DEMO-JOURNAL
- Journalism International
- Aug 26, 2024
- 15 min read
Updated: Nov 28, 2024
SAVE JOURNALISM TO SAVE DEMOCRACY
DJ – an acronym for the two weighty words Democracy and Journalism – do they currently support each other, act congruently, or rather influence each other in a subordinate way?
Democracy cannot function without journalism, but journalism can function without democracy.
Breach of Trust in the Fourth Estate: "The Public"
Can the media be trusted? This is a question that concerns every media professional, every politician, every judge and police officer, every worker, every student—indeed, all four branches of democracy. According to the 44-page report 'News' by Statista, not only has trust in the media declined in various countries over the past years, but interest in higher-quality news and, in particular, the general interest in news has also continued to decrease.
Statista references a study by IfD Allensbach, which shows that the number of users of the media quartet (newspaper, television, radio, and internet) decreased annually from 2019 to 2023. In 2019, the percentage of newspaper users was 25.37%, but it declined by 3.69% each year until 2023. Television users decreased by 2.77% from 42.11% in 2019 to 2023. The percentage of radio users fell by 2.03% from 22.79%. Predictably, the number of internet users increased, rising by 6.67% from 20.93% between 2019 and 2023. This growth will inevitably continue due to ongoing digitalization and advances in artificial intelligence (AI).
It is clear that the target audience has long shifted to the World Wide Web (WWW) infrastructure. However, daily newspapers can now also be read online. But how does trust in the media fare in this context?
In a 2023 country comparison conducted by the Bertelsmann Foundation, the population in Germany places the highest trust in daily newspapers. However, even this figure comes with caution. The "High Trust" factor accounts for just 39%, slightly more than a third of the trust in the media. In contrast, "Low Trust" stands at 48%.
Even more concerning than the previous facts are the results of two additional studies by the Bertelsmann Foundation. The first study relates to the perception of disinformation intended to harm others or deliberately spread uncertainty. According to this study, over 58% perceive disinformation "rarely/very rarely," while 29% perceive it "frequently/very frequently.
This result is hardly surprising when considering the second survey, which focuses on the accuracy of information on the internet in Europe in 2023. It is striking that the "Frequently/Very Frequently" factor is alarmingly high in all countries. In Germany, only 2% are "not at all uncertain" about the truthfulness of information, while a full 47% doubt its credibility.
Figures that may seem exaggerated at first glance should be viewed as warning signs overall. If the media do not keep pace with the times by working more cross-media and digital, they will not be able to withstand the growing pressure within their own newsrooms and among the competition. The internet is, therefore, a crucial place to be, especially for the media. However, even here, they face attacks. The media are an essential asset, particularly in a democracy.
But where does this crisis of trust come from?
Media journey and its springboard into sensationalism
The public sphere interacts as an interaction, organization, and social system. Developed in 1983/1984 by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, these systems are understood as three levels—macro, meso, and micro—that are interconnected. Their journalistic influence on the outside is referred to as "environmental influence.
According to Luhmann's systems theory (2005, p. 36), the public sphere aligns with the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—without having a constitutional function, thereby completing the separation of powers, at least in theory. But do these four branches truly work together in a correlational collective for a democratic whole, or do they act more as interventions toward one another?
In 1922, the U.S. journalist Walter Lippmann studied the "phenomenon of news selection," proposing that news is the product of individual choices made by journalistic editors. He identified characteristics such as "sensationalism," "proximity," "prominence," and "surprise," laying the first psychological foundation for "news value," which determines whether a news item has publication potential. These characteristics were later expanded upon, but from the early 20th century, they contributed to the sensationalization of news.
The more features a news item possesses, the higher its "news ranking," and the more worthy it is considered for publication. This selection process can lead to nonsensical content being elevated to journalistic prominence, and may also result in long-term misaligned news that fosters a dichotomy of good and evil regarding specific cultures, countries, religions, or sexual orientations, a trend that has become increasingly apparent over decades. Due to the competition among private and public broadcasters, freelance journalists, AI-generated articles, and now non-journalistically trained bloggers to capture audience attention, recipients are subjected to a form of philosophical media dictatorship—they are steered in a particular direction. The mass follows the current, which is directed regardless of how much false information is circulating. According to Borchardt (2020, p. 11), former U.S. President Donald Trump used the term "fake news press" over 600 times during his term. This term, which was also used by the Nazis, was even chosen as Germany's "Unword of the Year" in 2014.
Were Lippmann’s characteristics already the catalyst for the emerging and ongoing sensationalism of news, or rather the beginning of splitting into further branches to offer recipients a selection of prominence and entertainment, culture, weather, and investigative reports, with the latter being subject to stricter scrutiny?
Economic pressure from the survival struggle of the media
All media professionals have one thing in common—they are the voice of the people. They are the builders of a communication bridge between all individuals. They operate according to the Two-Step Flow of Communication model as "Open Leaders," a communication model developed in 1960 by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet. They bear a significant responsibility toward themselves, nations, or governments, as they exert environmental influence.
Both public and private broadcasters are subject to certain state oversight. According to a 2007 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, "The legal regulations are intended to enable public broadcasting to fulfill its traditional functions, which, in addition to its role in opinion formation and will formation, includes cultural responsibility alongside entertainment and information" (Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, paragraph 122). They are bound by a legally mandated programming mandate. Similarly, private broadcasters are supervised by the state media authorities, whose legal basis is provided by the state media laws. Therefore, a selection process occurs across all broadcasters and media that is supposed to serve democracy.
Selection based on age restrictions is understandable. However, selection that leads to dichotomy and thereby promotes racism, hatred of nations, violence, uprisings, bullying, and murder is not understandable.
In 1973, the "Journalistic Principles" were first established—the Press Code was created. It is an honor code for journalists, accessible on the World Wide Web (WWW), without legal binding. It is not a constitutional law. Here, ethics take precedence.
Ethics must align with the economic concerns of entire news agencies. Whether it's media equivalency value, traffic, conversions, CTR, or leads—media companies are under pressure to continuously remain in the conversation and to stay among the leading or even the gatekeepers, as the time span of today's news cycle becomes ever shorter. The digital clock of the internet seems to spin faster and faster—recipients expect to be served ad hoc around the clock and to be brought as close to the scene as possible. Do recipients want this, or have the media and their relentless power struggle once again driven them to this point?
It is clear that media companies must also consider finances and therefore select news based on economic factors. They are under continuous market pressure, which impacts news selection. The news selection process is influenced by the operational mandates of individual countries, ultimately determined by the state. Democracy relies on foundational laws that support press, information, and opinion freedom. Thus, it should be permissible to publish more investigative news. News does not always have to be sensational. News must be true to prevent misinformation, erroneous judgments, hatred, racism, and unrest.
Are the media being silenced to avoid causing discomfort to the state or misrepresenting anything or anyone? How is it that so many recipients feel they have already encountered fake news or news intended to harm others? Do investigative news reports simply generate too little revenue compared to celebrity news and highly curated media content, or does the state view them as posing too great a constitutional threat?
Reporting - Democratically Guided Press or Free Human Right
The essence of a news story should take priority. Truths and opinions should be allowed to be disseminated. The opinions of individual journalists, who are themselves citizens of particular countries, or entire news agencies, should be included. Just as it applies to every individual person, so too do freedom of opinion, information, and the press apply to them.
According to Article 5(1) of the Basic Law (GG), every individual is granted freedom of opinion, in word, writing, and image. This freedom of opinion is also enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11(1) of the European Union (EU).
Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting are also enshrined in Article 5(1) of the German Basic Law (GG), but they are regulated by the respective state press laws—matters of state jurisdiction.
Freedom of information is an exception. According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 2014), freedom of expression represents the right to publicly express one's own opinion. In contrast, freedom of information ensures access to information that is essential for forming an opinion. This particularly involves the right of everyone to access governmental or official information. The Freedom of Information Act is now enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR and as a separate law in Germany, abbreviated as IFG. Meanwhile, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is already covered under Article 11, "Freedom of Expression and Information.
Democratic slap in the face - SLAPP: Attack on press freedom
Articles upon articles, resolutions upon resolutions—but one stands out: According to Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG) of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German people are committed to inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, peace, and justice.
On one hand, the already existing, immensely growing, directed dichotomy towards foreign cultures, religions, or countries leads to a nearly propagandistic rebellion against everything foreign that was not originally part of the German democratic system. This promotes a narrow-minded mentality against the adherence to human rights, ultimately leading to further obstacles to peaceful, intercultural, and enlightened coexistence.
On the other hand, one might question whether the Federal Republic of Germany is operating within a class system rather than a democratic separation of powers. According to the Basic Law, "the German people" refers to "German citizens and those persons equated with them according to Article 116(1) [GG]," as stated in a report by the German Bundestag (June 2019). Thus, "the German people" includes anyone with German citizenship or German ethnic affiliation, who have the right to the protection of human rights. How is it then that the state seeks to regulate the media so heavily, instead of ensuring a responsible adherence to rights such as freedom of expression? According to Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law (GG), the state may regulate matters for the protection of youth and personal honor. However, such regulation goes far beyond these arguments.
This is seen as a veritable democratic slap in the face and can be summarized under the term SLAPP (Feicht, V., 2022, pp. 56-57): Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. This means nothing more than that the government acts against those with a "misuse of legal actions or threats thereof" […] "intended to silence critical voices and intimidate individuals or organizations that wish to participate publicly."
This is particularly reflected in press freedom. Journalist Thorsten Thaler mentioned in his column "Press Freedom at Risk: Resignations Are Due" (Junge Freiheit, No. 31+32/24, p. 1), "Press freedom is indivisible. Protecting it from state encroachments is the order of the day." Any journalist or media outlet that is too enlightening or supposedly too "critical of the government," even though such revelations might bring truths to light that could contribute to a better understanding of the world, is classified as Marxist-communist or anti-constitutional. Nancy Faeser (SPD), the current Federal Minister of the Interior for Homeland, stated, "We will continue to confront constitutional enemies very decisively," after the Federal Administrative Court overturned her ban on the magazine Compact in early August 2024.
Another current case: The surprising ruling by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution against the newspaper junge Welt (jW), which has been included once again in the annual report on the protection of the constitution. This is not an isolated case. The newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF) was also subjected to similar measures a few years ago, though at that time the decision was made in favor of press freedom. "It was argued that an inclusion in the constitution protection report is harmful to a press organization and that it is not just any brochure from a government agency, but essentially a state act" (Beuster, M., jW, 30.07.2024, p. 2). Compelling arguments like the "market of opinions" no longer seem to apply, and journalists and media must continuously and increasingly test governmental boundaries, with the risk of being socially downgraded or ostracized. This is not about protecting extremist or nationalist reporting, which is certainly to be prohibited—rather, the reputation of journalists and the human right to press freedom is at risk.
This state media manipulation has faced resistance for years. According to Becker (2016, pp. 3-4), as early as June 2014, the ARD Programming Council criticized the ARD's coverage as "fragmentary," "biased," "inadequate," and "one-sided." The reason for this was the relentless reporting on Ukraine and Putin, which led to an ever-growing divide between reality and obscure headlines. The public is supposed to believe what the media broadcasts because the state wants it that way, and because it sells well in the end. However, not every journalist and not every media outlet wants to play this game.
The Paradox of Obscure Enlightenment
Months-long, years-long research, background investigations, usually conducted alone and rarely in teams. Beyond the sensationalist style, the work of a journalist means putting their own life or that of the informant, also known as a whistleblower, in danger, receiving death threats, being tortured, or being murdered. Investigative journalism exposes what is never meant to come to light.
Such revealing news often comes as a scoop—a sensational exclusive story that a media outlet publishes before any others.
The most prominent example of investigative journalism is the Watergate scandal during the time of U.S. President Nixon, uncovered by the two Washington Post journalists, Robert Upshur Woodward and Carl Bernstein. According to Michael Schudson, it is seen as the "heart of the myth of American journalism" (translated from English, 1992, p. 126) and also serves as a source of inspiration for subsequent generations of investigative journalists. Following this, there was the Monicagate scandal, also known as the Lewinsky affair, involving U.S. President Bill Clinton.
From the moment of the revelation, the full force of the cyclone becomes unstoppable. What follows is the public disclosure of secret operations, the coverage of the story by other media outlets, and a resulting avalanche that can no longer be avoided. The masses are steered—or rather, humanity learns the "truth." From the government's perspective, this is more likely seen as an act of espionage and thus classified as unconstitutional. This is paradoxically considered obscurantism, even though freedom of opinion, information, and the press are supposed to be pillars of democracy.
But what often happens to journalists after such a monumental piece of work? Even today, journalists are not always welcomed everywhere. Unlike a press officer, they do not represent the views of a company or exist to cast the government in a favorable light.
It is the journalist who enables important global events to be reported. Whether it’s government scandals, war issues in crisis regions, or the true face of foreign cultures and religions that do not align with the implanted dichotomous image, journalism can build the true bridge between all people.
The following statistics from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) show that since 1992, more than 1,583 journalists have been killed worldwide. Many of these murders were never further investigated, and the perpetrators were not brought to justice.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is an independent, nonprofit organization founded in the United States in 1981 that advocates for press freedom worldwide.
In other parts of the world, too, efforts are made to protect press freedom. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also works to safeguard free journalists, especially those from conflict zones or facing political persecution, and to uphold and enforce press freedom. Reporters Without Borders was founded in Germany in 1985 as a branch of the French organization Reporters Sans Frontières.
Media professionals and journalists join forces to fight for their right to report openly. They are fighting for a fundamental human right, even in the "progressive" and forward-looking 21st century. Investigative reporting is officially permitted but often serves to reinforce a positive image of a majestic government.
Approach to More Authentic Journalism - Investigative Journalism vs. Constructive Journalism
Investigative journalism should not be a path that increasingly casts things in a negative light from the government's perspective, making journalists less willing to report openly on issues. Its enlightening responsibility toward the public is essential for forming individual opinions. Reporting investigatively does not necessarily mean delivering only negative news to the audience.
However, it is clear that many recipients no longer want to read, see, or hear only news full of problems. True reporting, free from "fake news," but also incorporating positive solutions, could be an approach to show the government that while problems must continue to be highlighted as they affect everyone, there needs to be a collective, democratic re-evaluation.
Investigative journalism can thus be complemented by constructive journalism. According to Reporterfabrik, an online training platform for journalists by the medium Correctiv, constructive journalism should not be dismissed as "cotton candy journalism." Critics argue that "the solution is the problem!" The medium Perspective Daily commented on this, stating, "Anyone who is against constructive journalism has not understood it." (June 21, 2017)
The experienced journalist Anke Gehrmann explains in the training "Constructive Journalism" why this type of reporting should now be given more focus. She contrasts Investigative and Constructive Journalism as follows:
Compared to Constructive Journalism, recipients feel more helpless with Investigative Journalism, as it only presents problems without offering solutions. Positive aspects cannot be reported.
Investigative Journalism is more akin to journalistic judiciary, whereas Constructive Journalism resembles journalistic executive. A revealing, critical stance that applies pressure through confrontation is contrasted with a comprehensive reporting approach that includes solutions.
Investigative Journalism focuses on past events, while Constructive Journalism looks towards the future.
Constructive Journalism cannot replace Investigative Journalism; rather, it should be seen as an extension or, more precisely, as a new form of reporting. Positive aspects cannot be the only focus, even though recipients are no longer interested in only negative news. Both forms of journalism are essential. The truth about past events must continue to be uncovered, while optimistic solutions for current and future world events must also be reported. Ultimately, it's not about celebrity gossip but about issues that often affect a large part of, if not an entire nation or humanity.
Conclusion:
The question "Is democracy dependent on true journalism?" can be further explained using the following indicator: "The press must have the freedom to say everything so that certain people lose the freedom to do anything." What the French journalist and longtime Vice President of the European Parliament, Louis Terrenoire, once said still needs to be fought for, despite laws and human rights.
We must return to or rediscover ingenious realism, prioritizing quality journalism over lucrative nonsense. Journalists need to push boundaries to investigate and report the real truth, thereby forming a true "communication conduit" between all people.
Democracy is a vital asset, and so is journalism! Communication is essential, both internally and externally, to exchange news—from a journalistic and PR perspective. Without it, there would be a significant gap in understanding between people, in the economy, or within the "four" branches of state power (judiciary, executive, legislative, and "publicative"). An economic system would collapse or is already on shaky ground—German democracy vs. "post-democracy."
Paul Watzlawick's first axiom (Gutheil, 2023, p. 107) has taught us since 1969, "One cannot not communicate." Gestures, facial expressions, spoken words—today, cross-media content is created not only by humans but also by artificial intelligence (AI), generating articles, videos, or images. Especially with advancing technologies and innovations, it is all the more essential to ensure truths and a broad range of reporting opportunities because the media still play a significant role: shaping public opinion.
Humanity still needs the ability to build opinions in diverse ways and access education, which is constitutionally essential for political elections. Reporting on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, and on social media must keep up with the times, addressing current and future problems preventively while also uncovering the past. A balance between investigative and constructive journalism would create diversity, complexity, self-reflection, and new perspectives—a more progressive and humane approach than one-sided cross-media reporting, which often offers too few or arbitrarily selected and pieced-together answers for high ratings.
It is clear that the media alone are not to be blamed for the increasing number of "fake news" and excessive selection but rather as accomplices. The media have the constitutional role of forming the criticism and control instance of every state. This should be exercised through the right to press freedom and the right to freedom of expression, remaining apolitical and not government-controlled. Free journalists who follow their calling to report the truth should not be restricted in their rights, nor politically persecuted, kidnapped, tortured, or murdered. The profession of journalism will always be dangerous, especially as more is uncovered and publicly exposed.
The tireless, decades-long efforts of organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) or Reporters Without Borders (RSF) are more important than ever, becoming increasingly recognized by the public, though still not enough. For in the future, too, journalists will have to live or survive in danger, and press freedom will waver.
Literature references:
Becker, J. (2016). Medien im Krieg – Krieg in den Medien. Springer VS.
Beuster, M. (30. Juli 2024). Journalistenverband von Urteil gegen junge Welt überrascht. Gericht
bestätigte Nennung in Verfassungsschutzbericht: Ein Gespräch mit Mike Beuster. junge Welt. S.
2
Borchert, A. (2020). Mehr Wahrheit wagen. Warum die Demokratie einen starken Journalismus
braucht. Dudenverlag.
Committee to Protect Journalists. What we do. Why we protect Journalists.
Deutscher Bundestag. (06.2019). Sachstand: Zu den Begriffen „deutsches Volk“, „Deutsche“ und
„deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit“ im Grundgesetz.
3-026-19-pdf-data.pdf
Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention. (2014). Informationsfreiheit.
Feicht, V. (2022). SLAPPS: Unterdrückung öffentlicher Beteiligung durch missbräuchliche Klagen:
Juristische Ohrfeige. In Andreas E., Benjamin, D., Hans-Jörg K., John Philipp T., Michèle W., Rolf
G., Rosemarie W., Vera F. & Wiebke J. (Hrsg.), Grundrechte-Report 2022: Zur Lage der Bürgerund
Menschenrechte in Deutschland, S. 56-57. Fischer.
Gemäß Art. 1 Abs.2 GG
Gemäß Art. 5 Abs.1 GG
Gemäß Art. 5 Abs.2 GG
Gemäß Art. 10 EMRK
Gemäß Art. 11 Abs.1 EU
Gemäß §1 IFG
Gutheil, B. (2023). Wahrnehmung und Nutzung informeller Kommunikation in Krisenzeiten.
Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42364-3_4
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Luhmann, N. (2005). Soziologische Aufklärung 4 – Beiträge zur funktionalen Differenzierung der
Gesellschaft (3. Aufl.), Springer VS.
Schudson, M. (1992). Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget, and
Reconstruct the Past. BasicBooks.
Thaler, T. (26. Juli 2024). Pressefreiheit in Gefahr: Rücktritte sind fällig. Junge Freiheit. S. 1
Image Credit:
Fig. 1: Global Media Network (Source: Journalism International)
Fig. 2: Media Users in Germany from 2019 to 2023 (Source: Statista)
Fig. 3: Trust in Daily Newspapers (Source: Statista)
Fig. 4: Journalists Killed Worldwide (Source: Committee to Protect Journalists)
留言