How to disguise disgusting journalism

Germany, 23 October 2021: Patrick Wasserziehr, reporter at the TV channel Sky, Joshua Kimmich in front of the camera with questions about the vaccination status of the Bayern player. A football player, citizen and fellow human being should explain why he is not vaccinated against corona. Now a whole media landscape is pouncing on the Bayern player - as if the further course of the pandemic depends on the vaccination decision of a 26–year-old. Wasserziehr laid the foundation for this "reporting". About what the experienced sports reporter has done in the interview with Kimmich is an educational game of uncritical and obedient journalism.

Patrick Wasserziehr made history at the weekend – unfortunately a very inglorious one. Probably for the first time, a sports reporter in Germany has made a football player on camera to justify himself for not being vaccinated against corona. "The BILD reported that they were still vaccinated. Why?" ask Wasserziehr. Then it goes blow by blow: Wasserziehr accuses the Bayern player of not living solidarity in terms of corona, and asks what the world would look like if everyone acted like him, Kimmich.

That's how far it has come. A football player, citizen and fellow human being is put under pressure in front of the camera because he has concerns about the "corona vaccination". The five-minute interview is an impressive contemporary document that shows how the mood against unvaccinated people is being stirred up in society, but also what an inglorious role the media play in this. In the mask of the Biedermann, who pretends to only ask and not to "accuse", Wasserziehr ultimately attacks the principle of self–determination of every person over his body - even if he emphasizes that he respects Kimmich's decision.

What would happen, how big would the indignation in the media be if a reporter on camera confronted an athlete with probing questions about her decision to abort a child? The editors would rage - not because of the personal decision of the athlete, but because of the disrespectful questions. Also in the case of Kimmich, the editorial rages. This is due to Kimmich's personal decision.

A citizen who is not subject to a legal vaccination obligation, but who has to explain and justify himself in front of cameras because he has legitimate concerns about vaccination is put under enormous pressure!

Currently, journalists literally beat the player of the national team by reporting. Time editor Oliver Fritsch is even of the opinion, you do not have to impose a "football ban" on Kimmich, but as long as the Bayern player is unvaccinated, he should no longer necessarily wear the captain's armband of the national team."

Statements like these ultimately build on the questionable foundation that Wasserziehr laid through his interview. It goes without saying that Fritsch believes that the Sky reporter has done his thing "well".

The linguist Dennis Kaltwasser recently referred to the Nuremberg Code in an interview.

"Voluntary consent is absolutely necessary. This means that the person concerned must be legally able to give his or her consent; that he or she must be able to use his or her judgment without being influenced by force, fraud, cunning, pressure, pretense or any other form of persuasion or coercion."

That perhaps not every reporter or editor knows the Nuremberg Code is one thing. The other is when, apparently, even those responsible in the editorial offices of major media give the green light to a reporting that pretends that the Nuremberg Code does not exist. We remember: the Nuremberg Code emerged from the Nuremberg Doctors' trial. Numerous concentration camp doctors were put on trial at that time. Now, certainly, 2021 is not 1947, and yes: of course, the circumstances are different. But those who directly or indirectly put pressure on people who refuse medical treatment for their own personal reasons ultimately disregard the spirit that sustains this important manuscript.

What must go on in the minds of journalists who make the vaccination status of a football player a public matter? How can it be that journalists break the stick about a professional footballer because he is not ready to have a new vaccine injected? How can it be that journalists make a "case Kimmich" out of nothing and ultimately ensure that nothing even becomes a political issue?

In our media, it cannot be said otherwise, ideas obviously dominate, which in their rigorism towards dissenters reveal an almost totalitarian thinking.

The "reporting" in the pandemic has shown: for many journalists, it is not enough for 99 out of 100 people to wear a mask in the store – it must be 100 out of 100. Nor is it enough for them that the vast majority of FC Bayern football players are vaccinated against corona. No, it has to be everyone. As if the further course of the pandemic in Germany and around the world depended on the decision of a 26-year-old football player. All of them must be in line. No one is allowed to leave.

Yes, that is the level at which journalism of our time is moving. When "journalism" is used as an extension of one's own beliefs, then one is often shown to be ignorant of reality.

Wasserziehr says at the end of the interview that he disagrees with Kimmich, "I say that quite honestly." That's what it's all about. That's why this interview was conducted the way it was conducted: the opinion of the "reporter" was present throughout the interview and guided the action. Even if Kimmich is somehow pleased at the end of the interview that the reporter is interested in his position: what else should he say – in the sense of politeness?

Wasserziehr shows once again that journalists only copy and paste, their own research does not take place. Kimmich first taught the troll that the vaccinated are just as contagious as the unvaccinated and thus spread the virus in the same way. The only protection is and remains testing! But the troll Wasserziehr knows how to employ slaves.