Is Cool Journalism on Paper a Case for the Museum? A New History Says Maybe.
Munich, Germany – A fascinating new oral history, “Making the Present: An Oral History of Pop Journalism” by Erika Thomalla, is sending ripples through the media world, prompting a debate: was the golden age of magazine journalism – a period of bold, subjective writing and cultural definition – a fleeting moment, destined for the archives? The book, meticulously researched and brimming with voices from the era, suggests a profound shift in how we consume and create culture, and asks whether today’s digital landscape has extinguished the spark of truly ‘avant-garde’ journalism.
The Paper Trail: A Zeitgeist You Could Hold
Thomalla’s work isn’t just a nostalgic look back. It’s a deep dive into the offices and minds of the journalists, writers, and editors who shaped the cultural landscape of Germany from the late 1970s through the 2000s. Magazines like “szene Hamburg,” “Zitty,” “Tempo,” and even the German iteration of “Vanity Fair” weren’t simply reporting news; they *were* the news, defining lifestyles and launching the careers of now-famous names like Christian Kracht, Rainald Goetz, and Maxim Biller. The sheer physicality of the era – the mountains of paper in offices like that of “Spex” editor Diedrich Diederichsen – is presented as a key element. As Thomalla points out, the abundance of paper wasn’t just a logistical issue; it was a tangible representation of being present, of actively engaging with the current moment. “I read, therefore I am (up to date),” the book subtly argues, highlighting the immersive experience of pre-digital media.
From ‘Journailliteracy’ to TikTok: A Shifting Landscape
The book’s strength lies in its polyphony – 90 interviews capturing a diverse range of perspectives. It explores the blurring lines between journalism and literature, a trend scholar Erhard Schütz termed “journailliteracy” back in 1998. This era saw a renewal of contemporary literature fueled by the freedom and experimentation found within magazine pages. Magazines offered a space for a first-person perspective, a directness and intimacy that was often absent in traditional journalism. As one interviewee, Lorenz Schröter, puts it, these publications allowed writers to be “insulting and personal,” to challenge the notion of the journalist as an objective, all-knowing authority.
But where did that spirit go? The book implicitly asks whether the immediacy and subjective voice of these magazines have been lost in the endless scroll of the internet. Some argue that platforms like TikTok offer a similar space for personal expression, but Thomalla’s work suggests something more profound was at stake – a deliberate attempt to define a zeitgeist, to create a cultural moment, rather than simply react to one. The magazines weren’t just reflecting society; they were actively shaping it.
The Avant-Garde Question: Are We Still Pushing Boundaries?
Perhaps the most provocative question raised by “Making the Present” is whether we’ve seen the last of the avant-garde in journalism. Maxim Biller’s assertion – “We were the avant-garde, and unfortunately we still are. Young journalists today are not at all interested in writing” – is a stark challenge to the current state of the profession. While digital journalism has undoubtedly democratized access to information, has it also sacrificed the ambition, the stylistic experimentation, and the willingness to take risks that characterized this earlier era? The book doesn’t offer easy answers, but it provides a crucial historical context for understanding the evolution of media and the challenges facing contemporary writers.
Thomalla’s compendium isn’t without its omissions – some voices, like Alexander Osang, are notably absent, and the “Berliner Seiten” supplement to the “FAZ” deserves its own chapter. However, these minor gaps don’t detract from the book’s overall impact. It’s a valuable resource for anyone interested in media history, cultural studies, or the art of writing, offering a glimpse into a time when magazines weren’t just publications, but cultural forces.
The legacy of these magazines isn’t just about the writing itself, but about the ethos they embodied: a willingness to experiment, to be immodest, and to elevate the seemingly insignificant. It’s a reminder that journalism, at its best, isn’t just about delivering information; it’s about shaping perceptions, sparking conversations, and ultimately, making the present.
For those seeking a deeper understanding of this pivotal moment in media history, “Making the Present” is essential reading. Explore more breaking news and in-depth analysis at archyde.com, your source for informed perspectives on the evolving world of media and culture.
