German News Outlets’ Responses to the ‘Lügenpresse’ Attacks

The next speaker at ICA 2018 is Michael Koliska, who highlights the re-emerges of the German term ‘Lügenpresse’ as an attack on the press that is somewhat similar to the term ‘fake news’ in the Anglophone world. In addition to such insults, there has also been an increasing number of physical attacks on members of the press in recent years.

The term has a long pre-history in Germany; it was used by extremist political groups (and especially the Nazis) since the 1920s, and also re-emerged several times during the social struggles of the 1960s and 70s. The term challenges some of the core institutional norms and myths of mainstream journalism: it denies the neutrality and objectivity of mainstream journalism that is closely tied with the overall legitimacy of journalism as a profession and industry.

Attacked in this way, then, how do journalists and their news organisations attempt to defend and reinforce their professional legitimacy? The project interviewed some 23 German news editors across a range of major news organisations, and identified a number of key themes.

First, editors understood the attack as claiming direct alignment and collusion between news outlets and the political leadership, and this undermines the perceived independence of the news. Second, many pointed to the personal and sometimes physical nature of the attacks motivated by the term. Third, some editors understood some of the public cynicism towards the press, but most strongly defended the integrity of the news media. Fourth, some news outlets carefully reviewed their own coverage and found very little evidence of any institutional bias, but took further measures to clarify the language of their coverage.

External strategies for dealing with such attacks included lawsuits against libellous allegations; direct personal engagement with attackers; an increase in the publication of explanatory articles that demystified news coverage; and an increase in the direct coverage of public events by journalists, in order to generate more first-hand evidence.

Journalists see these attacks as a wake-up call, but not as a reason for introducing fundamental changes. Rather, some of their institutional practices are further reinforced by these attacks.