“world have your say” in ber­lin

felix schwenzel

i was in­vi­ted as an au­di­ence mem­ber for BBC world news’ world have your say (WHYS) broad­cast which was sent live from 12:00 to 13:00 GMT, which is con­fu­sin­gly 14:00 to 15:00 ber­lin time¹. the au­di­ence dripp­led in from around 12:30 (ger­man time) un­til clo­se to the be­gin­ning of the broad­cast. pro­ba­b­ly be­cau­se no­bo­dy was told ahead of time, that re­hear­sals were plan­ned to start around 12:30. at least i wasn’t told be­fo­re.

and of cour­se, ever­y­bo­dy must have he­ard that, ma­king te­le­vi­si­on in­vol­ves a lot of wai­ting. or as the mo­de­ra­tor ros at­kins put it du­ring the re­hear­sal: »now you get a glim­pse of how much work it ta­kes, to make so­me­thing look nor­mal on TV.« when i twit­te­red this image du­ring the re­hear­sal, i lear­ned that my ipho­ne tri­es to auto cor­rect »at­kins« to »sta­lin«. i hope iOS does that only when you put it into ger­man lan­guage mode.

fe­lix schwen­zel @di­plix

ros at­kins und mei­ne schu­he. #whys pic.twit­ter.com/6KE01LIQ3i

11.09.2013 12:15  Ant­wor­ten Ret­wee­ten Fa­vo­rit 

i re­al­ly lik­ed how ros at­kins con­duc­ted the au­di­ence du­ring the broad­cast. wat­ching TV, wat­ching the fi­nis­hed pro­duct al­most al­ways makes me feel be­ing a mo­de­ra­tor or pre­sen­ter is like a pie­ce of cake. ever­y­thing seems to be quite na­tu­ral on TV, even the most ri­di­cu­lous set.

but be­ing pre­sent on the set and see­ing what has to be ta­ken into ac­count, how many loo­se ends have to be tied tog­e­ther to make it a plea­sant ex­pie­ri­ence for the view­er is kind of awe-striking. it doesn’t feel na­tu­ral tal­king into a ca­me­ra, stan­ding in the midd­le of a room full of peo­p­le you hard­ly know that sta­re at you, ha­ving so­meone tal­king into your ear­pie­ce while you talk and lis­ten or read on an ipad that is strap­ped to your hand.

again, i lik­ed how ros at­kins pre­sen­ted and mo­de­ra­ted the dis­cus­sion. if you ha­ven’t seen it, in a cou­ple of days it will be on you­tube. thats at least what ros pro­mi­sed. and he re­al­ly seems to be a sin­ce­re guy, here it is:

youtube-video laden, info, direktlink

ros at­kins and i met once be­fo­re to film some scraps of a con­ve­ra­ti­on about ger­ma­ny which were used to put tog­e­ther a teaser for the broad­cast. the teaser was send at least once on BBC world news be­fo­re the broad­cast. i got 8 se­conds of spea­king time (see the who­le clip or a still-image) af­ter wai­ting an hour for the team and chat­ting half an hour with ros. which was a plea­su­re and worth the while for 8 se­conds of world-wide fame.

i was sea­ted in one of the front rows, which i found kind of flat­te­ring. sit­ting the­re, ros as­ked me one of the more an­noy­ing ques­ti­ons he al­re­a­dy as­ked me on mon­day. he as­ked if the­re hasn’t pas­sed en­ough time sin­ce world war 2 for ger­ma­ny, so that it could re­turn to a nor­mal role in for­eign po­li­cy. i didn’t say all of this, but i was won­de­ring what a »nor­mal« role would look like. and i also do hope, that even if a very long time pas­ses, that ger­ma­ny won’t re­turn to a for­eign po­li­cy that wants to »pu­nish« peo­p­le or for­eign go­vern­ments. i was ac­tual­ly quite up­set by a re­mark by ger­man zeit news­pa­per jour­na­list ma­ri­am lau, who said that she was »as­ha­med« of the ger­man go­vern­ment, that didn’t sign a sy­ria-re­so­lu­ti­on on the same day as other eu­ro­pean go­vern­ments and that »we« had to pu­nish the sy­ri­an go­vern­ment. i re­al­ly don’t know how »pu­nis­hing« sy­ria with mi­li­ta­ry ac­tion (pro­ba­b­ly mea­ning mas­si­ve airst­rikes) would help an­yo­ne, let alo­ne the sy­ri­an peo­p­le, who would flee the coun­try in lar­ge num­bers. as far as i know (cor­rect me if i’m wrong) the­re ha­ven’t been any airst­rikes that suc­cessful­ly re­mo­ved a bru­tal re­gime in the last cou­ple of cen­tu­ries. and don’t say hi­ro­shi­ma and na­ga­sa­ki, which took a huge count of ci­vi­li­an li­ves and that i wouldn’t dare to call »airst­rikes«.

so ho­we­ver that pu­nish­ment would look like, i have no clue how that would help any­bo­dy, ex­cept for the warm fee­ling that you get if you can say: »look, at least we did so­me­thing and didn’t just sit around.« in ger­ma­ny we like to call that shop­ping-win­dow po­li­tics. so if »nor­mal« for­eign po­li­cy me­ans that, then i’d say, no thank you, i’m not con­vin­ced.


what i re­al­ly lik­ed about the pro­gram­me was the di­ver­si­ty of the au­di­ence. that was a re­al­ly good job by the WHYS team. peo­p­le of co­lor, ger­mans with roots in other count­ries, con­ser­va­ti­ves, li­be­rals, a po­li­ti­ci­an, pro­fes­sors, ex­perts on eco­no­my and me. may be the num­ber of jour­na­lists was a litt­le to high, but at least the po­li­ti­cal cor­ners were ba­lan­ced. may be they shouldn’t have ba­lan­ced it as far as they did and even in­vi­te a jour­na­list from the »bild«-news­pa­per. at least i got a chan­ce to ob­ject to him (didn’t get his name). he tried to make a point that any eco­no­mic go­vern­ment in­ter­ven­ti­on or eco­no­mic de­ve­lo­p­ment sche­me is bad. be­cau­se jour­na­lists from »bild« be­lie­ve (or want to be­lie­ve) that the go­vern­ment is in­ca­pa­ble of do­ing things right. ex­cept, of cour­se, if it’s about pro­tec­ting news­pa­pers from com­pe­ti­ti­on (see »leis­tungs­schutz­recht« (loo­ked it up: an­cil­la­ry co­py­right law) or de­pu­bli­cis­ing con­tent from pu­blic TV) or if it’s about in­tel­li­gence ser­vices. the­se is­sue, says the »bild«-news­pa­per, are hand­led and exce­cu­ted per­fec­ty by the go­vern­ment. i was won­de­ring aloud if they also think that ger­man streets and au­to­bahns would be bet­ter ma­na­ged in pri­va­te hands. so i tried to make my last point and say, that i be­lie­ve that the go­vern­ment should in­vest much more in in­fra­struc­tu­re or at least sti­mu­la­te mas­si­ve de­ve­lo­p­ment of the ger­man in­fra­struc­tu­re. espe­ci­al­ly con­cer­ning the in­ter­net, but also rail­roads and en­er­gy pro­duc­tion.


i re­al­ly lik­ed the dis­cus­sion, espe­ci­al­ly be­cau­se the­re were al­most no po­li­ti­ci­ans pre­sent. i would re­al­ly like ger­man TV to pick up on that kind of dis­cus­sion. nor­mal peo­p­le dis­cus­sing on live TV with a litt­le help of a mo­de­ra­tor. i am dreadful­ly bo­red by ger­man talk­shows, but en­joy­ed »world have your say« a lot. by the way, i was also ama­zed how many ger­mans speak eng­lish in a plea­sant way. and i was ap­pal­led by how i strug­g­led with the lan­guage. if i watch ame­ri­can TV shows i al­most feel like a na­ti­ve spea­k­er. so i had to learn, what a big dif­fe­rence the­re is bet­ween lis­tening to eng­lish and ac­tual­ly tal­king eng­lish. let alo­ne wri­ting.


1) eng­lisch? ich fin­de das aus­nahms­wei­se mal an­ge­mes­sen. und weil ich beim eng­lisch schrei­ben auch mal in ei­nem wör­ter­buch nach­schla­gen kann, fluppt das wor­te-fin­den auch hof­fent­lich et­was bes­ser als eben im fern­se­hen.


[nach­trag 13.09.2013]
das dra­dio über die sen­dung am mitt­woch, auf deutsch: „Der Blick der An­de­ren“ (via @BB­CRo­sAt­kins)

[nach­trag 14.09.2013]
you­tube-vi­deo oben ein­ge­bet­tet.