The appearance of conflict: Why young and old people are played off against each other in public service broadcasting
It is hard to miss the way in which conflicts between the generations are repeatedly deliberately staged in public service broadcasting. The topic of pensions and retirement provision in particular serves as a stage for emotionally charged scenarios that panic viewers and at the same time underpin certain political narratives. Not only is a debate being held here, butrather, it stages an emotionally charged battle in which young people and the elderly are pitted against each other in order to implement their own agenda. The complex problem of pension insurance is reduced to simple opposites that sell well – victims against those responsible, future against past, youth against old age.Simplification sells better on TV because conflicts and blaming generate more attention than sober analysis.
Manipulation through simple images and conflicts
The public broadcaster has recognized that conflicts sell better than complicated contexts. The dramatic depiction of an alleged generational conflict is catchy, easy to understand and emotionally arousing. They are images that remain in the mind: the young people who fight for their future, and the older ones who supposedly live at the expense of generations.Images are convenient because they hide the complex causes and the multi-layered responsibilities behind pension policy. This is about much more than just “old versus young”. It is about systemic errors, about political misconstructions that have gone unnoticed for decades and are turning the reality of pension insurance into a disaster. But these backgrounds areof the coverage is often hidden to reduce the conflict to the simple formula: blame is on the old, who still profit generously, and the young, who supposedly have to pay for their own future.
The failed construction of the pension insurance
What is hardly mentioned in public broadcasting is the fundamental misconstruction of pension insurance. It has been known for decades that the system is based on false assumptions. It is a construction that hardly lasts. The paid contributions of the employees do not bear interest, but stagnate in a system that is little more than a redistribution machinethe contributions that are paid by the young today flow into the pensions of older vintages without any appreciable interest or appreciation. In principle, pensions are financed from current contributions, but the actual return is negative. When disbursement is made, there are other levies: taxes, social security contributions and other levies thatactual value of the pension. In addition, the so-called “non-insurance benefits”, i.e. benefits that are not directly related to the contributions, additionally burden the pension fund. These lack of interest rates, the high expenditure on non-insurance benefits and the unbalanced distribution between generations are well-known facts thatpublic service broadcasting. Instead, the narrative is characterized by images of the “patronized young person” and the “profited age”. The actual connections remain in the dark to further fuel the mood.
Dealing with civil servants and unequal treatment in pension policy
Another scandal that is hardly discussed is the special position of civil servants. As a rule, they do not pay anything into the statutory pension insurance and still receive a generous pension. The so-called “civil servant’s pension” is often hardly comparable in its amount to the contributions that normal employees have to make. The system is simply unjust here: whileIf employees contribute a significant part of their income to the pension fund, civil servants benefit from a state personnel fund that guarantees them very high pension payments, which are often twice or three times the average pension. This unequal treatment is hardly mentioned in public broadcasting. Instead, the narrative of “missingGenerational contract”is also projected on the young people, who are supposed to pay for everything, while old civil servants unabashedly enjoy their pension-funded privileges. This imbalance, which fundamentally calls pension insurance into question, is systematically ignored in order to further heat up the conflict between young and old – at the expense of the truth.
The dramatic staging and escape from responsibility
The dramatic staging of the generational conflict in public service broadcasting has a clear purpose: it distracts from the actual responsibilities. Instead of exposing the flaws in the system, the conflict is staged in such a way that blame is placed on the rulers, politicians and authorities. The audience is supposed to believe that the policy has failed,the pension insurance is broken and only uninvolved citizens – young or old – are the victims. But the truth is much more complicated. It is a systemic aberration that has existed for decades, a construction based on false assumptions and inadequate control. But in public service broadcasting, this truth is systematically obscured.simple images are used to inflame emotions: the young people who depend on the old people’s pensions, the old people who still profit generously, and the politics that have slopped everything. Responsibility shift is the central principle: the burden is shifted onto the alleged “victims”, while the actual responsible persons in the background make their mistakes[]
The instrumentalisation by certain discussion participants
Another point is the targeted selection of discussion participants. In public service broadcasting, representatives are often invited who speak pointedly and emotionally charged about the generational conflict. Experts who could reveal the complex causes of the system, on the other hand, are usually left out. Rather, there is a demand for voices that make moral appeals and populistIt’s about simple blaming, it’s about fomenting envy and resentment. The economic, legal and tax backgrounds that significantly shape the pension issue are hardly mentioned. Instead, a moral narrative is built in which the system is portrayed as unjust and those responsible as incapable.one-sided presentation means that the population is not factually informed. Instead, emotions are stoked to increase acceptance for reforms that are often only cosmetic in nature and obscure the real issues.
The stabilization of the status quo through obfuscation
These manipulations have serious long-term consequences. The mechanisms that destabilize pension insurance – lack of interest, non-insurance benefits, unfair privileges for certain occupational groups – are systematically omitted. Instead of openly discussing these grievances, they are overlaid by moral polemics and conflicts. The population remains in the dark,and those responsible can conceal their mistakes unhindered. The public discourse is designed in such a way that it supports the status quo and complicates reforms. The truth about the actual causes of the pension problem remains hidden, while the outrage narratives continue to successfully fuel sentiment and generate uncritical approval.
Manipulative conflict between generations
As a result, the debate in public service broadcasting is not only a manipulative conflict between the generations, but above all a distraction. Conflicts are staged to distract from the true system failures, shift responsibility to citizens and alleged victims, and protect those responsible.Contexts reduced to simple images that appeal to emotions but distort reality. Society is thus limited in its ability to identify the actual causes of the pension crisis and to find sustainable solutions. Instead of enlightenment, there is only a permanent staging of conflict and guilt, which obscures the view of the real problems and the systemself-stabilized.
