Reposted by Ben Bendrich
Ich will, dass Journalist*innen mit der Geheimniskrämerei aufhören – auch investigative Reporter*innen. Viel zu oft verheimlichen wir, was wir und wie recherchieren und warum wir zu unseren Ergebnissen gekommen sind. Das verunsichert nicht nur das Publikum, das macht auch die Recherchen schlechter.
![Key elements of narratives associated with BILD's coverage—such as the controversial term “heating hammer”—gained widespread traction across the German media. In our analyzed BILD corpus containing 333 relevant articles the word hammer was used more than 250 times, in different writings for “heating hammer” (228 times) but also in variations such as “energy hammer” or “housing hammer”. The name Habeck is mentioned 44 times as a direct prefix. Between January 2023 and March 2024, 1100 articles outside of BILD used the term (here, all results matching the query “Heizungshammer” OR “Heizhammer” OR “Heiz-Hammer” OR “Heizungs-Hammer”). Similarly, “Heizungsverbot” (heating ban) appeared in 800 articles, reinforcing a narrative of restriction. The framing of the law as driven by “ideology” featured in 660 articles (matching the query Gebäudeenergiegesetz AND (Ideologie OR ideologisch)), while references of public “uncertainty” (“Verunsicherung”) linked to the heating law surfaced in over 2500 articles, underscoring the broader societal unease surrounding the policy debate. Only a limited number of media outlets delved into the specifics of the rather moderate provisions in the law and explicitly covered the campaign opposing the legislation, notably niche media such as “Klimareporter.de” [21] and the fact checker “Volksverpetzer.de” [22].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kva7wfpow5d5mkzmorbqw44w/bafkreibw2ujkctqosixvs7zbkutoavs5aaxamzcsxv7yuwu3guy54lbs4q)
