In this interview, Prof. Dr Annika Sehl and Prof. Dr Susanna Endres talk about the challenges of traditional media, the role of social media and ways to strengthen freedom of expression
In the face of increasing polarisation and the growing spread of disinformation, traditional and social media are facing considerable challenges. In our series of interviews on the Quo vadis, Demokratie? campaign, Prof Dr Annika Sehl and Prof Dr Susanna Endres take a critical look at the current media landscape. They shed light on the responsibility of the media in times of political communication pollution and discuss the opportunities and risks of social media for social discourse and freedom of opinion. These expert opinions offer valuable perspectives on how the media can contribute to strengthening democratic values.
In an article by Prof. Dr Olaf Hoffjann in the journal Communicatio Socialis, the concept of political communication pollution is discussed as an unintended side effect of disinformation and populism on the culture of political communication. What responsibility do the traditional media bear for this?
Susanna Endres: In his article, Hoffjann defines the concept of political communication pollution as a form of unintended side effect of “widespread practices in political communication”. In order to outline these practices and their effects in more detail, he divides the term into three dimensions:
Firstly, the pollution of political communication is conditioned and characterised by the temporal dimension. Communication is becoming increasingly rushed – both on the part of politics and on the part of journalism. Print media in particular are in competition with digital offerings and are therefore under constant pressure to keep up to date. This is precisely where the responsibility of traditional media to offer an attractive contrast programme to the prevailing media trend becomes apparent. Reach can also be generated in other ways than through constant scandalisation. For example, by consciously taking time, conducting thorough research and thus providing high-quality content.
Hoffjann names the factual dimension as the second dimension: political communication is becoming increasingly non-binding, the reference to reality is decreasing and lies, bullshitting, exaggerations etc. are increasing. Such an analysis points to the core competences of journalism: before statements and interviews are published, they should be fact-checked. In the context of interviews, there should also always be a critical reaction to false claims or exaggerated representations in order to be able to ask questions and correct facts if necessary.
The third dimension relates to social interaction, which is becoming increasingly hostile. Hoffjann has observed a change in communication culture here and sees the media as having a direct responsibility. Divisive and degrading communication practices should not be described as “aestheticising” or “trivialising”. In order to counter the loud and hostile voices in politics, it is worth approaching the “quiet” politicians in a targeted manner.
In May 2024, the “Youth in Germany 2024” study identified a shift to the right among young people. What dangers does social media harbour with regard to social discourse?
Annika Sehl: The aforementioned study attracted some criticism in terms of methodology after the results were published, among other things because it is a trend survey and not a panel survey, and online access panels, where respondents can register themselves, may have a stronger representation of those with certain party preferences. In this respect, the results should certainly be treated with caution. The connection between the use of social media and political attitudes implied by the question also certainly needs to be analysed in more detail. What is certain, however, is that the AfD is very present on social media and TikTok in particular and thus reaches many young people.
Apart from this, it can be said that when it comes to social discourse on social media, it is important to bear in mind that the commercial platform companies and their structures have a significant influence on the discourse. They pursue their economic goals rather than those that are orientated towards the common good. For example, their algorithms determine which actors or topics generate reach and therefore attention and which generate less. It is also true that emotional posts have a higher probability of being played out by the algorithm and receiving interactions such as likes or shares than factual posts.
Although almost anyone can theoretically take part in the discourse on social media, we know that the participation of the population is very unequal and that the players on the platforms and their positions are therefore not representative – and should not be understood as such. At the same time, social media is used very specifically to spread disinformation.
After all, social media does open up the possibility of introducing new topics or perspectives into social discourse. However, positions can also be attacked unobjectively, especially under the protection of anonymity. Hate speech is a central problem on the platforms.
Legislators in the USA see TikTok as a threat to national security, as it is a Chinese media company that is accused of being close to the Communist Party. There are threats of a ban if TikTok does not sell its US business. Should the EU follow Washington’s example?
Susanna Endres: The threatened ban does point to existing core problems with TikTok, but also with other social media platforms: Concerns about what happens to our data when we use social media have probably accompanied them since their beginnings and reached new heights when Meta recently announced that it would use Instagram’s usage data, among other things, to train its in-house AI. However, the threatened ban on the platform in the US appears to be less about general data protection concerns and more about the worry that the data of US users could be passed on to the Chinese government and analysed by it. At the same time, TikTok’s power of opinion and the possible influence of the Chinese government are certainly also being problematised – above all because it is not clear how public opinion is formed due to the algorithmically designed platform infrastructure, among other things. It therefore remains to be seen what specific concerns and interests are actually behind the ban plans: Isn’t it more about geopolitical interests than the well-being of users? In order to tackle the real problems associated with TikTok in the EU, it seems more sensible to ensure that the platform’s own data protection interests are implemented, that transparency is created about who has access to which data and that existing regulations, for example on the protection of minors, security and freedom, are implemented.
What opportunities do social media offer to strengthen freedom of expression despite the dangers they entail?
Annika Sehl: As has already been mentioned, social media theoretically offers almost everyone the opportunity to participate directly. In addition, new topics and perspectives can be introduced into the social discourse. This means that citizens as well as civil society actors can contribute to discourse and there are hardly any barriers to participation as there are with traditional media. It has been shown that some of the topics that emerge in social media are then also adopted by journalism and discussed further there. In this respect, the discussion about social media was initially also characterised by its potential, but it has since turned around due to the aforementioned dangers for democracy and the common good. One demand that arises from this, in addition to stronger regulation of platforms, is for platforms that are orientated towards the common good instead of exclusively commercial platforms.
Some sections of the population accuse the public service media of one-sided and unbalanced reporting. Is the plurality of opinion in German society sufficiently represented?
Annika Sehl: A content-analytical study by Marcus Maurer et al. on the diversity of perspectives in public service news formats recently showed that the claim that public service broadcasting news is particularly one-sided compared to a group of relevant and influential German news media outside of public service broadcasting is not true. At the same time, the results of the study show that, on average, public service broadcasting did not report in a more diverse or balanced way than the comparative media in the news formats analysed, although a higher standard can be applied to it.
Freedom of expression is often misunderstood as the right to universal validity of one’s own viewpoints. How can social consensus be strengthened again in line with freedom of expression?
Susanna Endres: First of all, it is important to realise that one’s own freedom ends where it restricts the freedom of others. This also applies to freedom of expression. If insults, hatred and hate speech on media platforms spread a climate of fear that prevents other people – especially vulnerable groups – from using these platforms openly and authentically, this can be seen as problematic from a media ethics perspective. This requires not only clearly defined laws against hate speech, defamation and incitement to violence, but also strategies and measures to enforce them, such as simpler reporting options. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that the great good of freedom of expression is not restricted by over-regulation. In addition to legal regulations, preventative measures that can work towards improving the culture of communication are also important. Last but not least, educational measures should be mentioned here, for example to promote media ethics skills.
