Bernd Stegemann on media diversity and Die Weltbühne: “Looking at things from several perspectives frees one from rigid, superior knowledge”

That's why we wanted to take a sober look with you at why some of the criticism was so destructive, whether the people behind Die Weltbühne might have touched a nerve, and what this all says about our climate of opinion. Or to put it another way: Is Die Weltbühne really still such a big name in Germany's cultural memory, and was that why the reactions were so biting when it was announced that Die Weltbühne was now part of Berliner Verlag? I think there were two things that led to this excitement. One was Deborah Feldman's article questioning the Jewish identity of Philipp Peyman Engel, editor-in-chief of Jüdische Allgemeine. The second was the dispute with Siegfried Jacobsohn's Weltbühne heirs.

Many texts equally lambasted the newly published Weltbühne, its two editors, and the publisher. It was pointed out how insignificant this reprint actually was. At the same time, there were a large number of criticisms, which in turn seemed to reduce the accusation of insignificance to absurdity.

This contradiction is a popular discrediting strategy. One pretends to be outraged by something outrageous, while simultaneously emphasizing that the object of the scandal is irrelevant. I'm often amazed at the illogicality with which both are asserted simultaneously. This corporate blindness is so widespread in the everyday world of outrage that no one seems to notice it anymore.

Are these strategies in which critics are driven by the hope that by ostracizing something they can cancel out what is undesirable, in this case a competing product?

Cancel culture consists in no longer responding to arguments with other arguments. In other words, as Habermas wished, where the unforced compulsion of the better argument prevails, but rather the entire position of the other person is defamed. Then it's not a case of "I'm refuting your argument," but rather "You're evil," "You're an anti-Semite," "You're a Putin sympathizer." A moral label is imposed on you, and this saves you the work it would take to refute the position argumentatively.

Should the creators of Weltbühne be pleased about this negative attention? Or should they perceive all this criticism as a threat?

This varies greatly from case to case. Individuals can be so stigmatized by a shitstorm that they are canceled from public forums. If no one dares to speak publicly with the ostracized person, they are socially dead. But how do you cancel a magazine? That's far more complicated. It's precisely the disreputable or forbidden that piques readers' curiosity. With its Index of Forbidden Books, the Catholic Church has had to learn the hard way over the centuries that censored writings often became bestsellers. In this respect, the attempted censorship backfires, especially in open societies.

Could it also be that there is enormous resistance from the media, which is primarily owned by West Germans, to the Berlin publishing house, which is owned by East Germans? And that many don't like that?

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with East and West. There's a permissible common sense in Germany that, simply put, runs between the Taz newspaper and public broadcasting. Everyone knows what opinion to expect there. We would all stare at the television in disbelief if Tagesthemen featured a commentary praising the AfD. When a commentary on the AfD appears, it's such that any viewer could write it themselves. For this reason, a growing number of viewers find the spectrum of opinion too one-dimensional. They complain that the predictability of opinions and the narrowness of the corridor of opinion are damaging public debate. One-sided journalism logically cannot portray the whole truth. Yet, instead of depicting the contradictions in reality, permissible attitudes are presented that no longer provide a realistic picture of the world. One reaction to this partial blindness is the growing popularity of alternative media and media like the Berliner Zeitung.

Would you say that the homogeneity of content perceived in the mainstream media has increased in recent years?

You could say that. The louder the fringes become, especially the right wing, the AfD, the more the center feels the need to establish a kind of truce. They absolutely do not want to allow anything that even slightly proves the enemy right, because that could strengthen them. But dialectically speaking, that leads to the exact opposite. The more you exclude someone – the firewall – the greater the polarization becomes. And the more those inside this fortress have a problem with the enforced unanimity. Because then contradictions are no longer allowed to be mentioned, because that supposedly benefits the enemy. One of the most disastrous phrases in the German public is: "You can't say that because it benefits the AfD." This leads to a self-destruction of bourgeois common sense. And the fact that this simple idea is not understood in the major newspaper editorial offices and on the public broadcaster is truly a mystery to me.

So if an article appears in the Berliner Zeitung that says the AfD or the BSW has a point that needs to be reflected upon and discussed, then are the harsh reactions of the competition a disciplinary measure?

The troublemaker is reprimanded by the moral authorities. But everyone knows that domineering instruction is, above all, an expression of fear. It's not a sensible strategy to think one can control reality by concealing some of its aspects. This is reminiscent of children who cover their eyes and think the objects that provoke fear have disappeared because they can no longer see them.

There is an accusation that many journalists have an affinity with the left-green camp.

A survey revealed that 41 percent of journalists are Green Party supporters. The pressure to express the "right" opinion seems particularly strong in this profession. Admitting to being an AfD member or voting for this party would probably not get anyone accepted into a journalism school or find a position on an editorial staff.

Could one gain more trust in society by broadening the spectrum of journalists? That means ensuring that there are people on staff who vote for both the left and the right and who present their viewpoints as a debate in their medium? Or to put it another way: Is it even possible today to run a newspaper like the Berliner Zeitung, which sees itself as dialectical and thus opinion-pluralistic?

The fight for diversity of opinion should be waged much more vigorously. But managing a diverse editorial team is arguably more strenuous than managing a homogeneous one. Not only do you have to tolerate contradictions within the editorial team, but you also have to tolerate the readership's contradictory reactions to these contradictions. If, on the other hand, you dutifully follow the permitted corridor of opinion and your readership diligently shares it, you can discuss the smallest differences in detail because you avoid the major differences. Many media outlets have replaced the ability to tolerate internal and external contradictions with moral know-it-all attitudes. They don't want to discuss the contradictions of reality, but rather offer their moral stance on these contradictions. We would have a much more intelligent public if all complex topics could actually be openly discussed, with all arguments from all sides. But instead, when it comes to important topics, it is always clear in advance what the "correct opinion" is. This imbalance in the public sphere leads to dumbing down and reactance. Dumbing down as the intellectual part, reactance as the political part.

That sounds like JD Vance and his accusation about the “democratic deficits” in Germany.

I was recently asked about Trump and his fight against wokeness at universities. His description of the symptoms is correct, but his methods in the fight against wokeness are not conducive to improving things; they only polarize further. And Vance was right when he said that in Germany we are sawing off the branch of freedom of expression on which Western societies sit. This particularly applies to our dealings with the AfD. The so-called tolerance paradox is always incompletely cited by the firewall guards. It not only states that there should be no tolerance for intolerance, but it also states that one must not become intolerant oneself in the fight against intolerance. But it is precisely the "good" who are becoming increasingly intolerant in their fight against "evil." If simply naming a problem like irregular migration is considered a "right-wing narrative" and one is then "controversial," we have a problem with freedom of expression.

How do you perceive this at the university and in your work with your students? Aesthetic events are still disciplined by moral categories. The right attitude dominates the diversity of imagination. But that is changing again; the woke peak seems to have been passed. The younger generation, too, is growing unease with its own rigorism. They realize that they are shackling themselves by regulating language codes, emotions, and rigid judgments about what is permissible to show on stage. A certain hysteria in the moral condemnations seems to have been overcome. Instead, there is a growing interest in how to deal more intelligently with the tension between one's own sensitivity and the harsh reality. Not in the sense of getting rid of everything "woke," because a certain sensitivity is very much to be welcomed. But people no longer want to deal with it in such a sectarian way. Many say that we have now reached a certain level of sensitivity, but now we have to get rid of this totalitarian and narcissistic aspect of it. We need to approach this more actively. I think this is a very meaningful discussion, and I'm happy to participate. Looking at things from multiple perspectives, freed from rigid, ignorant beliefs. And less judgmental, self-awareness and more curiosity would do us all good.

Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]