Bad news is good news. The media business model is the negative headline. Always been. Because humans pay the greatest attention to danger. That ensures his survival. As an individual as well as a species.
Floods, wars, climate change, national debt – the topics change (some don’t), the structure remains the same: If you look at the world from the perspective of a news magazine, it is always on the verge of collapse (although in many democracies and market economies this is thriving Life).
Psyche takes damage
This is a problem for people who want to take part in political and social debates (and that is what a democracy thrives on). Even with the knowledge that the news only shows the worst part of human (coexistence) life, one can hardly defend oneself against texts and images damaging one’s own psyche. You have to prescribe at least a decent and steady portion of positive counter-news if you don’t want to be overwhelmed by negative impressions in the long run.
In addition to the individual challenge, there is also a social one. If, due to (negative) media reports, people increasingly believe that everything is getting worse and worse, first they lose trust in the ability of existing institutions to find solutions, and then the institutions themselves – and with it democracy, the rule of law and the market economy.
Bottleneck journalism
That is exactly what is happening right now. **Trust in institutions is dwindling** One possible reason: technical progress in communication. Broad communication used to be reserved for a few. Public radio and newspapers in particular. That was both a blessing and a curse. The wheat was separated from the chaff at the eye of the needle. The quality of the reporting was quite high, with not only wheat, but also chaff getting through the eye of the needle. Social status, attitude and relationships often paved the way into the media world.
The eye of the needle no longer exists. Anyone can create reach today. And above all, those who shout “danger” the loudest get this range. The means of communication have changed, but man has remained what he always was. He still looks and listens where the downfall is potentially announced.
That’s why the Julian Reichelts in this world are so popular. They call out that the world is going to end soon – and everyone stares (it’s also a bit true with the end of the world, because it’s above all their own world, their own social standing that those calling out see in danger in a changing society – but that’s another topic.) And when the next person calls out “not soon”, but “tomorrow”, there is still someone who attracts attention because he already sees the world going under “today”. And no one to stop the hustle and bustle. Perhaps the eye of the needle was more of a blessing than a curse.
Media literacy with support
On the other hand. Everyone has the freedom to turn to Reichelt’s convoluted worlds or just to let it be. We all have our own responsibility. We can all turn to those media that refrain from exaggeration, exaggeration and distortion. The social task is to educate young people so that they can make these decisions. If this education takes place, everyone can be expected to make a responsible choice of media use.
The prerequisite is that these media exist. For this, the so-called quality media must say goodbye to false exaggerations. These were no more tragic when the bottleneck media world still existed. The damage was limited. That’s different today. Anyone who joins the ranks of the “everything is getting worse” digital market criers is partly responsible for the decline in trust in institutions.
One still reads titles like “Pension insurance before bankruptcy” in well-known newspapers. Made by media people who know better. They know that pension insurance works according to the pay-as-you-go system, and that the system is practically impossible to go bankrupt. Yet it is written. Because it gets attention. And in the long run deep frustration among the people.
**Confidence in the statutory pension insurance is alarmingly low among young people** Many believe that they will hardly benefit from it in old age. As a result, people lose confidence that politicians can change things for the better with good reforms. But she could. But if, instead, right-wing fringes get the votes because they promise to abolish “incompetent elites”, then there will be no reform, then destruction will follow.
Focus on possible improvements
So the media have to find a new language. So far, the horror scenario has often been put forward (pension before bankruptcy). In a world where the real nightmare scenario is authoritarian and anti-democratic forces taking power, communication needs to change. For example, by focusing more on the possible positive effects of changes. Not what does the pension at 63 cost society in terms of prosperity, but what does its abolition bring in terms of additional prosperity. Or: What are the advantages of a solid budget instead of what are the disadvantages of excessive national debt.
The line is a narrow one. The media must and should name problems. Without awareness of the problem there is no solution. It is therefore even more important to learn to communicate without exaggeration, without falsification through omission, without exaggerating through generalization of individual cases.
And perhaps this cannot be done without making people more responsible for forming their own picture. And maybe more correction tools are needed for this. Despite all media education: We are all constantly overwhelmed to classify information according to credibility, authenticity and interest guidance. We all need support. By those who are in the subject. Who give assistance to the best of their knowledge and belief. So that those who cook their soup, because they use people’s attention to danger for their financial gain and for their insatiable ego, will be pulled out of the ground.
And what applies to the media also applies to politics.
If the bitter struggle between the democratic parties helps the AfD in particular and weakens the democratic parties, then at least opposition politics must change. The opposition’s old recipe was: Harm the government with harsh criticism where you can, and this will benefit you. Now it is primarily those who should not benefit in a democratic community who benefit most. The only way out, especially for the CDU: fundamentally change their political communication. Instead of constant criticism, submit better offers. The sociologist Detlef Pollack recently **described it wonderfully in the Süddeutsche Zeitung**
“The challenges are so enormous that the CDU should make combating the climate crisis its own concern and show that it can deal with it better than the Greens. She would not have to bend her heels, but could make proposals that overtake the Greens and the SPD in their own field, drawing on their own values and traditions. She would have good reasons to do so, if she remembers keywords such as the preservation of creation or the criterion of the social acceptability of the upcoming change. In addition, she could add her own signature to these proposals, for example by emphasizing that the climate crisis can only be overcome if the market economy mechanisms are not undermined.”
My conviction: media professionals, politicians, scientists, we all have to find other ways to promote good politics and a society in prosperity and freedom than constantly ringing the alarm bell. Otherwise we run the business of the enemies of democracy and friends of authority.