Julia Ruhs: “Populism means being close to the people – that’s not a bad thing.”
Since the beginning of the year, journalist and former BR trainee Julia Ruhs has been under fire. Accusations claim she spreads "nonsense," is "still a teenager at heart," and that her ARD program "Klar" is "right-wing extremist." And they come from within her own ranks: Whether it's Jan Böhmermann, Nicole Diekmann, or Anja Reschke—the criticism of Ruhs and her self-proclaimed claim to take a close look and "show what's going wrong" doesn't seem to appeal to everyone. At least among her colleagues at public broadcasting.
A glance at Julia Ruh's book "Left-Green Opinion Power: The Division of Our Country" reveals that the young journalist is receiving overwhelming support from readers, viewers, and listeners. However, she also offers criticism in her book: of journalists, of the culture of debate, but by no means of the public broadcaster. Why?
In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, Ruhs explains why she sees herself as “part of the system,” why she considers the firewall against the AfD to be important, and why she “cannot do anything” with the “negative mood” in the media, politics, and science.
Ms. Ruhs, we spoke two years ago. Back then, you talked about the challenges your stance as a conservative journalist presents in the public broadcasting environment. Do you feel more like a part of the system today, or has the feeling of being an outsider become even stronger?
Because I now have my own program and a team behind me—at least for the time being—I don't see myself as an outsider. I don't know if I ever was. The thing is: I expose myself with my opinion. That means, from the outside, it might seem like I'm the only female conservative voice in the public broadcasting system. But most journalists just do their job, stay in the background, and therefore aren't publicly recognized.
If you were never an outsider, then...?
I'm now part of the system. It sounds silly, but it's true. I support public broadcasting and consider it an important pillar of the German media landscape. Of course, I also like to criticize it here and there, but I'm convinced it's necessary, especially in these times when the media world is becoming increasingly fragmented.
What do you mean?
People are drifting away, getting their information from YouTube channels, alternative media, and influencers. We need a platform for everyone, one with which everyone can identify and where everyone feels represented, regardless of their political views. In my opinion, public broadcasting is a suitable construct for this.
So, would you say that the current program orientation primarily appeals to people who position themselves politically on the left?
I think it's dangerous if we no longer reach everyone. It's incredibly important to win back those who have turned away from the established media and broadcasting. People write to me almost daily about how terrible they think broadcasting is. I've included many quotes from letters in my book to show how frustrated some people are.
On the other hand, the first broadcast of your NDR format "Klar" on the topic of migration triggered an enormous backlash. This shows two things: viewers are no longer accustomed to such critical programs, and a significant portion even rejects this approach.
The shitstorm showed that we'd hit a nerve. There's a lot of coverage on this topic, but not in the way we did. Nevertheless, I have to say: My team and I didn't expect these reactions. It wasn't the first wave of outrage I've encountered. But compared to the reactions to this show, it was truly harmless at the time.
After the release of the first episode of "Klar," sharp criticism came not from the political opposition, but from within the ranks of public broadcaster itself: ZDF presenter Jan Böhmermann accused you of selling "filth," "inhumanity," and "madness" as "topics worthy of serious debate." Your colleague Nicole Diekmann commented on X that you were "still a teenager at heart." And a few weeks ago, Anja Reschke even described your show as "right-wing extremist." What does it do to you when you are attacked in this way by colleagues, and have the people mentioned ever sought a dialogue with you?
That's not nice, of course. But I think it's better to resolve such matters internally rather than in the media spotlight.
Have you ever considered withdrawing completely from public life or even quitting your job?
No! I'm convinced of what I think—and I stand by it. There are many people who think like me. That means I'm by no means alone in my opinion. In a professional context, it sometimes feels that way—but as soon as I'm in a protected, private environment, my opinion is among the average.
Where do you position yourself politically – center, conservative, right?
In the middle, maybe slightly to the right. But there are people who are significantly more conservative than I am—for example, on the issue of gay marriage and having children. I always think to myself: Let people do what they want. It really annoys me when men say that a woman's life's work is to bring children into the world. When statements like that are made, I find conservatives truly awful—and realize that I'm actually quite liberal on some issues.
And why is it so important for you to expose yourself, as you say yourself?
Because I want to show young people that they should speak their minds openly and loudly. It starts with the fact that in private, you shouldn't always be silent and swallow your opinion, but rather counter it objectively. This feeling of no longer being able to say anything is due to social pressure. Yes, there have been house searches and cases that have gone badly – but even so, the state fundamentally doesn't act in a way that restricts our ability to express our opinions. It's more like people believe they will be labeled and defamed by their peers for their opinions.
This sounds as if some people imagine that they are being excluded because of an opinion that not everyone shares.
This isn't just my imagination. If I say something that's understood differently, or if I simply express myself in a misleading way, people might no longer want to work with me. This is a big issue in the publishing world—and I think that's a shame. Many of them are freelance journalists and rely on clients.
In what way?
Journalists then prefer to take the easy route, not wanting to offend – for fear of repercussions. Yet, as journalists, we're actually meant to say things that others keep quiet about. Journalists are lateral and free thinkers – at least, that's what they should be, in my opinion. These terms have acquired negative connotations these days, but what I'm really trying to say is: We shouldn't think in a standard way, but rather ask uncomfortable and critical questions. If you, as a journalist, want to be everyone's darling, you're in the wrong job.
In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung in February 2023, you said: “Neutral journalism is a utopia.” Has your attitude towards this changed – or do you feel more or less vindicated today?
I stick to this. One hundred percent neutrality will never be achieved. It always depends on how the topics are chosen: What is mentioned, what is omitted, which images are shown? Readers and viewers will see a political statement in everything – if they want to. Of course, one should always strive to provide information that is as comprehensive and balanced as possible. Opinion pieces are an exception.
Keyword choice of topic: Are you free to make your decision or are individual problems suggested or assigned to you?
From my letters, I gather that many people assume they can just do whatever they want. In other words: I pick a topic – and then I get started. It's not like that. Only when the editors recognize its relevance and give their "okay" does it begin to be implemented. Texts are always read or edited by at least one person – and this process is important. Very important, in fact. The problem is that I'm increasingly getting the feeling that people are differentiating between the "government press" and the "truth."
What do you mean?
If you only consume alternative media, you get the feeling that public broadcasting is controlled by the government. This black-and-white thinking doesn't help anyone. These media outlets—for example, Nius, Tichys Einblick, and others—have their place. The demand is there, and they're meeting it accordingly. I also read texts on these platforms from time to time that aren't all that bad. On the other hand, there are things that I find too populist. It's just about stirring up sentiment or promoting certain political trends. It's too one-sided for me.
It's interesting that you speak of "too populist" content. Critics accuse you of exactly that—reporting in an overly populist and one-sided manner.
Populism has become a jaded term, almost always associated with or equated with right-wing populism. Populism actually means being close to the people—which is a good thing in itself. And that's what I try to be. But it bothers me when people constantly play to the same tune and report in too undifferentiated a manner. You're not doing yourself any favors by just swimming in your own juice. That applies to everyone—conservatives and leftists alike.
Speaking of the left. Your book is titled "Left-Green Opinion Power." What exactly do you mean by that—is it about individuals, milieus, institutions, or rather a cultural attitude?
It's about the cultural dominance of the Left-Green Party. Ultimately, this is a catchall term for everything I consider to be left of center: the SPD, the Greens, the Left. The fact that this group is shaping the discourse so strongly has, in my view, created a potential for frustration. The consequence: More and more people are moving to the AfD, now adopting an anti-liberal stance and hardly questioning anything anymore.
What prompted you to write this book? The growing frustration, the rise of the AfD, or the opinion-forming power of a political group you describe? Don't get me wrong, but I read a lot of what you write again and again – "The culture of debate is one-sided, something has to change..."
It's true that not all of my statements are necessarily new. But I see my book as a small part of a counterweight to the "left-green" dominance. I believe that the left spectrum has still not understood: This cannot continue. Actions like the summer interview with Alice Weidel in no way harm the AfD. Such disruptive actions have the opposite effect. These activists create rejection and reinforce the increasingly widespread anti-sentiment.
In your opinion, why do such anti-AfD actions continue to take place despite massive criticism?
I feel like no attempt is even made to empathize with those who think differently politically. And that's precisely what I find so disastrous. The left-green milieu, in particular, often dictates how one should think about an issue – including when dealing with the AfD. That makes me angry. Because I have the impression that this very self-confidence, this ignoring of other perspectives, ultimately contributes to the growth of certain political movements and media outlets. And it contributes to the growing social divide.
Where exactly do you see this divide – between political camps, between city and country, between media and public?
Both the AfD and the left-green spectrum act in a divisive manner. Both sides argue that they are distancing themselves from their political opponents. What I find truly appalling about the AfD, however, is this attitude that journalists always want to do something bad – especially journalists at public broadcasters. The weak content is offset by outrage over supposedly untenable statements made by journalists. Every interview is exploited for this purpose.
Since you have mentioned the AfD several times: What is your position on the so-called firewall?
I think it's right, but increasingly unrealistic. I understand the idea of the firewall: no coalitions, no agreements with the AfD. But I think that doesn't preclude counting on AfD votes if they agree to a proposal that stems from their own convictions anyway. Like with the migration proposal at the beginning of the year: that was strategically clever. At least it has broken the political hostage situation that the firewall can leave you in – namely, that only the left-wing parties remain as a majority option. If the AfD agrees to a proposal for which they themselves are responsible – without agreement – I don't see a problem. It only becomes problematic if content is agreed upon in advance with the AfD. That would be a clear break.
What do you think would be the right way to bring more diversity of perspectives into journalism, which you call for in your book?
A lot is already happening – for example, a university degree is often no longer a prerequisite for getting a traineeship. This is very important because the industry needs more career changers and fewer social and humanities scholars. But I also see that conservative and progressive journalists are splitting up between individual media outlets. Conservatives, for example, prefer Springer or other relevant media outlets for understandable reasons. I think that unfortunately, there aren't enough left for other outlets.
Currently, more and more people—whether journalists, scientists, or politicians—are increasingly pessimistic about the future. What about you?
I can't do much with this negative mood. I find this doomsday mood – whether it's about migration or the climate – truly terrible. You can't go through life with your mouth hanging open. Sure, every day is a new challenge, but you have to face it. To be honest, I have the feeling that a mood is changing right now. You can tell by the way some media reports have changed. Two years ago, certain topics would have been unthinkable in this form. My only concern is how far the pendulum will swing to the right. If you exclude or push away moderate conservatives – and I count myself among them – it could lead to the field being left to the more radical. Then the fight "against the right" will unfortunately have achieved the opposite of what the left actually wants.
Berliner-zeitung
