We have all failed: What we absolutely have to do differently after Corona
The next state of emergency is sure to come: Journalists must reflect on what they did wrong during the coronavirus pandemic. This is truly about democracy.
In June 2021, the Austrian Military Journal, on behalf of the National Defense Academy Vienna, together with the European Military Press Association and the Center for People-Oriented Leadership and Defense Policy, hosted the "Vienna Strategy Conference 2021." The conference focused on two topics: "Strengthening and Protecting Democracy" and "Democracy and Strategic Capability."
The concrete discussion should be about whether "authoritarian systems could be more strategically capable than Western pluralist ones" and whether "Western democracy could slide into a systemic strategic deficit" if it fails to "realign its rapidly changing value system." High-ranking military representatives from Poland, Sweden, Germany, Israel, and Hungary wondered whether "a first dialectical solution" could consist of a "realignment," for example, "through increased humanistic educational efforts." The reorientation should "go just far enough so that the democratic principle survives in its core and remains resiliently functional." In no way is "this intended as a departure from the democratic principle, which, according to this logic, should lead to greater strategic capability, but would demand a price that an enlightened, value-based society should under no circumstances pay."
The conference took place amid the coronavirus pandemic. The previous conference had to be canceled due to the complete lockdown. This time, it was pointed out that "the 3G regulation (recovered, tested, vaccinated) is a prerequisite for participation." Participants were asked to provide the exact times of their attendance "in order to ensure the best possible use of the maximum number of seats permitted by the coronavirus regulations."
Under the impact of the social disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the speakers sought ways out of the dilemma of wanting to fight an invisible enemy without having to completely abandon fundamental rights. One expert spoke on the topic "Democratic-participatory crisis management: That doesn't even work in kindergarten!" Another lecture was titled "Urgent Notice: Reconfiguring Democracy." Another was titled "Constructively Coping with Uncertainty as a Challenge for the State, Society, and the Military."
To determine whether the "democratic principle" is viable in the global battle of "systems," speakers and participants analyzed societal behavior during the pandemic. Today, it is well known that for many Western governments, the draconian actions of the Chinese government were the measure of all things. But the military did not proceed ideologically. They soberly and ruthlessly dissected the behavior of individual social players. With scientific coolness, the experts determined the extent to which individual institutions submitted to the unfamiliar political dictates. Under the title "Democratic Spirit in Times of Crisis: The Media's Misguided Paths of False Solidarity," Berlin sociologist Armin Triebel addressed the Berliner Zeitung and its reporting on the coronavirus measures. Triebel examined 330 articles that appeared in the weekday edition between the end of April and the end of December 2020.
In his study, the author describes how the division in society has intensified due to reporting in all media: "With the introduction of mandatory mask wearing in April 2020, the first discourse strand began: the 'reasonable' citizen here, the simpleton opposite him. The second discourse strand politically categorized the contrast and divided the population into reasonable citizens and conspiracy theorists. The third discourse strand in the fall of 2020 established a suggestive connection to the anti-Semitism discourse: the critic of government measures moved closer to the anti-Semites."
This general pull also had an impact on the reporting of the Berliner Zeitung. Triebel writes: "The coding and counting of the behavior-related articles in the Berliner Zeitung shows that the newspaper was heavily involved in this divisive process in 2020. Only three percent of the articles were in any way critical of government policy. A good quarter of the articles stated that the division in society was clearly a given. Six percent of the articles themselves fueled it, sometimes with powerful language, by first ridiculing dissenting opinions and then relegating them first to the moral and later to the political sidelines." In the fall of 2020, Triebel finally observed a "certain change of course" "toward more distanced reporting." Triebel's analysis can be read in the anthology "International Perspectives in the 21st Century" published by Jan Sramek Verlag.
The media's willingness to allow themselves to be forced into a narrow information corridor does not correspond to the self-image of a free press in an open, democratic society. Moreover, their often unnecessary compliance was counterproductive, according to Armin Triebel: "Contrary to plans, the coronavirus pandemic has not led to greater social solidarity and has not halted the feared erosion of social solidarity. The attempt to align the population with a unified will by drastically portraying danger and using a moralizing concept of solidarity has instead led to the activation of enemy images and the formation of hostile "we" groups. By creating fear, morality has been endowed with coercive power."
In the eventful history of the Berliner Zeitung, the Corona years were a special time – as they are for all media outlets: Although formally 100 percent independent, the work suddenly felt like a leaden burden. French President Emmanuel Macron had proclaimed that the world was at war with the virus. Almost with relief, most media outlets accepted a relieving framework: Questioning government announcements suddenly no longer mattered – after all, it was a matter of life and death. The enemy was invisible, and could therefore be identified anywhere. The crisis hit many media outlets during a phase of editorial thinning that had been ongoing for years: Knowledgeable science editors had long been the exception, as had editors-in-chief with a general education. The firewalls between editorial staff and publishing houses have become very permeable in many companies. During the Corona period, many media outlets were kept afloat with government advertising – who would want to object? The pressure on publishers who maintained their independence was enormous: not many had the backbone to stand up to it.
One thing can be said of the Berliner Zeitung: Holger Friedrich stood like a rock. He ensured diversity and enabled the editorial team to produce differentiated reporting. With the Open Source section, he opened the newspaper to differing perspectives. We were also helped by courageous interviewees who ventured out early on to produce well-founded contributions. The author Daniela Dahn contributed a clever essay on empathy ; the journalist Heribert Prantl with passionate calls for vigilance ; the internist Stefanie Holm with her explanations on the subject of fear ; the young lawyer Jessica Hamed with clear-sighted pleas for fundamental rights ; and the philosopher Michael Andrick as a tireless admonisher and warning against undesirable developments.
Newspapers have long been plagued by a problem: Hardly any editorial department is equipped to competently deal with complex topics, unknown viruses, or novel vaccinations. At the same time, the media today submits itself to absurd, artificial time pressure. This leaves them helplessly at the mercy of the massive PR machines of politicians, lobbyists, and corporations. They are inundated by a narrative tsunami that seems almost impossible to resist. In the end, many write what others want printed or posted online. Authoritarian authorities such as fact checkers, informers, or algorithms tuned for good behavior undermine the foundations of the free press and imperceptibly destroy it. Most editorial departments suffered the same fate as the Paul Ehrlich Institute: lacking their own resources, they had the drugs they were monitoring sent to them by the manufacturers. Unannounced on-site inspections? None of this. Media relations were also primarily handled by the pharmaceutical companies. They financed scientists, sometimes indirectly. These scientists offered themselves as "experts" to the often overwhelmed editors and sometimes resorted to active intervention: There were emails containing blatant threats if certain articles were not deleted immediately. Out of respect for the experts, many journalists asked only "non-suspicious," i.e., affirmative questions. Yet these experts, once confident, were generally quite capable of answering even critical questions honestly. The greatest challenge for journalism—and this seems to have changed little in 80 years—is and remains, in all crises, the individual journalist: They must overcome their fears, not fear social isolation, and should not shy away from internal opposition. At the same time, they must constantly question themselves and others. In the "reorientation" of Western societies in the wake of a global trend toward authoritarianism, they must be flexible when it comes to new technologies; and stubborn as a goat when press freedom is attacked.
Dr. Michael Maier is editor of the Berliner Zeitung .
Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
