Covid Aftershocks: How MSM Controls 'the Narrative™'
At a panel discussion in Austria, Hans Bürger, editor-in-chief of state broadcaster ORF's domestic politics desk, explains the nooks and crannies of population control
This piece might perhaps count among the more important ones, if only because a high-level professional at a European state broadcaster, speaks candidly about how ‘the media’ controlled ‘the narrative’ during the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’.
Today, we’ll venture deep into the Austrian countryside, specifically to a panel discussion that happened in Vorarlberg in September 2022. I freely admit to have missed this one back then, but I have been sitting on these pieces for some time—and now it seems like a good time to reflect on how legacy media framing works.
As always, any non-English content comes to you in my translation and with emphases added.
Meet the Press, Branch Covidian Style
Ever since Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote their seminal treatise Manufacturing Consent towards the end of the Cold War, population-and-mind control techniques have evolved. Among the crucial features that changed are a) the internet (since 1997), b) so-called ‘SMART’ phones with instant access to the WWW (since 2007), and c) social media availability on said mobile devices (since 2012).
While there is no privacy (left) in online communications, which we know due to Edward Snowden’s disclosures, there continues to exist—so far—at least the possibility of ‘alternative’ media and information outlets. Ever since the commercialisation of ‘the Internet’ in the late 1990s, the web is overflowing with non-official content (and, of course, pornography), but so-called ‘alternative media’ outlets have proliferated especially as a consequence of, and during, the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’.
Of course, these features—from messenger apps to Twitter/X to alt-media—make it much harder for ‘traditional’ news media to disseminate information. During the the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’, the massive uniformity of most legacy media outlets, public and private, became quite obvious; this is not to say that that these features did not exist before—just look for the Overton Window in terms of what is permitted to discuss in polite conversation—but it became increasingly impossible not to see it.
It would be far-fetched to assume that those in legacy media did not notice, and, much in line with what Chomsky and Herman described, for up-and-coming employees at legacy media outlets—TV, daily news, weekly magazines, etc.—there are certain topics everyone knows not to bring up in editorial meetings.
Every now and then, though, some people shed a bit of light through the ‘cracks in everything’ (via Leonard Cohen), and this is what we’ll discuss here.
How ‘the Narrative™’ Was Managed in ‘the Pandemic™’
‘I know what reputation the ORF has in part’, Hans Bürger opened his contribution to the panel discussion in early September 2022. Sponsored by the Liechtenstein-based Libertatem Foundation, Bürger, long-term employee of Austrian state broadcaster ORF and head of the domestic politics desk, joined Ferdinand Wegscheider (Servus TV), Roland Tichy (Tichys Einblick), and Richard Schmitt (Exxpress). The ORF journalist was not too happy, and ‘he certainly sounded as if he was not only aware of the [ORF’s] reputation’, the Zero Covid Hawks of Der Standard wrote in mid-September 2022. Bürger also noted that he only came to the panel discussion because ‘his editor-in-chief did not appear’.
For those who understand spoken German and wish to watch said debate, here is a link courtesy of Youtube:
For the following reporting, I am using a partial transcript made available by Der Standard dated 15 Sept. 2022 (source). Part of this transcript comes with emphases added, and since the editors also did so, I shall note this specifically.
Hans Bürger about the ORF vs. private TV station Servus TV
At ORF, you have to put up with a lot when you’re travelling in the Salzkammergut, especially in times of the Coronavirus. They say: ‘I only watch Wegscheider now. I say: Yes, sure, me too.’ From Gosau, if that’s true, into the valley, everyone watches Servus TV and [content provided by tabloid outlet] Oe24. That means it’s not so easy for ORF there.
What those of you who don’t know Austrian geography very well don’t know—is this: in autumn 2021, a few regions were placed under a form of martial law, replete with armed soldiers doing ID and PCR test/vaccination status checks when entering or leaving a country.
Hans Bürger surely knows this, for it was ORF that reported on these abominations back then:
The Coronavirus traffic light is flashing bright red in Salzburg, which brings harsher mandates again. The Tennengau municipality of St. Koloman will be quarantined for a fortnight from 18 October with exit controls [that meant: roadblocks at the roads leading out of the municipality]
Salzburg’s Deputy Secretary of Health Christian Stöckl of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) comments: ‘We will quarantine St. Koloman for 14 days from Monday. That means imposing traffic restrictions that will be strictly controlled by the police. The 2.5 G rules will apply there. So fully vaccinated, recovered or PCR-tested to be able to leave.’
Needless to say, voters remembered this, and in spring 2023, the Freedom Party gained most, relative to the 2018 state election, in precisely those municipalities that were most affected by these mandates. Full coverage here:
Hans Bürger About Journalistic Independence at ORF
What is independence? We are obliged by law to be objective. Yes (laughs), that’s one thing. That’s actually our principle [emphases mine].
I would also like to say one thing: I never agree with everything that happens at ORF [emphases by Der Standard]. But I will certainly hold on to my opinion here and there so that I will keep my job until Monday. Because I would like to work there for a few more years [emphasis mine].
As explained by Chomsky and Herman decades ago, here is prima facie evidence of this kind of self-censorship to safeguard one’s own interest, even though Mr. Bürger is actually ‘obliged by law to be objective’ while, let’s not forget, citizenship comes with rights and duties. The latter, of course, include the obligation to speak up when faced with injustice.
On ‘Private’ Opinions on Twitter (now X)
I will try to include my personal opinion, but as a journalist, I am obliged to be objective, even in public, as there are now guidelines [emphasis mine]. I do wonder whether some of our colleagues who are on Twitter are aware of this, but yes…I feel obliged to be objective [emphasis by Der Standard].
Apologies for the (intentional) pun, but even the most cursory glance at some of the absurdities on social media reinforces Mr. Bürger’s (self) criticism of his profession. For a telling example, I shall report this brief exchange by one of Der Standard’s most prolific hate-peddlers:
InViennaVeritas: ‘mandate opponent’ is a neat euphemism for right-wing extremist.
Colette Schmidt: It is, indeed.
Neither evidence is given, nor even the pretence of ‘objectivism’ is exhibited. For further particulars (and much, much more content), see here:
Media Control by Political Interventionism
This is a long segment, and I merely preface it by stating the obvious: yes, I do give the Freedom Party credit for speaking up against the Covid madness since around summer 2020—and for sticking with it since. The main problem, however, isn’t whether or not they are ‘better’ than their competitors (they are not), but that all mainstream parties and factions and organisations are, essentially, marching in lockstep when it comes to keeping ‘we, the people’, in line. Some politicos and journos are, objectively, more honest less dishonest than others, but then again, these are differences of degree, not of kind.
There is massive intervention. Since I’ve been in my current position [as head of the domestic politics desk], I can tell you that almost every government is trying to bring about a certain type of reporting [emphasis by Der Standard]. It doesn’t matter who the Federal Chancellor is, that’s the dramatic thing [my emphasis]. Because it’s always said that we are red station [by which is meant heavily influenced by Social Democratic politicians until 1999/2000], it was no different under Schüssel [chancellor for the ‘conservative in name only ÖVP from 2000-06]. And the fact that Chancellor Kurz [ÖVP chancellor in office 2017-19, 2020-21] had a small but very powerful group behind him that also wanted to ensure—ha, I better be careful!—that certain things happen and certain things don't happen, I think that’s also well known. Sebastian Kurz’ (former press spokesman and media officer, Gerald) Fleischmann is in no way different from (ex-SPÖ managing director) Laura Rudas and company.
That is both a massive indictment of activities, an admission of a certain amount of complicity (Mr. Bürger was head of the domestic politics desk sine 1998), and a statement of fact.
I’m the long-serving head of the domestic politics desk since 1998, probably at all public television stations, which is why they say: when will Bürger finally be gone? What has really never happened is that someone comes along before an analysis and says: ‘Say that! An editor-in-chief tried that once, with little pieces of paper that he put in front of me just before my segment, but I still didn’t say it [emphasis mine]. Our relationship really wasn’t very good since then. But basically, you are absolutely free in your analyses and comments. But then that’s it again. A great deal is attempted in the reporting. We don’t need to kid ourselves about that [emphasis by Der Standard].
The sentence: ‘if you don't do it this way, then that’s it, i.e., I would be fired as head of the domestic politics desk, and I hope you realise that’ [emphasis by Der Standard], well, I’ve probably heard that sentence a thousand times. I could name so many names now, and they come from all parties. They were all the same, and some of them were very brutal on the phone [emphasis mine]…
Some people have also gotten into the habit of doing so via WhatsApp, and they don’t do it any more. What a complete surprise (smiles). But the problem is, I still have a few things on my mobile phone…
The quip about WhatsApp relates to the recent disclosure of many such messages that legacy media is playing up around the clock, that is, if these pertain to right-of-centre people mostly. Of course, the same is true for left-of-centre individuals, but since most journos are of that persuasion, their willingness to play these up is…well, not as big, as Mr Bürger also stated:
I would say that it’s partly down to the people involved. Yeah, never mind, it’ll just be put online tomorrow. But it seems to me that some people don’t quite manage to conceal their true colours. (Applause) [emphasis by Der Standard]
Note that by ‘some people’ are meant: fellow journos. Here is what Der Standard—whose journos are among the most vindictive far-left/Zero Covid protagonists—editorialised below the comment by Hans Bürger:
The head of the domestic politics desk, Mr Bürger, at least hints that individual ORF journalists have shown a political bias in their reporting.
Go figure. Die Fackel 2.0 is literally full with evidence to this fact.
Hans Bürger on Covid Reporting
That was certainly the most difficult time for me at the ORF. At some point, the ORF made it clear—not only the ORF, but also the opposition at the beginning—that we were not questioning the federal government’s health policy in any major way…[emphasis mine]
Everyone, including most of the media, went along for a few weeks, then came [then Health and Human Services Minister] Rudi Anschober’s funny Easter [2020] decree, and that’s when media went their separate ways [I don’t remember much dissenting reporting, do you?].
And of course, it wasn’t easy for those who said: ‘Watch out, we might be leaving an objective path.’ [emphasis by Der Standard]
At some point, I presented a programme called ‘Politik Live’ on ORF 3 on behalf of Ingrid Thurnher (then editor-in-chief of ORF 3, now radio director). They put six mandate supporters on the programme. Six who all agreed on the corona measures. Then I said: ‘And how exactly is a discussion supposed to arise from this?’
[Editor-in-chief Thurnher replied] ‘It doesn't matter, that’s just the way it is.’ [emphases mine]
That’s when I said for the first time: I don’t know if we can stay the course. Because things looks different on Servus TV [emphases by Der Standard]. If you say the word Servus TV on ORF, you’re already suspicious [emphasis mine]. But well, I said: They just do it.
Keep in mind that, as candid as he appeared, Mr. Bürger didn’t do or say anything that would endanger his job.
Covid, Mandates, and ‘the Science™’
Now comes the difference between ORF, no, let’s put it this way, public service broadcasting and a private broadcaster. As far as scientific reporting is concerned, public service broadcasting assumes this: we accept the prevailing scientific opinion. And if 98 out of 100 scientists are of the same opinion, we won’t be so stupid as to invite the two who disagree [emphasis mine; not inviting these two is anti-scientific, for there can never be ‘settled’ science, and this also shows the discrepancy between fiction and reality: in science and scholarship, you want to discuss with the dissenting voices to figure out if their arguments hold merit]
I’ve had umpteen discussions with (ORF head of science reporting) Günther Mayer. The argument was: if you do that, you have to invite 49, then you can invite one opponent. But with five, the proportions aren't right. That’s the difference. You have to discuss that [emphasis mine]. However, relatively little has actually changed. Certain people who appeared on Servus TV (were) a no-go for us, not an option at all [emphasis by Der Standard]. The discussions there were, well, different. [those ‘certain people’ included one John Ioannidis of Stanford—nuff said about the ‘principle of objectivity’ here]
[At the above-mentioned debate with six pro-mandate voices, the following also happened according to Mr. Bürger] And then they showed a clip by (FPÖ chairman Herbert) Kickl, the evil Kickl. And then all six of them attacked Kickl. What do you do now as a presenter? You automatically have to take the position and say—well, isn't he right here and there? And then the following happens: Bürger, he’s close to the FPÖ, what’s going on there? [emphasis mine] So you have to be incredibly careful with everything you do [emphasis by Der Standard]. But if you’re chairing a discussion programme where six people are of the opinion that the corona measures are good—what else can you do but put to chime in, which of course makes you un-objective as a host [emphasis mine]. If you ask me now: what’s the solution?—I have no idea!
The most stunning admission here is that, despite all societal talk about minority rights and protective measures for even the smallest minority of one, the reason why no dissenting voices were permitted boils down to two features: they were not invited, which begs the question—who, if not the head of the domestic politics desk, invites people on his shows? And, second, apparently no qualms appeared in Mr. Bürger’s head as to host a ‘discussion’ with six people who are all in agreement about the issue that was supposedly to be debated. That’s no debate at-all, and such programs have a name: agit-prop.
Alt-Media Weighs In
At that point in the partial transcript made available by Der Standard, alt-media make an appearance in the following ways:
Roland Tichy describes the alignment with the prevailing scientific position as an ‘declaration of intellectual bankruptcy’, arguing that scientific progress has always come from ‘outsiders’, citing to Ignaz Semmelweis as an example. [hear, hear]
Ferdinand Wegscheider from Servus TV asks at the event: ‘How can a journalist, how can a broadcaster really be of the opinion: trust the science, we have the only truth, I don’t understand that.’
We note, in passing, that the ‘Federal Observatory of Sects’, which is affiliated with the Federal Chancellery, recently declared alt-media to be ‘sects’ that should be ‘surveilled’. In their report, the ‘Federal Observatory of Sects’ clearly labelled certain alt-media outlets in the following way (via a press release, dated 23 April 2024; emphasis mine):
As the analysis of the Austrian COVID-19 protest movement on Telegram shows, it is a heterogeneous but at the same time strongly interconnected network consisting of channels from different ideological milieus. In addition to the coronavirus anti-mandate scene that emerged during the pandemic in the narrow sense, it includes channels that can be attributed to organised right-wing extremism, such as the far-right activist Martin Sellner, the esoteric and spiritual sphere, so-called ‘alternative media’, such as AUF1, Report24, and Info-DIREKT [i.e., those alt-media that provided, much like Tichys Einblick or ServusTV, a more variegated debate in recent years], the party-political spectrum, and relevant conspiracy theory milieus. The close links within the network enable actors who propagate conspiracy theories and extremist narratives to spread their messages beyond their core audience and exert influence on a heterogeneous audience in terms of content [emphases mine].
Bottom line here: alt-media is far-right, spreads conspiracy theories, and provides influential content. This is certainly true of many such outlets, yet it documents, I’d argue, the failure of establishment media outlets to, well, offer substantial debates. Moreover, this was accomplished despite the massive advantages of scale and reach legacy media enjoyed. If anything, this is a massive indictment—declaration of incompetence—on part of legacy media.
Back to Der Standard:
Bürger then explains: ‘I am friends with Günther Mayer, but we have had a lot of discussions about this, including in public.’ He refers to the book they wrote together, Knockdown, but emphasises: ‘I didn’t write anything in the scientific part, I only wrote the economic and political part.’
‘Günther then comes to me with the argument about the earth being a disc. 100 say the earth is round and two say the earth is a disc, would you invite one of them? No, I say, of course not…Of course there is conventional medicine and alternative medicine. The problem is always proportionality [emphasis by Der Standard].
Note that the ‘argument’ about the Earth’s shape is about as inane as possible. Personally I don’t understand how one can make an argument about proportionality—as in the above-related instance of the debate with six pro-mandate ‘discussants’—and then cite the worst possible extremist example to try to make their point.
Bottom Lines
Sadly, none of this is new or unknown. If anything the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ is tantamount to the great forgetting of things we once knew.
Moreover, the most insidious aspect here appears to be the way Zero Covid/vaccine-pushing outlets, such as Der Standard, Der Falter, and others reported derisively about the panel discussion.
While I won’t write another word about Der Standard here, the Vienna-based weekly magazine Der Falter—heavily subsidised by both federal gov’t and the Vienna state gov’t and of a far-left/communist persuasion—openly belittled the above panel debate as a ‘moron’s congress’ (orig. Schwurblerkongress):
Amazement at the ‘1st International Congress of Journalists’ at the Bregenz Festival Theatre. On the podium alongside older, right-wing conservative journalists such as Roger Köppel (Weltwoche), there were ServusTV boss Ferdinand Wegscheider and Richard Schmitt (Exxpress), as well as ORF head of domestic politics desk Hans Bürger.
No need to talk about para-ideological believes, such as the modRNA Covid injections, the Zero Covid policies, or the mandates.
By contrast, Die Substanz, another alt-media outlet, managed to produce the following summary (emphasis mine):
According to Hans Bürger, for example, it was a ‘mistake’ to broadcast far too much directly: the virological quartet, consisting of the then Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and former Interior Minister Karl Nehammer (both ÖVP) as well as Vice-Chancellor Werner Kogler and then Health Minister Rudolf Anschober (both Greens), were able to talk for too long at their press conferences. Bürger’s opinion: that’s not how this works.
It’s relatively better than the heavily biased editorialising by Der Standard, but not by much. No-one outlines the main problem: gov’t by press briefing, which is a core feature of out times.
Typically, the executive carries out whatever is promulgated by parliament, but this isn’t how our ‘system’ works (any more). If it ever did.
Yet, these things aren’t said, even less discussed, and while I consider Mr. Bürger’s candid talk ‘fine’, it also falls very short of being helpful.
Hence, nothing will change, until and unless legacy media stops cheerleading for those in power and starts doing their job. If that is actually their function, which I consider highly doubtful, but that is a topic for another day.
[shaking my head] having just suffered through some of Englands local elections and what was and certainly what wasn’t shared publicly it ain’t looking very rosy nor hopeful. Seems local regional politics this years was dominated by …yep, Gaza, of course, because why care about pot holes in roads or local businesses. I dread our next general (National) election.
Nodding along in recognition of swedish "journalism" as I read.
If the regime-loyal press say something is, then it is. If regime-critical press says something, it doesn't matter if it is sourced, checked, common knowledge, true and matter of record. It just doesn't matter, and worse than it not mattering to people in general, most react to being confronted with facts counter to the claims of regime media by being either outraged or apathetic.
"Yeah, yeah, they all ie all the time so what", and then their brain resets to "They said on TV that...", a phrase which means state TV. If state TV says that migration is necessary to keep the public health system up and running, it becomes truth. If state TV says "four swedes were arrested in Sapin on suspicion of..." it doesn't matter if you can show that all four have mid-eastern names, since "svensk" and "svensk medborgare" has been used interchangeably for so long most people subconsciously think it means the same thing.
And try to watch the broadcast meetings of the Swedish PEN club, the mainstream journalists club for mutual admiration without vomiting so hard you get an aneurysm - selfgratification that'd make a Borgia say "Whoa there!".
The members of the swedish PEN club has been intrumental in trying to whip up mobs against free journalists and in trying to silence dissenting voices, something which started with its rapid politicisation after the Tiananmen Square Massacre. I'm not sure if the austrian and norweigan ones are as far gone.