Moral Courage in the 21st Century

Covid and the German Media (pt. 1)

Two days ago, I noted some of the oddities of our present condition. Today, I’d like to share some more commentary on the topic of free speech and media complicity in the prolongation of the current Coronavirus Crisis.

As is well-known, Germany’s mediascape is highly concentrated, and just yesterday, an employee of one of the country’s two main public state broadcasters, ARD, wrote the following open letter (pt. 1 is below, with all original linked content and the occasional light-touch editing for clarity, but see the linked original for references).

I cannot go on like this

In an open letter, an ARD employee expresses his criticism of one and a half years of Corona coverage: Ole Skambraks has been working as an editorial employee and editor at the public broadcaster for 12 years.

I can no longer remain silent. I can no longer accept silently what has been happening at my employer, the public broadcaster, for a year and a half now. Words like ‘balance’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘diversity’ in reporting are enshrined in the statutes and media-state contracts. What is being practised is the exact opposite. There is no true discourse and exchange in which all parts of society can find each other.

From the very beginning, I was of the opinion that public broadcasting should fill exactly this space: promote dialogue between supporters of measures and critics, between people who are afraid of the [Corona-] virus and people who are afraid of losing their civil liberties, between vaccination supporters and vaccination sceptics. But for the past year and a half, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably.

Scientists and experts who were respected and respected in the time before Corona, who were given space in the public discourse, are suddenly [considered] cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or covidiots [this is a widespread neologism in German-language discourse, by which is meant a portmanteau of ‘cov’ + ‘idiot’]. As an oft-cited example, consider Wolfgang Wodarg. He is an experienced and multi-disciplinary medical expert, epidemiologist and long-time health politician. Until the Corona crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as Chair of the Health Committee in the Council of Europe, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the swine flu pandemic. At that time, he could personally represent his opinion at national public broadcasters, but since Corona this is no longer possible. He has been replaced by so-called fact-checkers who discredit him.

Paralysing Consensus

Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a ‘scientific consensus’ was proclaimed that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic is met with outrage and abuse.

This pattern also works within the editorial offices. I haven't worked in daily news for a year and a half now, which I'm very glad about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are covered and how. I describe here my perception from editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time, I did not dare to leave the role of observer, the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unanimous.

For a few months now, I have been venturing out onto thin ice and making a critical remark here and there in these meetings. This is typically followed by uncomfortable silence, every now and then a ‘thank you for pointing it out’ and sometimes by an instruction as to why this is not true. These interventions have never resulted in bespoke reporting.

The result of one and a half years of Corona is an unparalleled division of society. Public broadcasters have played a major role in this. Public broadcasters increasingly fail in their responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote exchange.

The argument is often put forward that the critics are a small minority, not worthy of attention, who should not be given too much space for reasons of proportional representation. This should have been refuted at the latest since the referendum in Switzerland on the Corona measures [on 13 June 2021]. Although a free exchange of opinions in the mass media does not take place there either, the vote only went 60:40 for the government. With 40% of the votes cast in opposition, is it even possible to speak of a small minority? It should also be mentioned that the Swiss government had tied its Corona aid payments to the [yes] vote, which may have influenced some people's decision to put their cross in ‘yes’.

The developments of this crisis are taking place on so many levels and have an impact on all parts of society that what is needed right now is not less but more free space for debate.

What is revealing here is not what is discussed by public broadcasters, but what remains omitted. The reasons for this are manifold and require an honest internal analysis. The publications of the media scientist and former MDR broadcasting councillor Uwe Krüger, such as his book Mainstream: Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen [Mainstream: Why we don't trust the media anymore] goes a long way to explaining this.

In any case, it takes some courage to swim against the tide in editorial meetings where topics are discussed and debated. Often, the one who can present his arguments most eloquently prevails; in case of doubt, of course, the editorial-in-chief decides. Very early on, the equation was that criticism of the government’s Corona course belonged to the [political] right-wing. What editor dares to express a thought in that direction?

Open Questions

Thus, the list of inconsistencies and open questions that have not received substantial coverage is very large:

• Why do we know so little about ‘gain of function research’ (research on how to make viruses more dangerous for humans)?

• Why does the new Infektionsschutzgesetz (Infection Protection Act) state that the fundamental right to bodily integrity and the inviolability of one's home can henceforth be restricted--even independently of an epidemic situation?

• Why do people who have already had Covid-19 have to be vaccinated again, although they are at least as well protected as vaccinated people?

• Why are ‘Event 201’ and the global pandemic exercises in the run-up to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 not talked about, or only in connection with conspiracy myths?

• Why was the internal white paper from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, known to the media, not published in its entirety - and discussed in public - which called for authorities to achieve a 'shock effect' to illustrate effects of the Corona pandemic on human society?

• Why does the study by Prof. Ioannidis on the survival rate (99.41% for those under 70) not make it into any headline, but the fantastically wrong projections by Imperial College do (Neil Fergusson predicted half a million corona deaths in the UK and over 2 million in the US in spring 2020)?

• Why does an expert assessment prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health say that the utilisation of hospitals in 2020 by Covid 19 patients was only 2%?

• Why does [the city and state of] Bremen have by far the highest incidence (113 on 4.10.21) and at the same time by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?

• Why have payments of 4 million € been paid into a family account of the E.U. Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who was responsible for concluding the first EU vaccine contracts with the pharmaceutical companies?

• Why are people with severe vaccine side effects not portrayed to the same extent as people with severe covid 19 in 2020? (4)

• Why is no one bothered by the messy counting of ‘vaccine breakthroughs’?

• Why do the Netherlands report significantly more adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines than other countries?

• Why has the efficacy description of the Covid-19 vaccines on the Paul Ehrlich Institut's website [Germany's medicinal regulatory agency] changed three times in the last few weeks? ‘COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.’ (15 August 2021) ‘COVID-19 vaccines protect against a severe course of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.’ (7 September 2021) ‘COVID-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus.’ (27 September 2021)

Say tuned for the next instalment of the open letter.