A love-hate relationship with the media – how they screw with our heads
Dealing with and negotiating contradictions is difficult and exhausting. And unfamiliar – partly because contradictions are rarely addressed in the mass media. This is because it requires calm, time and a constructive dialogue, which we find less and less in the ‘breaking news’ and ‘live ticker’ culture of high-reach media. Many media outlets foster a state of ‘highly informed disinformation’: from morning till night, we are bombarded with information via news apps or social media. Yet we find hardly any context or explanations there to aid a deeper understanding. Why is this the case, and how do we deal with it?
Mainstream media: With Markus Lanz on ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’
In Germany, there is freedom of the press and a comparatively diverse media landscape. And, of course, there are also smart journalists and well-researched reports. But there are also conditions that affect the design, placement and reach of their reports: journalists, too, grow up with the widespread notions of a society that is currently organised along capitalist and nation-state lines. Added to this are funding, political interests, click rates, filter bubbles and the attention economy. Individual editorial teams can hardly opt out of these rules of the game. Mainstream media must therefore be defended against crude right-wing accusations of a ‘lying press!’ – but they must also be criticised from the left when they stand in the way of a more nuanced formation of opinion.
If we fancy watching ‘a bit’ of Temptation Island, we get exactly what we’re looking for: drama. It’s a different story with Anne Will or, all too often, even the Tagesschau: we’re looking for political insight and independent journalism, an exchange of serious arguments. We get: Ex on the Beach. Often, the focus is more on politicians’ personal feelings than on the substance of the issues. During discussions about the Heating Act, you had to go out of your way to find a clear explanation of what a heat pump actually is. Instead, there was extensive coverage of what Robert Habeck had said yet again and how Markus Söder felt about it. Conflicts between political parties are treated like a family quarrel. Journalists report, beaming with delight, that they were allowed to fly on the jet with the Chancellor and that he greeted each of them individually – how lovely! And reports on Donald Trump’s appearances are presented as if the main issue were whether ‘Daddy’ was in a good or bad mood today. Help!
Bad times, bad times
Political talk shows invite the same old faces to argue over the same old talking points – it’s just like a pub chat or a family gathering. Anyone who strays too far from mainstream opinion gets labelled (with a social media shitstorm included) and may well not be invited back. A nuanced ‘both-and’ approach is lost. Fundamental social contradictions, such as prevailing patterns of ownership, aren’t even discussed in the first place. Driven by the far-right party AfD and its allies, ‘both sides’ are presented as equally valid even on issues where there shouldn’t be two sides: for example, you’ll find arguments for and against the question of whether people should be left to drown in the Mediterranean Sea.
Individual issues that politicians with a particular agenda raise are covered in an unbalanced manner. For years, there has been debate over whether the basic income is too high, rather than asking whether wages are too low. Political buzzwords such as ‘illegal migration’ are accepted uncritically and cemented by the media. If Christian Lindner repeats often enough that a state must not allow itself to run up debts, this will eventually be treated in the media as a self-evident fact – rather than as the result of political negotiation processes. In this way, the media contribute to a radical narrowing of thought.
Social media: banal, radical, viral
However, it is the private operators of social media platforms that have the greatest influence on young people. Almost all young people use social media – including us here at Streets of Sugar. Instagram serves us an all-inclusive package of nail designs, gym content and left-wing book reviews. This is both a blessing and a curse: the platforms connect and entertain us, but at the same time completely get in the way of addressing contradictions. Instagram and TikTok have several red flags in store:
① The algorithm! It encourages one-sided reporting and echo chambers. We’re now only being fed ‘news’ that fits our worldview anyway.
② Audience reach! Viral videos are short and polarising. Strong opinions get more clicks than well-researched informative posts.
③ Opinions! The influencer’s personality often matters more than the content. If they post unhinged misinformation, it’s often shared without question.
④ Lack of sources! Does this sound familiar? You’re talking to friends about a topic and say you’ve ‘read something’ about it – but it was really just a Reel where someone was explaining a ‘statistic’.
⑤ Shorts! The shorter, the better. Attention spans are shrinking. Complex threads lose out to hot takes; arguments lose out to memes. That leaves little room to explore different perspectives and negotiate common ground.
⑥ Social pressure! We share social media with our circle of friends, our political group or our family. You’re quickly reduced to who you follow. At times, it seems as though we can’t follow anyone outside our own bubble without being shamed for it
We accept these problems because they satisfy human needs: we find it easier to believe information that already fits in with our existing views. As a result, the lack of a source is quickly overlooked, and mere opinion is treated as verified content. We feel understood, validated and not alone. In a capitalist world full of loneliness, the need for a sense of belonging is particularly strong amongst young people. And contradictions can feel as though they threaten that sense of belonging.
Help – is there no political education through the media?
But yes, ‘Streets of Sugar’ – so everything is fine. 😉 But of course, it’s not really that simple: when it comes to addressing contradictions, you can’t rely on mainstream media or social media. Apart from offering criticism and publishing this magazine, we can’t do much to change what’s offered in the media right now – but we can change the way we engage with it.
Here are a few tips and tricks:
- Make a conscious effort to look for well-reasoned counter-arguments – this will help you avoid cherry-picking.
- Follow channels beyond your own bubble from time to time to counter the algorithm and learn about other viewpoints.
- Take a sympathetic view of people, but a critical view of opinions: analyse the statements, not the person.
- If you feel outraged, react thoughtfully. Follow the ten-minute rule: read first, think next, then react.
- Consider carefully which people and content you share, rather than hastily ‘liking’ and sharing.
- Remain humble, recognising that we too can sometimes be on the wrong track.
- Instead of categorising things as good or bad, rate positions and arguments on a scale of 1 to 10. This helps break down extremes and reveal nuances.
- ‘Everyone here sees it that way’: recognise peer pressure, because truth is not a majority vote. Ask yourself: what if the other group is right about some things?
- You don’t have to take a stance on every issue and can still be political.
