The Slippery Slope of Defining Disinformation

The newly formed coalition government in Germany, comprised of the SPD and CDU, has declared war on “fakenews” and disinformation, citing it as a grave threat to democracy, its institutions, and social cohesion. While the intention to safeguard the democratic process is laudable, critics warn of the potential for abuse and the suppression of legitimate dissent.

Defining what constitutes “hatred and agitation” versus factual claims is a complex and frequently enough subjective endeavor. Arguments frequently morph into accepted facts when aligned with prevailing opinions. This ambiguity raises concerns about the potential for politically motivated censorship.

When Campaign Promises Become “Fake News”: A Case Study

Moritz Eichhorn, a deputy editor-in-chief at the “Berliner Zeitung,” raises a pertinent question: where does one draw the line? He points to the example of Friedrich Merz, the CDU’s candidate for Chancellor, who staunchly advocated for adherence to Germany’s debt brake during the election campaign.Merz argued that current debts translate to future tax increases, burdening future generations. However, following the election, the debt brake was seemingly abandoned in favor of massive spending packages for defense and infrastructure.

If the electoral promises of the Christian Democrats were not fake news, what then?
Moritz Eichhorn, Berliner Zeitung

Eichhorn suggests that if the government is serious about combating “fake news,” it should start by holding itself accountable for broken campaign promises. this example highlights the inherent difficulty in policing details and the potential for such efforts to be used to silence political opponents or shield the government from criticism.

Erosion of Trust and the Rise of Populism

The perceived hypocrisy of politicians and the shifting sands of truth contribute to a growing distrust in government and mainstream media. Recent polls indicate a surge in support for the right-wing AfD party, capitalizing on this disillusionment. According to a recent study by the University of Leipzig, trust in conventional media outlets in Germany has declined by 15% in the last year, while social media and option news sources have seen a corresponding increase in viewership.

The Perils of Public Shaming: The Svenja Flasspöhler Case

The case of philosopher Svenja Flasspöhler illustrates the dangers of prematurely labeling dissenting opinions as “fake news.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, Flasspöhler voiced concerns about mandatory vaccination policies on a popular ARD talk show. She argued against criminalizing individuals who resisted interventions in thier bodies. Her statements led to accusations of being a “lateral thinker” and a barrage of criticism from the commentary press.

However, in a surprising turn of events, the show’s former moderator, frank Plasberg, later apologized to Flasspöhler, admitting that he was “ashamed of the show.” This incident underscores the importance of allowing for open debate and avoiding the rush to judgment, particularly on complex and controversial issues.

Conclusion: A Call for Nuance and Open Dialog

While the fight against disinformation is a legitimate concern, it is crucial to proceed with caution. Overly broad definitions of “fake news” and the suppression of dissenting opinions can have unintended consequences, eroding public trust, stifling debate, and perhaps fueling the rise of populism. A more nuanced approach, emphasizing media literacy, critical thinking, and open dialogue, is essential to safeguarding democracy in the age of information.