Reviewed by Beatrice Dernbach
What an uproar. In fall 2022, the media sector was hit by a hurricane: Richard David Precht and Harald Welzer’s book Die Vierte Gewalt. Wie die Mehrheitsmeinung gemacht wird, auch wenn sie keine ist made waves. In my three decades of teaching and research in media and communication studies and many years working as a journalist in newspaper editorial offices – long before digitalization and the establishment of »direct media« –, I cannot remember another book on media ever having spent months on the bestseller lists or having triggered such outrage in the sector. Having watched various interviews and talk show appearances by the authors, and read many (mainly) negative reviews, I bought the book in mid-October. Philosopher Precht (Wer bin ich – und wenn ja, wie viele?) and sociologist, social psychologist, and future researcher Welzer have remained true to the attitude I had perceived in them: The feeling that their sometimes maudlin (especially Precht) and often arrogant (especially Welzer) style evokes in me (and not just me) is more defensive than sympathetic. Yet I still wanted to get to the bottom of the storm without these feelings clouding my judgment. Given my own practical experience and my academic knowledge, the (new) findings are far outweighed by the sense of déjà-vu. The text is neither distinctive nor particularly original. The authors frequently use showy language that is very similar to the subjects of their critique. They describe the increasing tabloidization of the serious newspapers of record (which has been proven to exist and is referred to as convergence) as a »culture of assholery« (p. 10), lament the »collective narrowing of plurality« (p. 65), are amazed at the »peculiar placelessness of the newspapers of record« (p. 99), and, in the chapter on »Gala journalism studies,« attack the Deputy Chief Editor of Welt, Robin Alexander. His tweets from the coalition negotiations in October 2019 are »read with great excitement in the meetings […], which appears to trigger informational diarrhea among the participants and now everything has to come out« (p. 115). And they create the term »cursor journalism,« which I do not understand to this day.
More impressive are Precht and Welzer’s conclusions. Although the very first sentence contains a glaring grammatical error, I agree with the main premise of the book: »Germany, one of the freest countries [error in the German original] in the world, has a problem with the sense of free speech« (p. 7). In terms of content, a lot reminds me of Siegfried Weischenberg’s book Medienkrise und Medienkrieg [Media crisis and media war] (2018). An academic in journalism studies and (former) practitioner, he is also highly critical in addressing the »crisis of modern journalism.« But his work is harder to read and (sadly) never achieved the public attention that the topic deserves.
Many practitioners reacted with poison;[1] academics in media and communication studies took a more moderate tone, albeit some with a hefty dose of sarcasm. Bernhard Pörksen analyzes Precht and Welzer’s work as a »lesson in four acts that reveals the mechanisms and deficits of the public discourse as if under a magnifying glass:« The first act builds suspense – the fire is lit, and scandal implied; the second act attacks and disparages; the third act is dominated by »hyperventilation« and »excesses of attention;« the scene of the final act is defined by »new hostility« and »false balance.« Pörksen does admit that there needs to be more »hard-hitting investigative media journalism« – not least in order to reach the »editorial society« that he himself has created. Yet he also expounds the view (shared by other academics) that Precht and Welzer have discredited themselves, arguing that although they are »certainly no hooligans from the lying press, [they are] left-wing liberals with strong opinions whose book now feeds into the typical talk show script for the role of dazzling protester against political correctness.« But so much »media-critical populism« is impossible.
Do Precht and Welzer really paint a »distorted image free from empirical evidence« (Pörksen)? I don’t think so. It is more like free from theory – but they never claimed to want to reflect on or ground what they have observed scientifically. They call for more pluralism in media debates on politics, less personalization in the tonality of defamation, more listening, and less hitting out. As a philosopher and a social psychologist, in my view both of them know what they are talking about at a meta level: the state of society in general and the loss of freedom of speech in particular – not how it is suppressed in autocracies and dictatorships by domination, power, and violence, but how it is influenced by ratings, mainstreaming, and echo chambers. Their central question is therefore: »How can a liberal democracy with a plural media landscape endanger itself?« In the eleven chapters, they provide experiences, examples (focused on the three topics of the war in Ukraine, migration, and the pandemic), and evidence, refer to studies and surveys, and analyze causes and effects. None of it is new. But it seems to be triggering when compressed in this way.
Yes, Precht and Welzer are exploiting their fame. In doing so, they are in the company of other critical intellectuals including, for example, Juli Zeh (lawyer and author). She, too, thinks about the present and future of society, albeit in a different style. She takes clear positions, writes popular books, but does not enjoy making public appearances as much as some of her male colleagues do (cf. Simon 2023).
Richard David Precht and Harald Welzer know how media work. It is cheap to accuse them of using exactly these mechanisms to become (even more?) famous. Not least because the media themselves – from NDR-Talkshow to SPIEGEL to Medium Magazin – seem to have been keen to invite the pair on in order to gain attention and increase ratings.
What are we left with? The knowledge that the fundamental debate on the role of the media in society is far from over and needs to be continued – but that the current tone is all wrong. The memory of the time as a deskman, when journalism by official statement and opinion-driven reporting existed even decades ago and was not fought by everyone. The insight as a journalism researcher that the demands on the German media system are rightly very tough. Although there is room for improvement, overall the balance is positive compared to the many worse systems around the world. I follow the example of one of my journalistic heroes, Theo Sommer, who died in August 2022 at the age of 92 and always held fast to three principles: Say what is. Say what it means. Monitor those with power. Journalists need to protect themselves against three other variants: enactment journalism, unrestrained attack journalism, and »bookmaker journalism that treats political processes like horse races: All that matters is who is in front and who is trailing.« Sommer demonstrated an opinion, Precht and Welzer a pugnacious position. They have every right to do so. And it is good that they use that right.
About the reviewer
Dr. Beatrice Dernbach is Professor of Practical Journalism in the program Technical Journalism/Technical PR at TH Nuremberg. She has held a research professorship in sustainability and science communication since October 2021. Her focus areas include specialized journalism, sustainability, and ecology in journalism, narration and trust in journalism, and science communication.
Translation: Sophie Costella
References
Pörksen, Bernhard (2022): Lauter Ungeheuer. Wie ein populistisches Thesenbuch über die Macht der Medien zum Bestseller wurde. Ein Drama in vier Akten. In: SPIEGEL no. 46, dated 12 November 2022, pp. 58-59.
Simon, Jana (2023): Am Schmerzpunkt (Portrait über Juli Zeh). In: ZEIT Magazin no. 2, dated 5 January 2023, pp. 14-22.
Sommer, Theo (2022): Mein Ideal einer (fast) vollkommenen Zeitung. In: DIE ZEIT no. 47, dated 17 November 2022, pp. 21.
Sommer, Theo (2022): Zeit meines Lebens: Erinnerungen eines Journalisten. Berlin: Propyläen.
Weischenberg, Siegfried (2018): Medienkrise und Medienkrieg. Brauchen wir überhaupt noch Journalismus? Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
About this book
Richard David Precht und Harald Welzer: Die Vierte Gewalt. Wie Mehrheitsmeinung gemacht wird, auch wenn sie keine ist. [The Fourth Estate. How majority opinion is formed, even if it isn’t one.] Frankfurt/M.: S. Fischer 2022, 288 pages, EUR 22.
Footnote
1 To name just two examples: Stefan Niggemeier at https://uebermedien.de/77737/das-buch-von-precht-und-welzer-ist-fast-so-richtig-wie-die-bahn-puenktlich/ and Stephan-Götz Richter at https://www.focus.de/politik/meinung/gastbeitrag-von-stephan-goetz-richter-precht-und-welzer-der-irrweg-von-deutschlands-anderen-beleidigten-leberwuersten_id_158924519.html