How does society get out of the irrational corona impasse, into which it was driven above all by big media? There is no counting on large parts of politics: standing up publicly as a politician against the dominant current panic campaigns of the media would in many cases be tantamount to political suicide. This should not relieve the acting politicians in general: many of them benefit from the fear mongering and actively promote it. On the other hand, well-meaning politicians do not oppose the media campaigns, they have no chance. For a realistic perspective of an end to the untenable corona policy, this consideration of the balance of power between politicians and the media is important.
Media remains only the forward defense
Due to the state of a media-driven policy, another upstream question is important for a long-term release from the lockdown policy: how do these media first get out of the virus impasse? This will be a difficult undertaking: the media and editors who are particularly committed to panic – mongering will almost only have to defend themselves in the form of even more panic-mongering-in order to prevent rational analyses of the lockdown policy. If such analyses were allowed, they would immediately reveal the irresponsibility of the determining persons and the violations of the relationships caused by the lockdowns.
This phenomenon of media forward defense to cloud one’s own co-responsibility is already known from (pre -) reporting on the illegal wars of the West, for example against Syria: In order to conceal co – responsibility in the journalistic preparation of the bloodshed for as long as possible, the propaganda around the “democratic resistance” of the Syrian AlKaida warriors was driven to ever new and more absurd heights-and this for over ten years. One can only fervently hope that the campaigns for Corona will collapse sooner.
Columns Of Numbers, “Mutants”-Horror, Defamation
The current media viewpoints on corona are largely based on out-of-context absolute figures, which are unsuitable for rationally mapping the potential dangers of the virus. In addition, the press campaigns are based on gross omissions, for example regarding those who actually died “at Corona” or the non-dramatic situations in the German intensive care units. These extremely selective media positions, which are currently supposed to drive us into the next lockdown, can only be maintained if the emerging doubts continue to be suppressed by stoked fears: a vicious circle of questionable columns of numbers, important omissions, “mutant"horror and poisonous defamations against dissenters has already emerged.
To these omissions belong not only proportionally set(!) Death, test and incidence figures or the actual occupancy of intensive care beds-this also includes an ice-cold ignorance of many major media about the psychological and social consequences for disadvantaged people in our society. The unscrupulous treatment of children and young people is only the tip of a mountain of radical faults, the long-term consequences of which cannot be estimated at all.
The fact that one does not “deny” the existence of Corona with the question about the relationships is self – evident-for the colleagues of the “fact checks” it should be emphasized here again as a precaution. It should also be stressed that there may be situations in which individual freedoms must be dispensed with in favour of society. However, the destructive consequences of the corona measures are not justified by the real danger potential according to the available findings.
Turn moral Charge Around: Making a panic is a misdemeanor
Who will eventually take responsibility for the long-term damage to society? The journalists who are now intimidating people probably won’t be. This phenomenon is also known by some media when they subsequently describe the co-caused sufferings as if they were a force of nature: accordingly, the” civil war “in Syria has simply"broken out”.
The lockdown ideology also uses a radical and irrational tunnel vision that seeks to subjugate the entire social life to a single criterion in an unprecedented way. For this reason, too, the highly moral corona point of view of some major media is no longer tenable. On the contrary: in view of the incomprehensible global consequences of the lockdown policy (not the consequences of the virus!) the moral accusation would have to be turned around: whoever makes this policy possible – for example through fear propaganda-is guilty. Scaremongering is not petitesse. Scaremongering is a serious offence against the social cohesion of a society.
Brave counterexamples go under
There are individual counterexamples among the authors and editors of major German media. These colleagues thus demonstrate even greater courage. But these important points of view sink into the sea of panic messages that are played over and over again every day, as if by a fantastically played panic orchestra described in this article:
“It is not the rulers who have driven the media before them, as conspiracy theorists like to claim. Rather, the media, with their grotesque excess of reporting, have created pressure for action in the direction of lockdown, which governments in democracies could hardly escape.”
This paragraph sums up the aspect of a policy driven by determined media. And it is amazing that the article appeared in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. The article thus proves two things: on the one hand, there are the courageous authors and editors, in contrast to the vast majority of adapted journalists. On the other hand, even in the newspapers that publish them, critical articles are “drowned” by the sheer mass of pro-lockdown articles: they disappear without significant effect and are therefore little more than fig leaves for an overwhelming lockdown propaganda.
Media criticism of the lockdown implementation-not the principle
Meanwhile – better late than never-there has also been increasingly harsh criticism of parts of government action in the major media. However, this criticism is almost never a question of principle of the lockdown principle. Instead, details or" mistakes " in the implementation of this fatal principle are discussed. This kind of" criticism " takes the lockdown principle into account rather than attacking it.
These are all obvious and not new observations. But apparently one has to point out again and again: even well-meaning politicians would hardly fight the force of the corona reporting at the moment. And it is high time: even if the makers of the big German media were still aware of their responsibility today and would steer clear of the unscrupulous stoking of fears: it would still take a lot of time to heal the social consequences of the corona episode and to give the citizens a fear-free interaction with each other again. It is also a characteristic feature of current, radical and divisive politics that its long-term consequences cannot be estimated and that they are not even taken into account: in an act of collective irresponsibility. But this is one more reason to stop the media panic-mongering immediately.