Welche Qualifikation haben „Nahostexperten“ für diese Bezeichnung?

Among the shimmering/ controversial persons of the Zunft counts with certainty

Peter Scholl-Latour

Peter Roman Scholl-Latour (* March 9, 1924 in Bochum as Peter Roman Scholl; † 16. August 2014 in Rhöndorf) was a German-French journalist,…

. . . Since the end of the 20th century century became Scholl-Latours Authority, parallel to its far-reaching acceptance as an Asian identifier and as a Middle East expert, questioned by some journalists and scientists. Thus he became among others by the Orientalists Verena clamp and Karin Hörner, of Udo Steinbach and tasty– Journalist Ulrike Herrmann accused of maintaining existing enemy images through undifferentiated views and of constraining old fears, as well as being mistaken relatively often due to its lack of academic care and relevant foreign language knowledge.^[43][44][45] Critics in his books also see parallels to classical and stylistic colonial roman.^[43]

The Professor of Prospective Orient Science Gernot Rotter initiated at the Orientalist Institute of the 1990s University of Hamburg an own research project, which includes the scripts Scholl-Latours and Gerhard Konzelmann, an author also perceived in the public as an expert for the Islamic world, subjected to a critical analysis. The participating scientists came to strongly negative reviews and wrote a collection tape to both authors.^[46][47][43] The media journalists Wolfgang Röhl and Stefan Niggemeier in the case of Scholl-Latour’s frequent television appearances, his references to personal experiences in crisis regions were mostly at the forefront of arguments.^[48][49]

On the example of Scholl-Latours reports from Central Africa in non-fiction books and on television, the geographer Andreas Dittmann the “self-proclaimed Congolese and media charlatan” Scholl-Latour, responsible journalism and stereotypes, and the “proliferation of doubtful half-truths […] for the purpose of self-representation”.^[50] Scholl-Latour spreads over the countries he traveled “popular clichés” as well as “polit and ethnoplating”.^[51]

The journalist and Middle East expert Rudolph Chimelli defended Scholl-Latour against criticism. Scholl-Latour, according to Chimelli, has made an adversary, in particular, by “being almost always swung against the western opinion mainstream over the decades” and “in his choice of words, he did not revive Western, especially American propaganda themes.”^[52]