tapmag

Something about the current campaign is quite surprising for Germans, apart from the fact that millions are spend just to determine the final candidates. It’s the notion that many people and institutions of the public life explicitly take sides in this hard fought campaign. But isn’t that what we should expect from them?

First, it was Oprah. Then Scarlett Johannson. Then the Kennedys. All of them have publicly announced their support for Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton can also enlist some high profile public supporters, among them Jack Nicholson. And John McCain at least has reality starlet Heidi Montag behind him, and made sure to say that he watches every episode of the show she is in. (It was later revealed by tabloids that Mrs. Montag is not even registered to vote, which goes to show that some of these celebrity testimonies are purely for publicity.)

With these more or less politically sound supporters, one wonders: Do people really care who a talk show host votes for? I am trying to imagine Johannes B. Kerner or Thomas Gottschalk, both well- known TV- personalities in Germany, saying „We like Merkel“ or „Go Beck“. Would anyone listen to them? Retireed are exempted, of course.

But in the U.S., where campaigns mix politics, charisma, and entertainment, and the candidates slip into in different roles, it seems natural to enlist the support of actors and media stars. This is the home of Hollywood, at least.

But it’s not only those that come out to rally with the prospective nominees. For us boring Europeans, the drama happens after and not before the election, such as currently in German state Hesse, where no governing coalition has been found for months. This long pre- run bears another unfamiliar development.

Media outlets take sides, too. This does not happen in Germany – or rather, it does not happen so explicitly. Newspaper generally tend to support one side or the other. The readers usually know if they have a conservative or a liberal paper in front of them. To take up the example of Hesse again, the Frankfurter Rundschau, a liberal German daily from that state, has been giving the social democrats good reviews during the campaign. But while doing this, the paper maintains a „neutral“ cover, not actually stating that they supports the social democrats. Needless to say, everyone knows they do.

In the U.S., newspapers often give their readers an advice as to whom to vote for. Isn’t that a much more honest way to deal with the neutrality conflict inherent in election coverage? Obviously, the editors have an opinion, and coming out and stating this opinion clearly may help readers more than one- sided commentaries or a pseudo- neutral face. Or are German papers afraid to be on the losing side after the election, and lose credibility along with it?

It gets confusing, though, when papers take both sides. The New York Times, for example, has endorsed Hillary Clinton and published the famous op-ed by Caroline Kennedy, supporting Barack Obama, within two days. Is that the American way of retaining neutrality?

The long primaries have brought an even more surreal feature: Endorsing candidates for the respective nominations of both parties. Such as the New York Times, who endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination. This is even more strange to an unsuspecting outsider: Weren’t they in favor of the Democrats? But this year, everything seems to be different. At least the NY Times has saved itself the risk of choosing the wrong one – they’ve endorsed all three candidates remaining in the race.

With so much side- taking this year around, I’m eager to see who else joins the opinionated reign in the general election campaigns.

By Jessica Binsch