readiness for discussion. At the same time they question the meaning of a conversation.
The framework, the "frame", that the two give to their messages is that of a "mask scandal" Dictatorship, which – as recently seen in Belarus, for example – meets government criticism with sometimes lethal violence. And all this without once mentioning the words "Germany," "Federal Republic" and "dictatorship" in the same sentence.