Fracture: Big on the cap

Of course, a column with a name like this cannot avoid dealing with

, which really deserves its name.

Especially not when they are piling up like this week.

As soon as it became known that the CDU chairman Merz had broken his collarbone, it was also reported that the left-wing parliamentary group leader Bartsch could only laugh about it if a six-fold rib fracture didn't hurt so much.

By far the most painful and shocking breaking news of the past few days, however, came from the Chancellery.

There was a breach of taboo that could no longer be healed with plaster of paris or titanium screws.

Like the legendary knight Winkelried

Bertolt Kohler

Editor.

• Follow I follow

The scandal even made the republic forget for a while that a war was raging in Ukraine.

The Holocaust statement by Palestinian President Abbas was so unbearable that the outraged Chancellor was speechless.

Of course, before he found her again, government spokesman Hebestreit had already ended the press conference.

Scholz was then criticized almost as severely as the Holocaust relativizer for failing to immediately break the baton about Abbas.

Hebestreit tried to draw the lances from the critics, much like the legendary knight Winkelried did in the Battle of Sempach.

The fact that Scholz was unable to say anything more was his fault, said the Chancellor's squire.

For this he was immediately "grumped up" by the boss.

That means: There was a lot on the cap.

Why didn't Scholz make Abbas Minna?

But even with that, the government spokesman did not silence the guns of those who shot at Scholz: What kind of host is that who lets the staff evade his word!

And why did Scholz make his own man Minna and not Abbas, who was also present and would have deserved it much more?

If it had been up to Merz, who commented on the scandalous event on Twitter with a freshly screwed collarbone, Scholz would have had to expel Abbas from the house immediately.

Exactly!

Because who knows what unbearable things the Palestinians would have been capable of.

So it was good that Hebestreit pulled the plug on him so quickly!

Do you really have to be snapped at for such a courageous act, even on the open stage?

Why do journalists switch to the dark side of power?

Bawling is a weak verb, but it's a strong expression.

Its use raises the question of why journalists would even put themselves at risk of being bullied by switching sides.

Of course, any simple scribbler can also get himself slapped at a press conference if he asks stupid enough (see the Chancellor's summer press conference).

But after that he can return the favor extensively in the newspaper or on the radio station.

This opportunity to seek satisfaction is no longer available to government spokesmen.

What makes self-confident and opinionated journalists, who have criticized governments all their professional lives, suddenly serve as their mouthpiece?

The fact that you experience things in this function that not even so-called investigative journalists would experience is undoubtedly attractive, but probably also frustrating: you can no longer write about the exclusive insights.

And it can't just be the pay alone - there are no bonuses like in public service broadcasting in the direct civil service.

The Fourth Estate on the other side of the barricade

So what lure can draw even former editors-in-chief to the dark side of power?

A former colleague told us that it was about helping to shape politics, not just the press releases.

So it seems that the so-called “Fourth Estate” does indeed exist, albeit on the other side of the barricade.

And finally, after many years of loyal and selfless service, a government spokesman can even become an ambassador to Israel, which is a princely reward.

Because sometimes he is allowed to explain himself there what the chancellor actually wanted to say in Berlin.