Media: The substitute religion
My head is exploding. Constant input. News from established media outlets, which I can no longer fully believe, is juxtaposed with news from so-called alternative media outlets, which are just as infected with the ideologies of their creators. A real alternative could be social media - X, Instagram, TikTok. But even there, truth is a matter of faith. Hundreds, if not thousands, of posts about incidents around the world are almost impossible to verify for authenticity due to their sheer volume. It's no longer about being objective and well-informed; it's about believing in supposedly correct information and then proselytizing that belief. God is dead. The algorithm lives.
by Daniel Nuber
by Daniel Nuber
As a mid-thirties person, I grew up during the demise of analog society. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, my father owned a Nokia cell phone, built like a brick and good for little more than making phone calls. Televisions were large, wide, and heavy. My Windows 95 computer took several minutes to boot up, and the 56k modem rattled even longer to establish a connection. The flow of information was linear and comparatively slow. Television and radio spoke to us in a straightforward manner; only the faces and voices of the presenters changed from station to station and from program to program; the information and interpretations remained the same. This made life easy. Neither I nor those around me had to decide whether something described in the news actually happened and whether it happened the way it was described - not because there was no ideology among media professionals back then, but because the media music was almost identical everywhere and everywhere, making ideology barely noticeable. And it played less frequently. There was no constant sound, except perhaps on news channels that broadcast continuously, but even then, the reports repeated themselves at a certain interval. Today, I open an app and, in just a few seconds, I receive a confusing array of reports on one and the same event. The same old faces on talk shows then tell me how I should understand that very event, and in the regular news programs, many things are either not mentioned at all or only briefly. Alternative media often report on these events completely differently and don't even try to hide their underlying ideology, naturally claiming to possess the complete truth. Although I see this and notice this attempt at manipulation, it sticks in my brain and unsettles me. How am I supposed to know what is true, what is right?
Not at all. We are all condemned to believe. Among media consumers, there are no unbelievers, no atheists. There are those who believe NIUS and not the Tagesschau, there are those who don't believe either, but rather reports from X or other platforms - but there is no one who believes nothing and no one. This is only logical, because news is fundamentally retrospective. What is being told is usually complete at the time of the telling. Sure, we could verify current news about the Ukraine war, for example, by traveling to Ukraine and checking whether what we read and hear about it is true, but who does that? Only then would we be able to know and wouldn't have to believe. For practical reasons, however, we believe someone and not someone. Unfortunately, we generally believe what we see most often, and in the internet age, we see most often what we consume most often. Essentially, through our usage behavior, we narrow our individual media offerings and thus create the world narrative we would like to have, even if it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Similar to the analog age described above, only the protagonists change, not the content. If a post that doesn't fit our self-created reality does make it into our feed, it is simply taken as confirmation that we are in possession of the truth. Because the truth is disproportionately present, undeniable, and obvious - thanks to the algorithms. The exception ultimately proves the rule, or, in this case: the truth.
The dangerous thing about it is that the internet has become part of reality. The analog and digital worlds are closely intertwined and influence each other. In the form of the user, that is, us humans, it is tactile. The lunatics who spread pure hatred on the internet and find their believers walk the streets, go shopping, perhaps work, and are hateful there too. The sexist old farts who offer young women sex on Instagram and talk about how hard they would take them in their nursing home could be our neighbors - and they can network, forming religious communities that welcome such posts. What's more: they may encourage each other to give free rein to their fantasies in real life and then make the documentation of this available to their online community, which in turn encourages them. A vicious circle. Moreover, the algorithm also contributes to normalizing such shameful communication among them, because at some point it only shows them content that fits their attitudes, thus leading them to believe that it's okay. Extremists from all camps who, under the pretext of national security, spread right-wing or left-wing extremist slogans underPeople who write posts and spread inflammatory videos can network. Of course, the same applies to all those who follow and comment on seemingly harmless topics - such as posts by perfectly staged influencers who never have pimples or diarrhea, and who, with this portrayal, lead insecure personalities to develop complexes that may suffer from both. All these boundlessly inflammatory and perfectly polished posts are lies in whole or in part, but the effects are real. Society is becoming increasingly savaged, the social climate is becoming colder, more antisocial, and more brutal, which is causing the digital climate to become harsher as well. What used to be wars between religious communities is gradually becoming a war between disinformation communities, rooted in one thing: a lack of information. Without the news, I wouldn't even know if a house burned down in the neighboring village. With the news about it, I can only believe I know that it burned down, but I can't reverse it; I can, however, allow myself to be controlled. For example, the message could be interpreted as a call to action, to donate money to the family. Or to go to the city hall and call the fire department. But I could also claim that this is the tenth fire in a few months, that the mayor is just hanging around drunk in the bar, inciting others to do something, and then overthrowing him, even though none of that is true - hardly anyone would check that. That's precisely the problem: algorithms and the posts associated with them only work because the recipients never have all the information necessary to correctly classify the displayed post, and because, at the same time, they are completely unaware of it. It's the game of ignorance that leads to belief. Often, of course, it's less about material events than about moral questions and social interaction. I can look at a burned-down house; someone who has been injured or killed is in the hospital or underground after the incident and is generally inaccessible to me. So I have to believe what I'm told, and the way it's reported emotionally impacts me. I'm no exception. I, too, prefer watching posts that make me angry and emotional rather than those that soberly inform me about the facts. Some people like to read books, many prefer to look at pictures. The latter are grateful victims of disinformation communities. This is also what we are currently experiencing in many countries - including Germany.
I personally see the effects in my social circles. Dissatisfaction with the "conditions in this country" is growing. Hardly anyone can define exactly what this means. Sometimes it's about the rising rates of violent crime, sometimes about the economic situation. Both are demonstrably more than just unsatisfactory, but very few of the people I spoke to know them - and even fewer are affected by the lack of economic growth or the violence itself and are existentially affected. So it's more the feeling that something is wrong that triggers the dissatisfaction. In many street interviews circulating on platforms like YouTube, the picture is similar. "This can't go on like this," is often the response, "something has to change" - but what? And above all: How should it continue? In the battle of the propagandists of the disinformation communities for their followers, they are bombarded with truths and untruths, so that at some point neither the problem nor the solution can be identified; only that everything is somehow stupid, it's clear. Would this dissatisfaction exist if there were no news, no Instagram, no TikTok, and the like? Or would we be much more concerned with literally cleaning up our own backyards and keeping our streets clean? Perhaps then we wouldn't feel quite so helpless in the face of all the suffering that floods our feeds and channels, and perhaps wouldn't have so much suffering to complain about in the first place, because we solve more problems than we create. Extremist forces would then have a much worse chance of generating a fan base by shouting simple solutions to complex problems, because not everyone could portray themselves as a victim of every event they've read about, even though they haven't actually been personally affected by it.
The internet has brought the tragedies of humanity much closer to home. This has its upside: the global community is informed when deadly wars break out, massacres take place, and other atrocities occur. Far too often, it stands by and does nothing, and yet: how many more military conflicts, how much more murderAnd manslaughter would exist without public attention? The public can protect. However, it should learn to deal with information and disinformation and limit the input responsibly. Because the feeling that my head is about to explode is primarily due to the sheer volume of all this that is pouring in. All of us who make up the public can also endanger ourselves if we allow ourselves to be manipulated into considering extremes to be good - no matter what they are. Even water, which is essential for our survival, is fatal if consumed in excess.
It's certainly difficult. Because I'm not the only one who has a passion for watching horrific events, presented in the most sensational and emotional way possible so that they stir and captivate me - others have it too. With apps closed, and perhaps my phone on silent so that no inflated breaking news alerts make the device vibrate, analog conversations follow about what we humans do to one another. Bombs on cities, tanks on streets, bullets in bodies, knives in throats. Right-wing nationalists are grabbing power in many countries and gaining it through elections. Why is all this happening? Then the real, analog war of the disinformation believers begins in the form of dialogues. I have friends who primarily blame "foreigners" for everything, by which they really don't mean foreign citizens as such, but Muslims. Others believe that rampant capitalism is to blame, leaving too many people behind who then resort to violence. Some are also not averse to the idea of a deep state, that is, people who secretly conduct global politics, over which no one - except themselves - has any influence anyway. Politics, elections, the Bundestag - it's all just farce! Really? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there's a little bit of truth and a little bit of falsehood in everything.
In addition to reducing news of all kinds, it would also be a sensible, helpful admission that world events are complicated, complex, and extremely opaque. No one has absolute influence on what happens, and no one possesses the complete truth - and thus no one can offer a solution. Essentially, everything we--political parties, chancellors, and presidents--do is based on one principle: trial and error. But history teaches us what definitely works and what definitely doesn't. National Socialism demonstrably didn't work. Hatred of certain population groups is neither a problem nor a solution, but simply degenerate and idiotic--a tendency we should have overcome in the face of human history. Democracy works, but it's exhausting. Being well-informed also works--but it's also exhausting. Living in an age where anyone can be an information provider and propagandist will probably be one of the ideas that certainly didn't work well in a few years or decades. But for that to happen, we first have to end the war of the disinformation believers. We're still in the middle of it. My effective weapons: reduce media consumption and sometimes switch off completely to clear our minds before it explodes. Everyone enters the battlefield of information and disinformation themselves, and everyone can also leave it independently. Imagine it's an information war and no one is online.
February 17, 2025
©Daniel Nuber
Daniel Nuber, born in 1990 and a health and social services specialist, is jointly responsible for the day-to-day operations of one of the largest intensive care units in Bavaria. His private life is filled with passion for politics, history, and travel.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "SONGS & STORIES"
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "HE\\\\\\'S BACK"
Not at all. We are all condemned to believe. Among media consumers, there are no unbelievers, no atheists. There are those who believe NIUS and not the Tagesschau, there are those who don't believe either, but rather reports from X or other platforms - but there is no one who believes nothing and no one. This is only logical, because news is fundamentally retrospective. What is being told is usually complete at the time of the telling. Sure, we could verify current news about the Ukraine war, for example, by traveling to Ukraine and checking whether what we read and hear about it is true, but who does that? Only then would we be able to know and wouldn't have to believe. For practical reasons, however, we believe someone and not someone. Unfortunately, we generally believe what we see most often, and in the internet age, we see most often what we consume most often. Essentially, through our usage behavior, we narrow our individual media offerings and thus create the world narrative we would like to have, even if it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Similar to the analog age described above, only the protagonists change, not the content. If a post that doesn't fit our self-created reality does make it into our feed, it is simply taken as confirmation that we are in possession of the truth. Because the truth is disproportionately present, undeniable, and obvious - thanks to the algorithms. The exception ultimately proves the rule, or, in this case: the truth.
The dangerous thing about it is that the internet has become part of reality. The analog and digital worlds are closely intertwined and influence each other. In the form of the user, that is, us humans, it is tactile. The lunatics who spread pure hatred on the internet and find their believers walk the streets, go shopping, perhaps work, and are hateful there too. The sexist old farts who offer young women sex on Instagram and talk about how hard they would take them in their nursing home could be our neighbors - and they can network, forming religious communities that welcome such posts. What's more: they may encourage each other to give free rein to their fantasies in real life and then make the documentation of this available to their online community, which in turn encourages them. A vicious circle. Moreover, the algorithm also contributes to normalizing such shameful communication among them, because at some point it only shows them content that fits their attitudes, thus leading them to believe that it's okay. Extremists from all camps who, under the pretext of national security, spread right-wing or left-wing extremist slogans underPeople who write posts and spread inflammatory videos can network. Of course, the same applies to all those who follow and comment on seemingly harmless topics - such as posts by perfectly staged influencers who never have pimples or diarrhea, and who, with this portrayal, lead insecure personalities to develop complexes that may suffer from both. All these boundlessly inflammatory and perfectly polished posts are lies in whole or in part, but the effects are real. Society is becoming increasingly savaged, the social climate is becoming colder, more antisocial, and more brutal, which is causing the digital climate to become harsher as well. What used to be wars between religious communities is gradually becoming a war between disinformation communities, rooted in one thing: a lack of information. Without the news, I wouldn't even know if a house burned down in the neighboring village. With the news about it, I can only believe I know that it burned down, but I can't reverse it; I can, however, allow myself to be controlled. For example, the message could be interpreted as a call to action, to donate money to the family. Or to go to the city hall and call the fire department. But I could also claim that this is the tenth fire in a few months, that the mayor is just hanging around drunk in the bar, inciting others to do something, and then overthrowing him, even though none of that is true - hardly anyone would check that. That's precisely the problem: algorithms and the posts associated with them only work because the recipients never have all the information necessary to correctly classify the displayed post, and because, at the same time, they are completely unaware of it. It's the game of ignorance that leads to belief. Often, of course, it's less about material events than about moral questions and social interaction. I can look at a burned-down house; someone who has been injured or killed is in the hospital or underground after the incident and is generally inaccessible to me. So I have to believe what I'm told, and the way it's reported emotionally impacts me. I'm no exception. I, too, prefer watching posts that make me angry and emotional rather than those that soberly inform me about the facts. Some people like to read books, many prefer to look at pictures. The latter are grateful victims of disinformation communities. This is also what we are currently experiencing in many countries - including Germany.
I personally see the effects in my social circles. Dissatisfaction with the "conditions in this country" is growing. Hardly anyone can define exactly what this means. Sometimes it's about the rising rates of violent crime, sometimes about the economic situation. Both are demonstrably more than just unsatisfactory, but very few of the people I spoke to know them - and even fewer are affected by the lack of economic growth or the violence itself and are existentially affected. So it's more the feeling that something is wrong that triggers the dissatisfaction. In many street interviews circulating on platforms like YouTube, the picture is similar. "This can't go on like this," is often the response, "something has to change" - but what? And above all: How should it continue? In the battle of the propagandists of the disinformation communities for their followers, they are bombarded with truths and untruths, so that at some point neither the problem nor the solution can be identified; only that everything is somehow stupid, it's clear. Would this dissatisfaction exist if there were no news, no Instagram, no TikTok, and the like? Or would we be much more concerned with literally cleaning up our own backyards and keeping our streets clean? Perhaps then we wouldn't feel quite so helpless in the face of all the suffering that floods our feeds and channels, and perhaps wouldn't have so much suffering to complain about in the first place, because we solve more problems than we create. Extremist forces would then have a much worse chance of generating a fan base by shouting simple solutions to complex problems, because not everyone could portray themselves as a victim of every event they've read about, even though they haven't actually been personally affected by it.
The internet has brought the tragedies of humanity much closer to home. This has its upside: the global community is informed when deadly wars break out, massacres take place, and other atrocities occur. Far too often, it stands by and does nothing, and yet: how many more military conflicts, how much more murderAnd manslaughter would exist without public attention? The public can protect. However, it should learn to deal with information and disinformation and limit the input responsibly. Because the feeling that my head is about to explode is primarily due to the sheer volume of all this that is pouring in. All of us who make up the public can also endanger ourselves if we allow ourselves to be manipulated into considering extremes to be good - no matter what they are. Even water, which is essential for our survival, is fatal if consumed in excess.
It's certainly difficult. Because I'm not the only one who has a passion for watching horrific events, presented in the most sensational and emotional way possible so that they stir and captivate me - others have it too. With apps closed, and perhaps my phone on silent so that no inflated breaking news alerts make the device vibrate, analog conversations follow about what we humans do to one another. Bombs on cities, tanks on streets, bullets in bodies, knives in throats. Right-wing nationalists are grabbing power in many countries and gaining it through elections. Why is all this happening? Then the real, analog war of the disinformation believers begins in the form of dialogues. I have friends who primarily blame "foreigners" for everything, by which they really don't mean foreign citizens as such, but Muslims. Others believe that rampant capitalism is to blame, leaving too many people behind who then resort to violence. Some are also not averse to the idea of a deep state, that is, people who secretly conduct global politics, over which no one - except themselves - has any influence anyway. Politics, elections, the Bundestag - it's all just farce! Really? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there's a little bit of truth and a little bit of falsehood in everything.
In addition to reducing news of all kinds, it would also be a sensible, helpful admission that world events are complicated, complex, and extremely opaque. No one has absolute influence on what happens, and no one possesses the complete truth - and thus no one can offer a solution. Essentially, everything we--political parties, chancellors, and presidents--do is based on one principle: trial and error. But history teaches us what definitely works and what definitely doesn't. National Socialism demonstrably didn't work. Hatred of certain population groups is neither a problem nor a solution, but simply degenerate and idiotic--a tendency we should have overcome in the face of human history. Democracy works, but it's exhausting. Being well-informed also works--but it's also exhausting. Living in an age where anyone can be an information provider and propagandist will probably be one of the ideas that certainly didn't work well in a few years or decades. But for that to happen, we first have to end the war of the disinformation believers. We're still in the middle of it. My effective weapons: reduce media consumption and sometimes switch off completely to clear our minds before it explodes. Everyone enters the battlefield of information and disinformation themselves, and everyone can also leave it independently. Imagine it's an information war and no one is online.
February 17, 2025
©Daniel Nuber
Daniel Nuber, born in 1990 and a health and social services specialist, is jointly responsible for the day-to-day operations of one of the largest intensive care units in Bavaria. His private life is filled with passion for politics, history, and travel.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW BOOK
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "SONGS & STORIES"
TICKETS FOR THE SHOW "HE\\\\\\'S BACK"
Write a comment