#904 Media (Censorship)

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: is deleting a YouTube upload of an EU Parliament summit “just business,” or does the case for calling it censorship get stronger the closer you look? In Room #904 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group works through Precht’s “The Fourth Estate,” unpacks why public broadcasting fees feel different from taxes, and proposes marking every opinion with a bracketed “K” and every fact with a bracketed “F” — because right now, most of us can’t tell which is which. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to you. Today we’re continuing and talking about the topic of media and media censorship. How free are media actually? That’s what we want to talk about together. And yes, ultimately there are quite different aspects we can pick up here. Something happened to me quite recently as an experience that I’d like to share with you at this point. I saw a video and realized there’s a part 2, maybe even a part 3 too. And that was originally linked under the video in the description on YouTube too. And after I clicked on it, I found out I couldn’t get to the video at all, it had been deleted. Specifically it’s a video from the International Covid Summit 3 in the EU Parliament, which took place on May 3rd. That means it can’t be that unofficial. And that just interested me, because I’d seen the first part and wanted to watch the other parts too. However, as I said, it had quite obviously been deleted by YouTube. So you automatically get an error message. I couldn’t watch either the second or the third video, and didn’t find anything more about it online either. Maybe if I’d researched further, via some alternative channels or whatever, I didn’t continue with that. But I think that’s a good example, so to speak, as an introduction to this topic, media, media censorship, how free are media actually. That’s one example. Sure, you could say it somehow has to do with Covid, and maybe the content wasn’t clean, in quotation marks. On the other hand I think, well, if it was the International Covid Summit 3 in the EU Parliament, then the question really does arise here, by what right can a YouTube channel even delete such videos? It has to be accessible somehow, also for people, to be able to inform themselves about various things, and that we may have to be able to bear one thing or another too. That’s one starting point. Then yesterday we already briefly touched on David Precht’s book, which was also about media censorship, or the fourth estate, in one of his latest works. I don’t know if that’s the latest one now, or if further books have already been published meanwhile. And we can also look at that more closely again. All the way to Twitter. That’s also been very strongly represented in the news, in the media, recently. Especially the developments that have taken place, the switch, the takeover in the direction of Elon Musk, what the background might have been and so on. And one person or another might have something to say about that too. Those are a few impulses I’d like to start with this morning, to see if there are connection points you’d like to pick up, that we start with first, to shape a space of reflection together in dialogue. And of course you also have the possibility to pick up completely different aspects, start at a different point, or similar. So that we, together, through the various perspectives, as every morning otherwise too, currently under the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with brAIn and the room topic media and media censorship today, so to speak, with this viewpoint, open up different perspectives, in order to simply generate our own, new, or expanded insights together through reflection. And in that sense you’re warmly invited to join and enter the exchange. And that’s why once more, a quick reminder, that the room is recorded the entire time. That means whoever joins automatically agrees to that. And we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo in which you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or maybe wants to stay anonymous or similar, of course also has the option to bring in questions or thoughts via the chat. And depending on how intense the exchange is, I’ll look at one point or another to see if we have the opportunity to pick something up from the chat here too.

A very good morning, dear Jürgen. What do you say about the topic?

Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning everyone. And first, I have to say mea culpa on this topic. I apologize. I gave a wrong source yesterday, which you already pointed out. In yesterday’s preview of today’s topic, I’d named Precht’s book “Freedom for All.” That was a Freudian slip, because I’m currently very engaged with unconditional basic income. It was of course his publication “The Fourth Estate.” Please forgive me for that, because it will certainly also be misrepresented that way on the recording. And I want to clarify or correct that hereby. Regarding the topic otherwise, I’ll gladly pick up your YouTube example, dear Yasemin, you said, with a justified undertone of indignation, according to the motto “well, are they even allowed to do that?” to which I spontaneously answered you, from my recliner, yes, of course they’re allowed to do that, because it’s a private-law company, because it’s, this is now a personal opinion, their business model, and this piece ran counter to their business model, and in that sense that’s understandable. And since information isn’t an obligation to deliver, watch out, my personal opinion again, but an obligation to fetch, we have to align what we want to get, and believe we need to get, with what’s offered. Admittedly a bit provocative, but that was my entry into today’s topic. Thank you for listening, dear ones.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. Then let’s directly bring Marc in too. A very good morning, dear Marc. What do you say?

Good morning to the group. I’d like to briefly jump back a step again, since I travel a lot myself, and what’s really, really important to me — we’re already so deep into the topic — I’d like to start by saying that I’m totally happy to live in a country where press freedom means that the press, above all, enables the uncensored publication of news and opinions, free from politics. And what’s also really important to me is what you always do, dear Yasemin, that we pay attention to who’s on stage, that applies not just to Deep Talk Club, generally, who’s on stage, who says what, and what motives they have. And we had storytelling recently, and I’ll give you another example on that too, because that’s so extremely important to me. I could have started with the topic, or how I did it, or started with the topic — I’m totally happy to live in a country where you’re basically allowed to write everything first, parenthesis open, almost everything, parenthesis closed. But I also could have started with the topic, that’s true too — Germany is at, there’s an index of press freedom, and Germany is at rank 26. Without explaining more precisely why Germany is at rank 26, you might have said, oh really, rank 26, well you can read up on that, and I’d already have created a different mood. And that’s why, for me, with today’s topic press freedom, the question is also, press freedom, well first, how does that look legally, and then press freedom for whom? For the author, for the publisher, because we know bad news earns more money than good news, or for me — so am I allowed to write what I want, will I write what I want, how is the press controlled, is it controlled by the state, or is it controlled by the publishers, and is it, for example, to give an example, if I had a certain car magazine where one of the biggest customers is one of the biggest car manufacturers, then I can imagine that a new vehicle from them might not be rated as badly as a vehicle from a manufacturer that doesn’t advertise in this magazine. And maybe that’ll come up in the room today too, that we handle that critically too, once positively and once critically.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. And at this point maybe, Jürgen, maybe you’d like to pick up one or two points from Precht’s book too. Maybe that helps to think in one direction or another too. I haven’t read the book myself, but watched a segment about it, or an interesting exchange about it on TV shows, so to speak, where Precht was somewhat grilled, in quotation marks. That was even a Lanz show, if I remember correctly. If you’ve read it yourself, I’d find that quite interesting. Maybe you could pick up one or two things you consider essential again, so we can all get on board at this point too. One or two things?

(laughs) I could pour out a whole game of that, dear Yasemin, but I’ll gladly do it. But let me respond directly to dear Marc first. Good morning, dear Marc. Heartfelt thanks, as always, for your contribution. I’m with you in that respect in defending our press freedom, that I say — I sent an emoji — (laughs) that I say, yes, freedom begins with, first, our fundamental rights, this press freedom, or our constitution, positioning press freedom as such, as a fundamental right. And that we, I don’t doubt that. Both of us could also today start, launch a newspaper, either as a direct medium or as a light medium, and could publish. We have that freedom, and it’s worth a lot already. It’s also worth a lot to me. But let me briefly, since you apostrophized the topic press freedom as the theme — I look at the title of this stage today, and the title is Media (Censorship). So not just press, that’s how I interpret it, but media as a whole. So, if I may, our focus shouldn’t lie solely on the press, the written and the digital press, but on media as such. And then the addendum, censorship. Censorship is something different, for me at least, than manipulation or also propaganda. Censorship is a deliberate, state-authorized intervention in suppressing, precisely your term, press freedom. If censorship is present, then for me there’s no press freedom. I’d like to leave it at that for now and am curious, curious, about your feedback, but we can then gladly get into some characteristics and points of contention from this Precht book.

Very gladly.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. So definitely, that we also pick up the various aspects from the room title. General media, definitely. Then the topic censorship, the differentiation you already opened up, to manipulation and so on. Those are all facets that should also find room here, to look at the various perspectives on this terminology too, and think in the various directions too. And Marc, I’ll gladly give you the opportunity again in a moment, I just want to point out once more, regarding a hand raise, that we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo in which you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. If those aren’t fulfilled yet, just use the opportunity now and take care of it. Whatever parts are missing, then I can gladly take you into account accordingly. Whoever doesn’t want that can of course also use the chat. That maybe as a note, to make sure nobody wonders now why the hand raise isn’t being considered yet. Marc, would you like to connect here again?

Yes, I’d like to add something. I was also surprised that Germany is at rank 26 in press freedom, and I’m interested in why that is, because of course I also know I can open a publishing house with Jürgen and write with Anne. Germany is at rank 26 of press freedom because it’s not just press freedom, the regulations of our state that come into play, or what you’re allowed to do or not, but rather it’s at rank 26, among other things, also because we have to watch our wording. And there we’re back at self-responsibility. Wording like “Lügenpresse” (lying press), “Lügenpresse.” And there were really, really severe attacks from journalists, all the way to threats and so on and so forth. And all of that flows into the ratings, why Germany is at rank 26. So that has nothing to do with censorship in this case, but there are various aspects being considered there. That just as supplementary information. I was just interested, why are we at rank 26? What’s responsible for that?

Yes, wonderful, thank you so, so much. And that shows, as you already said, that storytelling also plays a role here too. So how do I approach certain news, so to speak, when I communicate something? So by news I don’t mean the classic news we know from TV, but the news you’ve conveyed here now, so to speak, to us. And in that sense, though, if you have, for example, rankings or numbers or something, and there we’re back at this aspect of looking more closely, that it certainly makes sense here to look more closely and maybe also get into research, and not just, so to speak, against the background that you’re presented with certain numbers, or maybe even yourself go into interpretations or evaluations, because we’re presented with them in a certain context, without that maybe even being said, because images immediately form for us too, so to speak. That means we establish a connection and automatically interpret immediately too, and go into a corresponding evaluation, to handle that carefully accordingly, and then also research and look accordingly. By the way, while I have the chance, before I forget it later — regarding AI, I recently, so quite fresh, actually saw a video too, on Terra X. I’ve brought the link for you, I find it great by the way, fits perfectly with our overarching theme too. And various different aspects are picked up there too. On one hand it’s explained really nicely what AI is and what’s actually behind it, so how this system, so to speak, works. A university professor who teaches on this topic presents it on one hand, at the same time it’s mega exciting to hear the subsequent discussions and exchange regarding opportunities and dangers, comparisons that are made. We’d already touched on that too, because it’s also about neural networks, so to speak, and how that’s mirrored, so to speak, to the brain too, all the way to ethical topics that are opened up. So a really recommendable program, I think, for anyone who wants to take the time, it runs a bit over an hour and a half, if you’d like to watch it, this time in German, because recently there were a few recommendations that were in English too. So I’ll put it as a link in the chat, and whoever wants to listen in or watch, it’s a video, is warmly invited to do so. And there are also really interesting aspects included there too, so also things that could even fall into this media category too, to look at from this perspective too, and maybe take a look at one thing or another against the background of interest in the overall topic too. Jürgen, would you like to add something else, while I check on hand raises and the chat and so on?

Yes, I’ll try to build a bridge to what you said in your second-to-last contribution, with the reference to this publication by Precht and the fourth estate. I actually came across this topic because a really essential area, I think, is documented there, comprehensible for everyone, namely the attempt to answer why this development has actually accelerated so much, especially in recent years, decades, that the media, increasingly, and especially here in our republic, the public broadcasters and the so-called leading media, have come under criticism for developing one-sidedly, in some cases, or here with us in the republic, in the direction of the respective government. And I found the whole thing really interesting when the reasoning was argued in an economic direction first. And I found that quite interesting. Specifically, to hopefully summarize briefly, through the vehement influence, in contrast to the leading media, of the so-called social media, I’d rather call them direct media, an enormous pressure, competitive pressure, has arisen on the print media, and specifically these so-called leading media, so I count among them, alongside the local newspaper we all prefer, especially the big newspapers like FAZ, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt and so on. And they came under enormous pressure through this rise of digital media and had to react to that, to cut it short. Consequently, this led to the team, especially the editors, at these print media and at the leading media falling victim to the red pen. And more or less from one day to the next, many highly qualified journalists were suddenly out on the street, and if you go through the various publications of the direct media, you’ll very often find that they involve contributions from freelance journalists. A job profile that, allow me, given my age, I didn’t know at all in this form 30, 40 years ago. That means a qualitative bloodletting took place at these leading media. A qualitative bloodletting regarding personnel staffing, which of course also then reflected on the quality of the pieces. That was one point. And the other point was that the competition from digital media shaped a completely different form of journalism, buzzworded, quite strongly, with the term “gala journalism.” So gala journalism basically means achieving as much attention as possible through excitement potential, through us-them separation and polarization, without possibly even having a personal opinion, mainly creating excitement, pushing polarization onto the readership, and forming a two-class society there, according to the motto “us as us and the others as those against us.” And that’s a development that, and this is the characteristic thing, has really accelerated more and more in recent years, through the rise of digital or non-live media. And what I found quite interesting, and I’ll end with this…

…is that it also created a new job profile at the leading media. The most important, supposedly the most important editor, according to Precht and Welser — Welser is often forgotten as co-author of this book. The most important editor is the SEO editor. SEO stands for — the one who, basically every morning, evaluates in various media which articles at the competition got the most clicks and comments. And accordingly, to a really significant extent, editorial work is oriented for the upcoming preparation, both in the leading media and in the direct media. That means there’s been a certain decoupling from, I’ll say, from the second function actually of a journalist, namely on one hand the presentation of the factual situation, and the objective commentary from their point of view on the factual situation, shifted toward a click policy, to, and now we’re back at the economic part, secure the continued existence of these leading media. Because economic pressure ultimately doesn’t just manifest through the quality of the pieces and the number of readers, but especially through, and this is a really essential point, the loss and the number of advertising customers, which have massively dropped away from the leading media, and thereby force these companies into savings, and in some cases even brought them to the brink of insolvency. I hope that arc wasn’t too far, and I’m curious what you say about it.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much, and the first question that can be derived from that directly for me is also to look in the direction again, well, we also have public broadcasters and channels. What’s actually, and we also pay corresponding money for that, what’s actually their goal or function in this context? That might also be another quite interesting aspect to pick up again. Marc, your thoughts on what Jürgen said, maybe first.

Dear Jürgen, I have a smile on my face. Not for what you said, but I go back to the media title, which is media censorship. I can’t recognize censorship there. While you were talking, I just googled. There’s a magazine that sounds like what’s most important in life, Zeit. It had a circulation last quarter, or in the 2020 quarter, of 623,000. Then there’s a newspaper that’s a bit cheaper, appears every day, that has a circulation of 1.1 million. Both newspapers serve their readers, both newspapers have the freedom to write what they want, and the economic aspect is decisive there, and that’s good too, that’s a business, and that was my, exactly that was my consideration for the opening statement, when we talk about press freedom, is it about my freedom as Marc, that I can read what I want. Or is it about the freedom that I even have the possibility to read what I want. And that has to be state-regulated. But basically what we read has nothing to do with media censorship, but simply a clear responsibility of the CEO. That’s what I expect from him. If that were my publishing house, and he didn’t act that way, then he wouldn’t need to come back the next day. Jürgen, what do you say to that?

Great, dear Marc. Exact bullseye. Because Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt and the FAZ, those are free enterprises subject to the requirement of profitability and economic efficiency. Public broadcasting is not. Public broadcasting, I don’t want to repeat now what everyone can read on the public broadcaster’s website, what their mandate is, to say it briefly, comprehensive and objective information about world events and whatever else, designed for, forgive me the term, a broad mass. I hate that term, but I’ll say it now, for a broad mass, that, I’ll say now, also isn’t able, for economic reasons, to obtain quite specific specialist literature or read special gazettes. That means, to ensure the basic information supply of the citizens. And for me, and this is my personal interpretation again, information includes both the task of presenting the factual situation, which is also traceable through other sources, and subject to a claim of truth. And that of course also includes commentary, but commentary based on the factual situation. The essential starting point for me, and for many others currently and increasingly, is that we’re not talking about an economic, in the classic sense economic, company here, because it’s compulsorily financed. All of us, for better or worse, regardless of whether we use it or not, are condemned to subsidize this institution through monthly fees. And it is, I consider it, personally, as an interference in my freedom to have to accept a product without the possibility of an objective quality assessment, and to have to pay for it, which I otherwise wouldn’t use. That’s, for me, the essential difference between our public broadcasting and the other media, which I buy when I consider it necessary, and when I see a benefit in it, and not for nothing has public broadcasting already been abolished, or is being prepared to be abolished, in many other countries, like for example in France and in Great Britain. Thank you.

Thank you so, so much, and let me gladly ask one or two follow-up questions again, so we can juggle a bit brain-wise, thought-wise, again here too. One is, where do you see the difference to, for example, taxes? With taxes, it’s also not the case that each of us pays voluntarily, and above all also might not agree at all where the money flows. That’s one thing. The second question you could ask in this context is, well, you could of course abolish the GEZ fees and then let them flow into taxes. So that you’d, so to speak, use tax money you collect anyway, for something like the GEZ, in quotation marks, then you’d have brought that in in a different way, so to speak, not so visible or noticeable for the citizen, but ultimately again a decision from above, about what this money is used for afterward. That’s one thing. The second question that arises for me is whether that doesn’t simultaneously also represent a problem regarding this — you picked up this term gala journalism from Precht in this context, from the book. So it seems, and there were also numbers now from Die Zeit with 623,000, versus, or set against, a daily newspaper, we can name it too, Bild, with 1.1 million, and everyone knows with which headlines and eye-catchers, so to speak, the reader or potential reader is captured here too, whether that’s online or in the print version. And that clearly does something. That means, to what extent, in quotation marks, do we even want to be objectively informed at all? Or, on one hand, rationally, we say yes, we want to be objectively informed about world events. And at the same time we quite obviously tend to keep falling into this trap, because it simply triggers us as humans, brain-wise, and we love reading polarizing things and so on and so forth. And what does that mean, conversely, for public broadcasting, here, in quotation marks, faced with the intention of objectively spreading information, so to speak, which is per se good first, in quotation marks, yes, but ultimately has to fight with ratings and so on. So you can ask yourself who among us actually watches or uses public broadcasters, in quotation marks, and how frequently too, compared to privately funded media at this point. Those are two essential questions I’d like to bring in again. Would anyone else like to connect on that?

Gladly, Jürgen. Yes, thank you, Yasemin. Regarding the first position, taxes, I do see a very clear difference. That’s established already just by the fact that everyone, and now we’re back at the topic of responsibility, that each of us can trace how every penny, how every cent from us is used in this state’s tax revenue. So there’s a statistic, a tax statistic, called tax revenue and tax usage. Everyone who’s a business owner themselves knows that. So that’s not an issue at all. That money is of course also lost there, and violated through so-called cross-subsidization, that’s quite clear. But on one hand, my counter-argument is traceability. And the other is the object of tax collection, which we can all, at least for the largest amount of taxes, trace to ourselves, that it’s of use. You really have to keep perspective there, if you always keep putting the cap on against taxes. We live in a country, and I’m currently affected by this myself, with a still excellent health and care system, even though there are lots of deficiencies. We have to build roads, we have to maintain lighting for cities. And I don’t want to go into details there. So for me, summa summarum, the position of benefit is far more transparent and, for me, also more comprehensible than this use of funds. I don’t have it exactly in my head right now. I believe it’s twelve or even more billion every year, that, per gusto, without any intervention from the user, the recipient, I don’t mean the media council, which can influence that, but us. We can’t exert any influence on what’s presented to us, both in entertainment and in political information. That’s where I see the difference. I hope I’ve answered your first question. And regarding the second question, the direction of Bild-Zeitung, and do we even want to be informed that way — I’ll venture now into your causal Britt, I explain it to myself relatively simply, based on the structure of our reptilian brain, in which I say, everything that comes at us, our brain evaluates first. You’ve often taught us this too. After evaluation, is it useful for me, of benefit, or is it dangerous? Basically, the meta-level above that, does what’s happening right now, what’s coming at me, have relevance? And if so, is it more to be feared, or is it something I can use? And if I can use it, then, essentially, as I’ve learned it anyway, the purpose-relation is at the forefront. And the purpose is, living decently, continuing to live, maybe continuing to live the way I want, or even being able to live better with this circumstance. And that was already our topic once too. The purpose-relation, under certain circumstances, then undermines the check regarding truth. And we gladly accept it, because it fits our scheme and our purpose-relation of life. And in that sense, that’s my personal opinion, Bild-Zeitung, with this buzzwording that’s typically attributed to it, hits, always or almost always, a big part of people’s purpose-relation, that’s how I derive it, and yes, that’s my opinion and my answer to your second question.

Okay, let me pick up on the second point again, before maybe also addressing the first point again. Regarding this purpose-relation, I think our motivation system also plays a role here again, ultimately, that also comes into play here too. The two questions you gave again, that’s one thing and the other, but the two questions might even be covered by the public broadcasters. Nevertheless, that doesn’t necessarily or compulsorily derive the motivation from that, that we for example turn on or click on this news. And that then, but there we’re at this gala journalism, that’s also these catchy headlines and so on. That means, with the motivation system, there are also various aspects that interplay and take effect, and one of them is the surprise effect. That means, curiosity is generated here, for example, through some headline that’s totally polarizing or something. And this surprise effect, and now that might have some relevance for me regarding either survival or usefulness, so to speak, leads to the motivation system being activated, so to speak, in combination with a few other factors too, that lead to, for example, ratings being increased, or the click rate being increased. The moment we talk about topics relatively neutrally, the probability is significantly lower. And that presents the big challenge here at this point. So on one hand there’s the desired ambition, so to speak, to be neutral, and on the other hand our motivation system also needs certain aspects for that to be set in motion. In this context I’d like to briefly pick up a contribution that Ulle put in, which we might also be able to take into account in the discussion. Objective, in my eyes, is not what public broadcasting is. I often miss phrasing like “according to XYZ” or “XYZ says” and the like. Public broadcasting no longer fulfills the claim of objectivity. Because such words are left out, the impression arises that it’s a fact. That might also be quite interesting again, and now I’d like to first give Marc the opportunity, and then we can gladly connect to the first point again too, or similar. Marc.

Yes, I’d like to address that directly, and my favorite quote, or my favorite sentence, that I also heard this time, was at Lanz’s show too, where there was a discussion, and where we have to look at exactly that, and again and again, I also expect this from the moderator, that when someone expresses something, that he says, that’s your opinion, dear Marc, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Where do you get your facts from, which statistic are you citing, where can I read that up, and so on and so forth. And there we’re required ourselves again, questions, questioning, self-responsibility, and education. And it’s interesting that with every topic we keep coming back to the same points, points we’ve already dealt with in Deep Talk Club. It’s always education and self-responsibility.

Yes, and here there are two viewpoints then. One is, for example, via the moderation, for example, of the channel — let’s take that as an example, that these questions are formulated accordingly, so that answers can also be given to them, so that the viewer also gets the possibility to think along in various directions, and follow this discussion accordingly, for example. So especially when we now pick up examples like panels or something, where various guests are also invited, or on news channels, where the connotation is stronger, so that it becomes clear whether it’s opinion or facts, in quotation marks. But we always come back to the point — we also have facts, and that’s the qualitative work that also needs to be done here from the field of journalism. We always have numbers again that can be presented one way or another. So to what extent does that really correspond to the facts, or is it just an excerpt that, so to speak, fits under a certain headline at this point. And there we’re back at this first point. Jürgen, I found it great how you presented that, also with the traceability and the taxes. So maybe that could also be a solution approach, to say, at the moment we pay something like GEZ fees etc., yes, we’re obligated to, but we have neither influence on it, nor can we trace what exactly happens with this money. Wouldn’t it maybe even be a solution option to say, it would be much more sensible if it flowed accordingly in that direction via the taxes that are collected, in order to fulfill this claim, to also make objective information accessible for the citizens of a country, and at the same time also be able to co-decide, in quotation marks, and be able to exert influence on what happens with the money, and especially also have an overview of what happens with the money. I’m curious what you say about that.

Jürgen. Yes, thank you. Before I address that, I’ll go back to Marc’s remarks. And ask, specifically ask, you spoke of this YouTube show, this documentary, where Lanz, if I remember correctly, you said, came under heavy pressure. I assume that was the show that ran with Robin Alexander and Ms. Amann from Spiegel. And you, dear Marc, spoke always, or the essential topic of facts, first assuming facts. And I found the strongest man in this round, who watched, or still wants to watch, this video — and I’m one who quite deliberately, you might have noticed, always says, when it’s about my personal opinion, precisely for that reason, dear Marc, to separate the factual situation from Jürgen Kert’s interpretation. I always say that quite clearly. This is now my opinion. The strongest man in this round in this video, for me, was Robin Alexander, because he was the steward. He kept trying to say, let’s talk about facts, because from my point of view this conversation partly also verbally derailed, because it was no longer about facts and no longer about the topic of media mis-steering, or taxation, or whatever you want to call it, but rather it was about personal sensitivities, feelings, and simply also about identities that were being attacked there. The identity of a philosopher and a social psychologist on one side, and on the other side, the opposing side, of two journalists. Facts. That’s exactly facts. And I, to also position this as a model from my point of view, if you go to the effort nowadays of hanging an asterisk or a slash on all possible endings, then I’d wish that in media pieces, the beginning of commentary would be marked with a parenthesis and a small or capital K. And at other passages, a parenthesis and a capital F, for identification, those are factual situations I can trace. That to answer your first question, dear Yasemin. The second question, financing through taxes, I generally consider a form worth considering, for comprehensive and, for everyone, accessible information about what’s essential for all of us as citizens. The second level, though, complicates the how, the decisive thing, how do I do that, because taxes can be levied either directly or indirectly. So as an existing, practically unavoidable fact, or as indirect taxes only when I use them, when I consume the associated product, for example the sparkling wine tax, with that. But without going into details now, I find a really worthwhile approach in the how, and the type of form of that. You might still stumble upon one thing or another there that brings the whole thing crashing down. But I think, yes, you should follow that up. I’d be in.

Thank you for listening. Thank you so, so much. I’d like to pick up one or two things from the chat, and then we can look again to connect too, so Marc also gets the opportunity again. Matthias writes, I listen almost exclusively to public broadcasters, mostly Deutschlandfunk. I find private ones hard to bear. For me, radio, TV should inform as well as possible, and I should then be able to form an opinion, does this principle still apply? I increasingly perceive that I’m being told what to think. Then Kronos also referenced Matthias, or are we talking about possibly too one-sided reporting. And here the question arises again, not just with private broadcasters, but also with public ones, if we, well that can now also be taken as a task for us, so to speak, to maybe specifically observe that a bit. So how neutral are public broadcasters actually? So what they have as a mandate is again something different than what’s maybe actually implemented. That means, if we look here, for example, when reporting on political topics, societal topics, climate topics and so on takes place, in what form, so also really looking precisely at the language here, in what form is it presented. So not to consume it content-wise, but maybe just to take that with you on the meta-level for yourself, to pay a bit of attention to that over the next few days, and observe a bit, so to speak, what’s actually happening there. I remember, for example, on the — that’s again in the private sector, but still — on the TV show, when Precht was a guest with his book, where he really had to endure quite a bit. There were really lively discussions, because the journalists also felt a bit attacked, in quotation marks. That’s how I interpreted it. That this aspect, yes, so also this one-sidedness for example, just as an example, if we take the last three years, there are maybe people who say, well, we’ve certainly heard different opinions too. But if, for example, with election matters, attention is paid to how much time each side gets. And now it’s not necessarily the case with everyday topics. That’s at least my perception. And regardless of whether that’s now private or public broadcasters. That means, just as an example, I don’t want to evaluate it, but if it’s now, for example, about a climate topic, the way it’s presented is always relatively dramatic. I ask myself, where are the experts who don’t see it that dramatically? And they exist, but they’re not exactly not allowed to speak at all, but to a significantly lower extent, in a smaller scope. And that creates an imbalance, because that also causes something in the viewer or listener again at that point. And that’s also a point I’d like to bring in. And in that sense maybe also to look a bit reflectively at it, not just to consume the content, if you already turn on the news anyway or similar, but to look at this meta-level, this overarching level, and observe what you might notice a bit, if you look more closely at it.

Jürgen, gladly.

I’ll gladly pick that up, and I hope correctly and briefly, but still comprehensively, share again from this book “The Fourth Estate” by Precht. Just for clarification, I don’t consider that the bible of German journalism now, but it was indeed, watch out, my opinion again, a really fantastic approach and a motivation for me to engage with adjacent topics of opinion steering, propaganda and the like too. But to come back to the topic, regarding one-sided, and there I agree with you unreservedly, dear Yasemin, that happens, and in my view it happens, foolishly, especially with what’s currently developing in the political spectrum, that in the past you were rather intent on excluding certain circles from discussions and the possibility of positioning themselves, and maybe also unmasking them, from the front. That was, from my point of view, a huge mistake. But what definitely, and now I’m back at this documentation by Precht and Welser, who worked through that. Those are two essential positions you should keep in mind. Namely, one term he uses is not indexing, but “indicizing.” And that describes the increasing approach that politics, and you can very well trace this almost daily, that politics transports its critical topics, where they’re not yet clear on how to position themselves party-wise, regarding possibly the highest voter favor, via the media. First of all, you’ll often notice, I’ll say it a bit casually now, that someone steps in front of the camera and throws something out there. Usually, quite obviously, packaged in the subjunctive. One should consider that, or, one could try to think in that direction. Those are key statements from politicians that, for me by now, I’ve learned this from the book, indicate that media channels are used to gauge the mood, from the clicks or the comments we can all give. Well, should I continue politically in this regard, or should I let it go? That’s the first point. And the second, really essential point, for which there’s also a fitting example from the past, is the so-called decontextualization, that’s what the two of them call it. And I’ll use the example of Ms. Lambrecht, you remember our ex-defense minister. The media storm that broke in, the media shitstorm, after the political decision that this woman would fall victim to the guillotine emerged, related exclusively, almost entirely exclusively, to the person, but not to the underlying problem, namely the underlying problem was the fact that this woman only got into this position because she was a woman, and thereby completed the quota lineup of the government team, and beyond that also belonged to the right, or still-to-be-served, state association of the SPD. That’s the actual core problem. But that was nowhere, not known to me at least, nowhere made transparent in a medium. With very few exceptions, I have to say. But those were absolute political specialist media. And this approach leads, increasingly, when the readership’s level of knowledge rises, of course, to an aha moment, and to bashing in the direction of, you can’t believe them anymore. Public broadcasters only say what the government has already tested through them beforehand and is now just doing. Regardless of how. Thank you for listening.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much, and given the time, I’d like to bring in one more impulse, also formulated as a question, and then give Marc the opportunity to connect again, also use the opportunity to bring in one thing or another again, if you’d like, in order to then introduce the closing round, gladly starting with Marc then. Namely, regarding regulation, that’s also a thought. In many contexts it’s relatively, well today the statement came up that especially with private media, you can, that’s their responsibility, you basically can’t intervene there, in quotation marks, or similar and so on, they shape that however they want. And I find, while we hear discussions about regulation quite often in other contexts, we don’t hear that here at this point. And I think it’s possibly also justified to think about it here too, at least think about it, whether that doesn’t maybe need a minimum regulation in some form after all, to, so possibly under the aspect of freedom of speech, to ensure that, so in the sense of establishing a balance and avoiding the imbalance, especially at this point. Especially with something like artificial intelligence, for example, it doesn’t seem far-fetched to think about regulations too. And that’s justified with ethical aspects, which can certainly make sense. And here too to check whether, instead of saying, well, private companies can do what they want, whether it wouldn’t also be sensible to have this discussion against this background too, without going into over-regulation, that’s really important too in this context, but whether it wouldn’t be sensible to have this discussion against this background too. I’m just curious what your impulses on that are, and would like to give Marc the opportunity first, and then also the closing word right away, dear Marc, and then Jürgen can also connect again and give the closing word for today, for the room, and then I’d also like to announce tomorrow’s room. Marc.

Given the time I’d like to bring in one more point, dear Yasemin, forgive me that it goes in a different direction, and specifically what’s really, really important to me, what we haven’t talked about yet, the room title is Media Censorship, and at Lanz’s on the 28th too I heard a totally interesting piece, specifically about clans, clans and foreigners, also a taboo topic you can’t talk about, and it was said there that in 2010, censorship clearly took place by the federal government, censorship in the sense that, that’s also good, that the term multiculti was introduced, and the commissioner who’s now in politics said that made it harder for the police to set criminal-strategic priorities. With multiculti, it hindered the police, so strategically, from proceeding against certain clans, that’s a reason we have the clan discussion today, and that was politically mandated, you weren’t allowed to name where the perpetrator came from, but instead spoke of persons with an Arab background. That’s multiculti, and persons with an Arab background. There are 20 Arab countries. That makes investigations much harder for us. That was just an example. That doesn’t align with my opinion. That just shows that there are indeed also interventions from the state, and that media censorship takes place, both for the media and for the work of the police.

Was that also your closing word for today, dear Marc?

Yes, given the time. We could only make the room one hour long. It was totally interesting. My closing word is, that wasn’t my opinion. I just find it important, the most important thing I take away today again, that you said, yes, sometimes it’s presented one-sidedly. And these two opinions, there’s no black and white, there’s gray. And this questioning and re-questioning. And that you go around the car once as much as possible, illuminated from all sides. One hour often isn’t enough for that. I’m totally motivated, inspired, and in a good mood for the day. Thanks for asking follow-up questions.

Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Jürgen.

I’ll answer and anchor my closing word to your question regarding regulation. I refer, with this term too, just as with taxes, and just as I’ve always done in the past regarding power, to please not have preemptive negative connotations with this term. Yes, regulation, if it’s in a justifiable relation to the generated benefit. That was maybe too much the economist coming through now. But what I want to say, every idea to heal a deficiency, an obviously factually traceable one, justifies every approach of thought up to the point where you determine, that’s not the right way, because, please give reasoning, or, we’re on the right path, and we’ll continue in this direction. I’d also be on your side in that regard, dear Yasemin, just as with the topic of taxation, regarding regulation. Heartfelt thanks for this room. As Marc already said, we could keep talking for hours now, but it was a great kickoff for today. A nice day to you all, and see you tomorrow.

Yes, great. Thank you so, so much. I also found it totally inspiring to think in the various directions. And it’s supposed to form kickoffs, so to speak, so that we get to thinking at one point or another, maybe also get into research for ourselves again, sharpen our observation in everyday life and so on. And for that, I think, the kickoff has definitely been set today. And regarding the aspect of regulation, I’d like to pick up one more point that we already addressed in one of the rooms too. When we talk about regulations, provided they’re in a justifiable relation to the generated benefit, dear Jürgen, I’ll gladly pick that up, I think that’s great, then we should also consider with these regulations whether we’re talking about regulations nationally, whether we’re talking about regulations EU-wide, or even worldwide. Because we’d already established that, depending on which topic it’s about, such regulations can otherwise, and that’s also one of the biggest dangers in this context sometimes, mean that we put our companies at a competitive disadvantage at that point, so to speak. And that of course also mustn’t happen. So that also has to be considered too. And in that sense the question of course always arises, at what level does such a regulation then have to take place too. And that closes the circle again now, in that we arrive again at this aspect of globalization and centralization. That means basically we notice that there’s a field of tension here, where on one hand, so to speak, certain things, whether we’re now talking about regulation or other aspects, where a kind of synchronization is also somehow important, so that you don’t end up in competitive disadvantages and such on one hand, that you can maybe also achieve certain things together. That means it does seem to make sense to also have overarching institutions or similar here, that maybe also set certain framework conditions, provide guardrails etc. And nevertheless, dangers also arise from that too. We just discussed that, for example, in the context of the WHO, and that means we always have these two sides, and we find ourselves in a field of tension there. So to make that clear again too. So in that sense it fits, I think, to continue tomorrow with the topic “Power and Abuse of Power. What opportunities and risks arise from regional and global power relations?” So I think we can connect wonderfully here again, from the now somewhat more narrowly focused and media-focused topic, opening up again a bit more broadly to the topic with the room title power and abuse of power. I’m really looking forward to that, and in that sense you’re very, very warmly invited to simply join again tomorrow morning and discover together which direction the room develops in. In that sense, I wish you well. See you tomorrow. Ciao.