"I believe that if journalism had done its job, if it had taken this role of the fourth estate in the state seriously, we would have experienced this pandemic very differently."
The sociologist and communication scientist Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen researches and teaches at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich. His research focuses on journalism and media organization. In this interview, he describes and analyzes journalism in Germany and talks about the media reality that creates reality in the first place. This interview helps to understand the current social crisis. According to Michael Meyen, it is above all a media and scientific disaster. In his recently published book "The Propaganda Matrix", Meyen makes the case for free media, which will do nothing less than decide our future. "We need a completely new kind of journalism." Well, you can find it here on this platform, for example.
Thank you for your Support of independent journalism in Germany.
English 
German 
Spanish
30 Responses
A few years ago I canceled my long-standing FAZ subscription and I have been watching Tagesschau for at least 5 years and no longer do so today. My gut feeling simply told me that my thinking was being influenced by the one-sided reports. This interview confirms to me how right my feeling was. Thank you very much for that. It shows that my inner compass is right. It's all the more frightening to see how my educated environment hangs on the lips of the newsreaders. When the daughter of acquaintances proudly reports on her I-date at the age of 13 and hasn't even heard that Israel currently has major problems. I will gladly support the Club of Clear Words and recommend the site to others. Mr. Langmann has a good selection of discussion partners, asks good questions and lets the other person finish.
What has struck me for months is the perfidious way in which the cheapest PR tools are being used to scare and panic everyone and everything. It's the # fool's mask, the # gag # duty, which implements the mantra of the "Lord of the Rings". The Ring of Power has the purpose of "One ring to find them all, drive them into darkness and bind them forever".
If you use the mask here, you understand what this theater is all about: A mask to find them all, drive them into darkness and bind them forever!
It is a symbol, a cheap PR trick, which in future will be paid for by the "bound" (= enslaved?) themselves!
The mask requirement was the starting point of the ongoing subjugation and that is why it was not suspended in the summer. If the "danger" were not seen everywhere, it would not exist. That is why the harshest violence must be used against dissenters (Sauron sends the trolls and golems).
Well, I do see a ray of hope: if vaccinated people were allowed to take off their masks in the future (they won't be, as the PR ploy would then collapse), the apartheid in this system would also become apparent. That could be a way out and a wake-up call.
There is no climate problem and certainly no catastrophe; the minimal increase after an extreme cold period does not cause any problems for the environment.
Such rapid changes from cold to warm are also not unusual.
Please consult a real expert on this:
The timing of ice ages: What lies ahead?
https://youtu.be/M3B4hpM6v5Q
But somehow we have a man-made climate catastrophe, but yes, a propaganda-made lobby catastrophe to cash in on.
It's strange that the people behind this have made money from the destruction of nature and now they want to make money from climate hysteria. If you can become a billionaire with CO2 certificate trading, then it's clear to me that the profiteers are sponsoring the activists.
Who gets the Co2 tax? The environment? The flood victims affected by the alleged climate catastrophes? No, there's no money for that.
If there really will be disasters caused by Co2 in the future, then the money should be paid into a relief fund for the victims.
Anyone who believes that this will happen also believes in the stork.
We have now seen in the flood disaster what we can expect from our government.
No aid workers but vaccination buses, so we see how the governments are concerned about the welfare of their citizens. We don't have a mother, no, it's more like the evil stepmother! And her daughters are no better.
And also in this pandemic we see that the government's extended press spokespeople are doing a good job. Propaganda propaganda propaganda always the same unscientific drivel. And the others are brought on roll by the federal government with advertisements worth millions.
We don't need such Q-media.
We should actually found an association.
Feie_Presse_Bürgerforum_ev.de
and thus offer all journalists and citizens a solid basis free of censorship.
It is intolerable that citizens are dependent on private companies to conduct social discussions and obtain important information.
It has become clear that citizens cannot rely on the state, or on the people who make up the state.
I have been refusing to pay these compulsory fees for 8 years now - it cannot be right that I am forced to pay for incitement of the people and war rhetoric, de-democratization and advertising brainstorms against my conscience, so that this government propaganda can continue its work.
Compulsory payment for compulsory sonication whether I like it or not, I have to swallow what is put in front of me - basta !
And if I no longer switch on the box because of this, then I still have to pay.
penalty payment for targeted disinformation and non-information, no longer have the right to refuse this.
This no longer has anything to do with public law - the public is being wronged, as in many other areas.
The ÖRR are the propaganda mouthpiece of the government to push through any kind of government, currently the interests of the pharmaceutical mafia.
In short: I must be able to choose and pay for what I want to read or listen to, or not, then public law would be upheld, including democratic law.
On closer inspection, it is also cheeky to demand a penalty payment for government information.
I don't have to buy "Bild", I could if I wanted to - I HAVE to buy ARD and ZDF whether I want to or not!
And look at this: at the moment, Bild is closer to the truth than the entire so-called "public service broadcasting".
Thank you for this report on the subject from a serious media expert.
An interesting interview. Free, independent press, free science serving the common good, no longer exists! Surprisingly, this is fiercely denied by the majority of the so-called "educated" population. For me, it is the sad truth: the school system already teaches obedience, and at universities we are experiencing a narrowing of the educational ideal to quick degrees and market orientation. We are being brought into line...radio, television and print media are accomplices. Thank you for your work, at a high level.
The power of the public media institutions in Germany should not be underestimated. In a constitutional differentiation between citizens and the state, they are part of the state, even if there are constant attempts to blur this relationship. The Federal Constitutional Court, for example, counts Fraport AG as part of the state (1 BvR 699/06 - judgment of February 22, 2011 - freedom of assembly also applies at Frankfurt Airport).
From this point of view, it is astonishing that this court has granted the ÖRR the capacity to exercise fundamental rights in relation to Article 5 of the Basic Law as a matter of course, not because this would not be possible for legal persons in principle. According to Article 19 (3) GG, this is in any case not impossible. The astonishing thing is that it is the state, as the public broadcaster, that claims the fundamental right of freedom of broadcasting for itself, and this is also exclusive as far as the claim to financing interpreted into it is concerned. And because that is not enough of the astonishing, there is also the fact that the citizen has to grant this fundamental right with his obligation to contribute.
However, the granting of fundamental rights from Articles 1 to 19 is the sole duty of the state and is not transferable. Only the implementation of the duty may be transferable in return for compensation or remuneration, which excludes the transferability of funding.
Now, of course, the question arises as to what Article 5 of the Basic Law actually regulates and what exactly the scope of protection of this fundamental right is in relation to broadcasting. The wording reads: "Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and film shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship." Consequently, this standard cannot achieve more than "freedom of reporting". A right to broadcasting cannot be inferred from it. The holders of this fundamental right are employees of broadcasting companies, for whom it can serve as a defense against state interference, be it the enforcement of desired or the suppression of undesired reporting.
I am fully aware that my views are contrary to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, in particular the most recent ruling of July 18, 2018 (- 1 BvR 1675/16 -). However, the reasoning of this judgment is of a quality that would not even be sufficient for a minor certificate in law studies. The brothers Paul and Ferdinand Kirchhoff, one an expert for ARD and ZDF, the other a judge at the BVerfG, demonstrate pure power by showing that they can justify anything they or their clients think is right, whether there is a constitutional basis for it or not. They can do it because they have reached the top.
P.S. I had sent the comment before I took note of the BVerfG ruling published today. What has changed? This much in advance: the previous level of judicial arbitrariness has been increased. We need to talk about Article 20(4) of the Basic Law. First of all about other remedies.
1.
For a very long time now, the next generation of journalists has mainly been made up of third-class school leavers at best, who only want to do "something with language" and believe that water runs uphill so quickly.
2.
Lack of knowledge, lack of time, lack of eloquence etc. are not a problem when the finished articles are delivered:
Internet tickers, news agencies, press officers, lobbyists, ...
So there is no need for ideological mission consciousness:
"Don't assume malice when stupidity will do" (Hanlon's Razor)
"Don't assume malice when stupidity will do" (Hanlon's Razor)
Is this distinction relevant for the injured party?
Whether someone is run over due to carelessness or intentionally is irrelevant for the injured party.
Thank you for this great interview, I will gladly continue to support you. And please continue with your very NECESSARY work - these are LIGHTNINGS at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you, open and courageous.
It is worse than feared in our media landscape
I have been observing this for a long time. The press spokesman of the Federal Government is the longest serving in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.
This is also not conducive to democratic, unbiased reporting. What's more, the print media are under severe pressure to survive and so are the journalists... Only a few large investors have a major influence on our media landscape. The flattening and one-dimensionality of reporting is frightening. Unfortunately, the acceptance of alternative media by the average citizen is still relatively low.... hopefully this should change.
Thank you for your optimism, which I am losing more and more.
Thank you for this great interview. I can only hope that Michael Meyen will keep his professorship for a long time to come. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. I have never heard such a differentiated and unbiased analysis of German media reality. I will forward this article to whomever I can!
Unfortunately, most people in everyday life are not reached by intellectual explanations and facts, but by short, emotional statements. the high quality here is very commendable - but I see a rather limited audience. I would be interested to know (Mr. Langemann) whether people who sit at the relevant interfaces and can actually make a difference/change something and notice a change of direction in themselves as a result of one of your contributions.
Thank you for this very interesting interview. And respect for this professor. There should be many, many more like him. The Clear Words Club is extremely important. Thank you for the many interesting contributions.
There have always been media scandals. There were the alleged Hitler diaries at the beginning of the 1980s. It took STERN a long time to recover from that. The Gladbeck hostage drama in 1988 was considered a fall from grace for the entire German media landscape. Older people will remember with disgust how the kidnappers Rösner and Degowski were interviewed while the victim Silke Bischoff had a gun pressed to her temple. In the digital age, there was the Relotius case in 2018. Embarrassing for Der Spiegel. Of all things, the journalist of the year 2014 turns out to be a fantasy storyteller.
But what has been happening since March 2020 is a different dimension. For me, it's not just government PR, it's now PR for itself. It is self-protection. The interesting question is whether there is a viable way back at all. BILD is currently trying. My hypothesis is that there are not only many people with convictions, but also many pragmatists among the media makers. Who would voluntarily spend 50 cents on Spiegel, Tagesspiegel, taz and the like, who would voluntarily pay GEZ fees? Hardly anyone. It would be the end of them. And the people in charge know that. So they choose to flee forwards. What is understandably rarely mentioned in the German media is that there are also demonstrations in front of publishing houses and TV stations abroad. People's anger is not only directed against politics, but also against the media. Almost worldwide, not just in Germany.
The irony is: I want nothing more than for the scam to finally be exposed. But if I think about what will happen then, I get scared. Then a tremendous social rage will be unleashed. Not also, but especially among the people who were obedient.
Thank you very much! It's frightening that the most intelligent people believe everything just because it's constantly being spread by the public media! And those who see through it keep their mouths shut! What is actually behind this? Big money? There is only black and white. Either you believe them up there - or you're wearing an aluminum hat! It increasingly reminds me of the dark brown times. Only, back then there were still critical minds. Thank you that I'm not alone!
Clever mind, this Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen. Thank you for the interesting interview. Club der klaren Worte is now one of the sites on the web that I visit regularly. It's worth it!
Thank you for your journalistic work
Very good and interesting interview. Thank you
And now I have to read that a participant in a demonstration in Berlin, allegedly a member of the party dieBasis, died after being arrested by the police...
It will be very interesting to see how this "incident" will be evaluated in the national and international media.
Yes, Dr. Aßmann, unfortunately you are so very right. Thank you for your detailed descriptions, by the way. Is it frightening or reassuring that these tendencies became apparent many years ago and that state and media injustice are not an invention of the 2020s?
This all became clear again yesterday in Berlin in a different context. I spent a large part of Sunday watching Mr. Reitschuster's livestream from the "eye" of what was happening there. This already embarrassingly massive police presence, the sometimes grossly unlawful actions against journalists and citizens. And yes, the middle class was represented, and very peacefully. Of course, there were some weird birds there too, where are there not? The only "injustice" that was committed was that people took part in a "banned demonstration". Why was it banned? On what legal basis that anyone can understand? These questions are no longer asked in the media. The official news later reported that the demonstrators had used "guerrilla tactics" to "keep the police on their toes", etc. It is absolutely ridiculous and to me just disgusting how propaganda is being made from all sides against a cause that should and would actually benefit all citizens if it were ever to prevail again.
Anyone who remembers the events at "Runway 18 West" in Frankfurt am Main can draw comparisons with the so-called "lateral thinking demos". For months, the police were kept "on tenterhooks", two police officers were shot dead, the residents of the surrounding communities showed solidarity with the "black block" and held police officers from behind while they were beaten by the criminals. The population went to the so-called "Sunday walks" to feast on the violence against the police. Yes, I can come out of the closet, I was right in the middle of it and as a young police chief I got a full-page article in the FAZ when I wrote about my experiences. I'm still in tears as I write this. The one police officer who was shot was my sports teacher, a calm, peaceful father of several children!
And today, people who want to demonstrate for the restoration of our constitution are being banned and criminalized. It is despicable!
Mr. Linsner, the really frightening thing is not the incidents themselves, nor the timing, but the degree of habituation or indifference in society. When young people credibly signal to me that they are no longer prepared to place children in this increasingly unfree, corrupt and broken world, in which freedom of thought and action is increasingly determined or regulated by corporations such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pfizer, Tesla & Co, then this should be an unmistakable warning sign. How far do politicians want to go for the "good" of society? What comes after the educational break and forced vaccination of young people under pressure from the pensioner generation, Helge Braun might ask? Forced insemination for the good of society, i.e. to safeguard pensions? Or is the focus initially on forcing the industrialization of landscapes, consumerism, e-mobility and autonomous driving? Anyone who thinks this is all a pipe dream should take a close look at the following report on Deutschlandfunk radio:
https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/pandemie-klima-umwelt-die-grenzen-der-persoenlichen-freiheit.976.de.html?dram:article_id=492606
It is to be feared that the boundaries of personal freedom are (to be) redefined globally. You can literally see in your mind's eye how Xi is rubbing his hands in glee at the successful coup. We can only hope that our German Chancellor has not learned anything about the background to coronavirus during her visits to Beijing or that this will never become public knowledge. In any case, the extensive planning games in the Ministry of the Interior in March 2020 make us suspicious, especially considering the early timing and thrust of the deliberations. This would also explain her visible panic when the incidence threatened to drop below 50 and she added the figure of 35 in an uncoordinated rush and could hardly explain why.
After the death in police custody, our politicians can forget about their ritualistic discussion of human rights on their next visit to Beijing anyway. Those who now object that the 49-year-old demonstrator in Berlin only died as a result of the excitement surrounding his identity check or (potential) arrest can only say that without the arbitrary ban on the demonstration, the check and therefore the death would hardly have happened. I don't want to take part in the speculation as to whether or not the violent police violence, including the arrest of 600 participants, played a role in the death. Others will. In any case, Xi will not be interested in whether their doubts will ever be completely dispelled when it comes to suppressing unwelcome political opponents. The pictures in China, Hong Kong, Russia and Berlin are similar. In any case, the often vaunted Western civil rights have degenerated into a farce in Europe. It almost seems as if freedom is once again being defended primarily by the British for more than three quarters of a century. Hopefully they will retain the upper hand this time too. Otherwise, we are facing dark times ahead.
Humans are comfort animals. Unfortunately, so am I. And I have internalized world views. Unfortunately, as humans, we tend to adapt reality to our worldviews instead of the other way around. For decades, I have internalized that ARD/ZDF may be lazy, but they are serious. I have internalized that there are right-wing and left-wing media, but a free press. A man as smart as Prof. Meyen knows from his own experience what internalized world views do to people. He describes sympathetically and openly how much he had internalized the socialism of the GDR.
I found the comparison with profane sports journalism, with soccer, fascinating. That's when my personal "awakening" began. Thanks to club TV and YouTube, it's been possible to watch press conferences (approx. 20 minutes) in full for a few years now, which I did. When I later read an article in the WAZ or RN (I'm from NRW) about this press conference, I was usually horrified. Quotes were distorted and taken out of context, essential things were ignored and, above all, there was a continuous scandalization. The most harmless, factual criticism was turned into "etching". For years, I naively believed that an article about a press conference simply reproduced its content.
Prof. Meyen raises points that give me hope. The political-media system has become so decadent and arrogant that it no longer even tries to disguise the lies. True to the motto "we've got away with it so far, let's go one better". Anne Will smiles at the Chancellor and says she wants to refrain from asking critical questions. Madness. But that's overstepping the mark. I notice it in myself, I notice it in others. There is a huge need, a longing for good, critical journalism. Politicians and the media are trying to suppress this need through defamation and censorship on the one hand and embarrassing self-praise on the other. This will not succeed in the long term. On the contrary. I can eat frozen pizza and junk food for a while and be persuaded how tasty and healthy it is. But not forever. Volker Pispers once said "They think we're just as stupid as we are." Unfortunately, this is often true, but it has been exaggerated. People aren't quite that stupid after all.
"An error is much easier to recognize than to find the truth. It lies on the surface. That can be dealt with. It lies in the depths. Searching for it is not everyone's cup of tea."
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen is probably right when he identifies the multiple copying of one and the same message as a problem. Copy-paste errors are notorious not only in relation to the press and media. Goethe recognized the nature of the search for truth, but he could not begin to imagine the current possibilities for the mass dissemination of information and thus also errors. Today, copies of the same errors floating on the surface form such a dense layer that it carries people through their everyday lives and often prevents them from penetrating to the truth, even suffocating it. Once an error has been named, countless copies are already in circulation. The search for the truth and its implementation has become even more complex, laborious and time-consuming today; it seems increasingly too complex, too laborious and too time-consuming for our fast-moving times. The battle for truth seems hopeless.
Thank you, Mr. Langemann, for your efforts in repeatedly providing a public view of deeper truths.
Once again a great job, thank you, I like to support the club of clear words
a very enlightening interview on the state of journalism today. thank you for your fantastic work!
It became clear to me at the end of 2015 that something was wrong with our press and media landscape, as well as the legal understanding of our elected representatives. What had happened?
The Hessian FDP parliamentary group had introduced a bill and put it up for discussion and a vote, which, similarly to Bavaria, would prescribe a 10H regulation, i.e. 10 times the height of the wind turbine as the minimum distance from the nearest settlement. The FDP had proposed me as an expert, for which I received an official request from the state parliament administration. The expert opinion, which was actually drawn up on a voluntary basis in consultation with the state parliament administration and deals with the atmospheric consequences of wind energy, its mechanical dangers and potential alternatives, was excluded from the procedure by the wind energy lobbyists, who are supposed to represent the interests of citizens, on the basis of a fictitious and therefore unlawful justification. This was actually a scandal, but neither the media nor the press showed the slightest interest, even though they had the original of the following letter (some passages sound astonishingly topical) to the chairman of the state parliament committee:
"Mr. Clemens Reif
Chairman of the Committee on Economic Affairs, Energy,
Transport and regional development
of the State of Hesse
————————–
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Dear Mr. Reif,
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to the written and oral hearings. It was very impressive to experience directly for the first time how interest-driven politics works at state level.
On the other hand, I found the exclusion of my statement from the hearing and the parallel ban on speaking, to quote you, "very strange". It is of little help that after the hearing you apologized to me in a certain way and spoke of a mistake after I had described my approach to you, which incidentally was in line with your own invitation (see Annex 1). I have attached the relevant correspondence with the Landtag administration below. What you could not have known was that I had a brief but heated encounter with one of the MPs during the meeting.
As I was officially banned from speaking, I approached this MP outside the door during the meeting. This MP had caught my attention during the hearing due to his very flowery and detailed description of the lack of alternatives to wind power, whereby he deliberately did not mention the alternative I had pointed out - as it now turned out during the brief dialog. To my great astonishment, he was well informed about my statement despite the alleged exclusion of my written version from the distribution. His extremely vehement reaction allowed only one conclusion to be drawn: the content is too explosive and should not be disclosed under any circumstances. His omissions certainly did not sound like an oversight. What is particularly delicate in this context is that my article focuses on two main topics:
1. the attempt to relate the generally observed tendency towards wind reduction in Germany to the increasing use of wind energy by means of a theoretical treatise.
2. to show an alternative with much more potential, better properties and probably even lower costs.
Since the Member of Parliament in question was, in his own words, familiar with my paper in detail, the question now arises as to whether, contrary to your official announcement at the beginning of the event, my statement was not in fact, or worse still, only selectively distributed among the Members of Parliament?
It is possible to discuss the alternative I have taken up from a geostrategic, economic and technical point of view and then possibly come to the conclusion that this alternative is out of the question despite a much higher physical potential and, at least in parts, significantly better properties than those of wind energy, e.g. uniformity, controllability, storage options, etc.. The relatively modest area of 10 km x 10 km in North Africa with an assumed efficiency of 20% would already be sufficient to generate the approx. 50 TWh of energy per year generated by wind power in 2014 with the help of solar thermal plants. Keeping this technology, which was subsidized in Morocco with a loan of €770 million from the state-owned KfW Bank and built with the participation of German industry (see Annex 2), dead silent in Germany and excluding it from the discussion does not follow a good democratic tradition. After all, as Willy Brandt once said in his motto "Daring more democracy", democracy thrives on a culture of debate and an open exchange of arguments.
After all the doctors present emphasized the dangers of infrasound, whereby the attenuation is probably so low and the range of these inaudible sound waves so great that damage has allegedly been observed several kilometers away and high sound pressure levels (60 dB) have been measured in this low-frequency sound range even at a distance of 10 km, the population has a right to have all alternatives carefully examined and all arguments weighed up. And that before such a massive intervention in their living environment is carried out.
To make matters worse, the associated burdens are distributed very unevenly. During the FDP's so-called Citizens' Energy Summit in Wiesbaden in July 2015, I sat opposite an elderly couple during the lunch break who had just retired and bought a property in the Hunsrück region that is now surrounded by wind turbines. According to the couple, they would love to move away again, but their property can only be sold at a massive financial loss, if at all. The couple's desperation could not be overlooked.
Their approach is therefore particularly delicate, as the "business as usual" of the wind power advocates among the MPs was essentially justified with the lack of alternatives to wind energy and the necessity of the energy transition, a position that many associations and institutions, e.g. BUND and Fraunhofer, also supported at the hearing. Incidentally, I am also firmly convinced that we will not be able to avoid a genuine and sustainable global energy transition. The question that remains is how this energy transition can be designed so that it is technically, physically, economically and socio-politically feasible. As a development engineer, I am particularly aware of how damaging bans on thinking are in such a context.
In this context, I would ask you for a proposal as to how this oversight on your part can be compensated for and ultimately not lead to disadvantages for large sections of the population.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have and to talk to you and any interested delegates at any time.
Yours sincerely
Roland Aßmann
_____________________
Dr.-Ing. Roland Aßmann"
The letter, a copy of which was sent to representatives of all parliamentary groups, remained completely unanswered.
In the meantime, the disadvantages for the population have become deadly. Significant flood areas in Rhineland-Palatinate are located in the northern backwater of the countless wind turbines in the Eifel and Hunsrück. Rising air masses rain down. The atmosphere in Rhineland-Palatinate follows the same physical laws as in the foothills of the Alps, even if scientists financed by EEG funds are happy to deny this, in unison with politicians. There is not a trace of insight or even reversal, nor of critical questions from the press and media. Our country has sunk to a level that we all thought we had overcome three decades ago.