Many journalists see debates like the triall of the candidate for chancellor from the perspective of a boxing match.

They wait for the "lucky punch" that decides the fight.

Unfortunately, this always fails, so the observers have to make other means.

They distribute posture grades.

The analysis is correspondingly subjective.

The journalist Birgit Marschall gives a good example of this. She was amazed at the polls after the three rounds of discussions with the candidates for chancellor. If you follow the “lightning polls”, this was won without exception by Olaf Scholz. The Berlin correspondent for the Rheinische Post had, however, seen Annalena Baerbock "much more strongly in all trialles". You have also not met anyone who sees it differently, she noted self-ironically.

Journalists and spin doctors act in the role of referees. The only difference is that there are no fixed rules for political TV show fights like in boxing, how inadequate even these may be. So the ladies and gentlemen at the ring try to describe their impressions, which ultimately say more about the authors than about the candidates for chancellor. In addition, we have 60.4 million judges in the federal election, including all those who have not seen a single fight. You decide the outcome of the election. The last triall of this last Sunday at Pro Sieben and Sat.1 saw around four million people, i.e. 2.4 percent of the eligible voters. Its significance for the outcome of the election cannot be found in it. Not even with the journalists, despite all efforts to gain the authority of interpretation.

A show of vanity

Nevertheless, this program was an important part of the mosaic called the election campaign.

This was not least due to the moderators Claudia von Brauchitsch and Linda Zervakis, who made a debate about the central messages possible with their pointed questions.

For Olaf Scholz it is about “respect and dignity”, Annalena Baerbock relies on the “new beginning” to save the world from climate collapse.

Armin Laschet sees the election as a “directional decision”.

However, the CDU had to radically change its strategy at the last few meters: Instead of the invocation of consensus that was used from the Merkel years, it is now relying on dissent.

Meanwhile, the Greens said goodbye to the idea of ​​appearing as an independent force between the Union and the SPD. In view of the manageable total number of viewers, the good double-digit market share values ​​that the Pro Sieben and Sat.1 family of channels achieved with the target group of viewers aged up to 49 were noteworthy. This could be an indication of the high number of undecided that the parties still have to reach with their messages by election day. Nobody can reliably predict which message will prevail in the end.

This last triell documented the dynamics of an election campaign that produced lots of surprises. At that time, (almost) everyone assumed that Scholz would be knocked out, even before the first round. The Greens seemed to be on top, the Union well in the race, then as good as lost. In the end, it will not depend on the journalists in the struggle for interpretation. In a media system as differentiated as we have now, they lack the impact of earlier years. In the Twitter bubble shaped by journalists, we experience a show of vanity. On the coming Sunday shortly after 6 p.m. everything can be interpreted anew.