Rutishauser and the Köppel method
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:50 am
In an email, culture editor Andreas Tobler gave me three examples of phrases that were supposedly taken unchanged from Wikipedia and gave me a deadline of five hours. It was Monday, which is pretty busy for me with a TV and a radio show. Nevertheless, I responded within the ultimatum given. As I also learned that Tobler had received a PDF of the book from another Tagi editor, to whom I had sent it in confidence, and that they wanted to break the embargo period, I contacted the editor-in-chief.
In an email, Tagi editor-in-chief Arthur Rutishauser assured me that this would not happen and that "my best arguments" would be included in the article. This reassured me. However, I pointed laos rcs data out to Arthur that I could only do this if I knew the allegations against me. But despite asking, I was refused. So the article appeared on the following Monday, in which they inserted some randomly selected quotes from my first email that I had not approved for publication. The large-printed "proof" of my crime - a concrete passage - had not been presented to me. Nor did I know that my journalistic book would be absurdly compared with a thesis by Doris Fiala that was rejected by the ETH.
I then suggested to Rutishauser that I would like to discuss the matter with the author in a longer conversation on Radio 1. But this was rejected with the strange comment that the Tagi was "only interested in the matter and not the person" - and this after I had been targeted several times in a harsh manner ("The Schawinski method", "Schawinski (with picture) on page 1: cheating the reader"). I was then offered the opportunity to respond in 4500 characters, which I declined with the comment that this was the Köppel method: first hit hard, as loudly as possible. Then the person being vilified could defend themselves, thereby gaining maximum attention and two articles for the price of one.
In an email, Tagi editor-in-chief Arthur Rutishauser assured me that this would not happen and that "my best arguments" would be included in the article. This reassured me. However, I pointed laos rcs data out to Arthur that I could only do this if I knew the allegations against me. But despite asking, I was refused. So the article appeared on the following Monday, in which they inserted some randomly selected quotes from my first email that I had not approved for publication. The large-printed "proof" of my crime - a concrete passage - had not been presented to me. Nor did I know that my journalistic book would be absurdly compared with a thesis by Doris Fiala that was rejected by the ETH.
I then suggested to Rutishauser that I would like to discuss the matter with the author in a longer conversation on Radio 1. But this was rejected with the strange comment that the Tagi was "only interested in the matter and not the person" - and this after I had been targeted several times in a harsh manner ("The Schawinski method", "Schawinski (with picture) on page 1: cheating the reader"). I was then offered the opportunity to respond in 4500 characters, which I declined with the comment that this was the Köppel method: first hit hard, as loudly as possible. Then the person being vilified could defend themselves, thereby gaining maximum attention and two articles for the price of one.