On demonization – Bernhard Poerksen in Der Spiegel:

‘First, there are a number of gripping exposés that demonstrate what makes this party, dedicated as it is to the fear of the future, so dangerous. It’s adoption of Russian and Chinese propaganda, the endless string of donation and financial scandals, the potential corruptibility of individual functionaries, the verifiable links within right-wing extremist groups like the Identitarians, the Reichsbürger and the neo-Nazis.
Second, DER SPIEGEL exhibits a significant degree of linguistic sensitivity. Nobody at the magazine brands all AfD supporters across the board as Nazis or fascists and it is cautious and exacting when it comes to applying labels, apparently having long-since realized that overused proclamations warning loudly and shrilly of the return of fascism are no longer particularly effective. DER SPIEGEL’s coverage has more the character of a meticulous examination with a historical depth of focus. There are numerous essays painstakingly striving for accuracy, exploring the question of how to understand this new authoritarianism and how it should be combated – and whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Björn Höcke should be called fascists and what the actual analytical benefits might be of doing so. In brief: A facile demonization of the AfD is nowhere to be found.’

(…)

‘Again, DER SPIEGEL delivers comprehensively substantiated, multifaceted, concrete warnings from the deeply reactionary, intellectually entrenched AfD world. It is a world in which sweaty, hardworking men still chop their own wood and where there is, happily, no climate crisis. It is a world in which the Nazi era is "but a spot of bird shit” (Alexander Gauland) on German history and in which the party once campaigned for its own deportation and remigration program with gummy-candy airplanes for the kids and with candidates dressed up as pilots ready to carry out the deportations themselves. All of this is intelligently and comprehensively covered.’

(…)

‘It is acceptable for journalists to leverage their entire rhetorical weight in the defense of democracy, but they are not allowed to do the same on behalf of ecology or climate policy issues. Why not? Is the political reality more important than the ecological reality? Is there a concealed hierarchy of relevance among the great crises we are facing? Are free elections existentially more important than clean air? I would like to have a more precise understanding of these questions.’

(…)

‘As such, it might make sense to justifiably ignore certain individual statements, or at least to cut them off from additional journalistic oxygen, even if doing so is increasingly performative given that the AfD has long since developed its own parallel mediaverse. The philosopher Jürgen Habermas refers to this approach as a necessary "de-thematization.” As a side note: Deliberately ignoring certain inhumane viewpoints is not censorship, dear Elon Musk fans, it is what’s known as civilization.’

(…)

‘All in all, it serves to highlight the fact that there is a need in the democratic center of society to finally address migration with the necessary resoluteness – and not because (to highlight yet another popular narrative promulgated by the populists) 2029 will necessarily produce Germany’s second female chancellor in the form of AfD grande dame Alice Weidel. Such an inevitability doesn’t exist. The danger is that in these times of polycrisis, in which Germany needs nothing so much as a broad alliance for reform, the country’s societal center is unable to produce more than a preventative coalition rather than a proactive coalition. Fending off an AfD government is vital to preventing the country from drifting towards authoritarianism. But that is not a platform that will prepare Germany for the future.’

(…)

‘My argument: The serious journalism of the future will be transparent and rooted in dialogue. Or it won’t exist at all. Claims of irrefutability have never been particularly credible, but now, fueled by the deeply mendacious grassroots rhetoric of Big Tech oligarchs and a populist, yet extremely effective, critique from elites and experts, they are increasingly becoming scandalous in their own right. Beyond that, journalism is under greater pressure than ever through the apparently unstoppable gravitational slide of the advertising market toward the digital behemoths and the attacks of those who accuse journalists of little more than a pack of liars. As such, a stabile relationship of trust and the solidarity of a paying readership is an absolute imperative. And for that reason alone, it is important to form a new pact with those who, in an earlier media epoch, were simply known as the audience (a famous line by journalism critic Jay Rosen). Today, this audience has long since begun producing its own media, ready to go live at any moment merely by taking their mobile phone out of their pocket. Classic journalism, as the fourth pillar of democracy, has been joined by a fifth pillar, made up of the networked many, a radically pluralistic public that follows its own rules – reporting, setting the agenda, commenting and publishing, sometimes constructive and inciteful, sometimes angry and shockingly simplistic, and often with tremendous impact.’

Read the article here.

The audience is not the audience anymore, the audience has been producing its own media for a decade or more. And only for that reason the newspaper and the weekly magazine are not what they used to be 50 years ago.
I have the feeling that the endless self-production of media (i.e. social media) has reached its peak.

Also, the attempt to not give oxygen to certain people with certain political positions is, as the author acknowledges, largely ceremonial.

And in order to have a Germany with a small AfD or a US with a small Trump, a marginalized Trump, more will be needed than just a platform that is anti-AfD, or anti-Trump, just remind yourself of the US elections in 2024.

Serious journalism will not save us, but without it the doom will start much earlier.