The opinion-making surrounding the arrest of the Belarusian “blogger” Roman Protassevich is in full swing. Once again, all the criteria of the double standards are met. From the massive, indirectly anti-Russian wave that has been rolling through many major German media for days, the program “Kontrovers” on Deutschlandfunk should be considered as an example. Above all, Manuel Sarrazin of the Greens used the stage kindly prepared for him for the well-known and extreme green positions and then also demanded the censorship of critical listeners.
At Deutschlandfunk on Monday, the topic “Forbearance or hardship: Dealing with Russia and Belarus” was discussed. It was like so often in the German media business: as a fig leaf against the accusation of uniformity, a round of talks is arranged, in which the opposite position is represented by only one person. It is then opposed by at least two people (and the moderation tends to be) who can take the “deviant” position together in the pliers.
Even with “Controversial” this ratio was given, so three against one. The stroke of luck for critical listeners here was that Sevim Dağdelen’s counter-position was represented by the LEFT: It appeared not only combative, but also professional and rhetorical.
The extreme foreign policy positions of the Greens were once again clarified in the broadcast and their great dangerousness was once again confirmed. Kindly treated by the moderation by Phillip May, the Green chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Manuel Sarrazin, oscillated between massive twists of cause and effect (for example on the subject of Ukraine) and emotional-personal descriptions, which are useless and distracting for the consideration of the big picture.
Grüner Chairman demands DFL to censor listeners
Dagdelen, as I said, fought bravely in the face of the numerous claims in the broadcast. And if she already saw the arranged balance of power of the program against herself, she at least had some of the calling listeners on her side. This led to the negative climax of the show, when Sarrazin demanded the DLF to better “filter out” critical listener contributions. In the specific case, because of the apt listener hint that the portrayal of Roman Protassevich as an innocent “blogger” is, to put it mildly, “eyewash” – for example, in view of Protassevich’s links to the extreme right in the region.
Alternative media have already pointed to the distorting presentation on the subject of Belarus and the person Protassevich in various articles. These backgrounds are important in order to classify the distortions attempted in the broadcast of Sarrazin, the somewhat colorless but not harmless Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU) on the subject as well as the tendency of the moderation on the topics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
One has heard such partly false, partly torn from the explanatory context representations often in recent years. Nevertheless, it has to be argued against again and again. For example, against the presentation of the Maidan coup as a “democratic process”, the subsequent Ukraine conflict as a Russian attack, the current trivialization of arms deliveries as a “defense”, the role of the West as a “defender of international law” at the Russian border, the denial of Western efforts to change regimes in Russia-friendly countries, the purely destructive effect of economic sanctions or the description of the comparison Protassevich/Snowden/Assange as Russian propaganda.