Moral spectacles and shitstorms: How outrage replaces the presumption of innocence
What's sold as morality is often nothing more than public condemnation.
Remaining silent during a moral spectacle has become a mark of distinction. Those who don't participate in today's often completely uninhibited shitstorms reveal their ethos and their moral compass. This compass may well be more moral than that of the hypocritically outraged, the attention-seeking mob.
By Nina Kirsch
Remaining silent during a moral spectacle has become a mark of distinction. Those who don't participate in today's often completely uninhibited shitstorms reveal their ethos and their moral compass. This compass may well be more moral than that of the hypocritically outraged, the attention-seeking mob.
By Nina Kirsch
Even more problematic than Daniel Günther's already outrageous outburst is his position. The man is the incumbent Minister-President of Schleswig-Holstein and likely has higher career aspirations. However, he wasn't invited to Lanz's talk show as a rambling private citizen, but as Minister-President. And as such, he is, by virtue of his office, a constitutional body.
This is precisely why the online portal NIUS filed a lawsuit with the Flensburg Administrative Court. A state, by its very nature, does not possess fundamental rights. Fundamental rights serve to protect citizens from the state. If a state constitutional body speaks condescendingly about citizens who enjoy precisely these fundamental rights, then, according to numerous legal experts, this is unlawful.
That Daniel Günther adheres to such a line of thinking is scandalous and demonstrates how unsuitable he is for his position. "Kiel Jong Un" and his bizarre demands are rightly irritating and should shake us all awake. If such a demand came from the mouth of an AfD politician, the calls for their resignation would be deafening.
Because you don't have to read NIUS or even like it. But to deny the portal its right to exist because of unfavorable reporting is authoritarian--indeed, fascist. But that's how it is with ideologies.
But back to the actual topic:
What really happened on the infamous Lanz show?
Well, Daniel Günther demanded--as the discerning reader has probably already deduced--a ban on unfavorable press. As a government representative, Günther should know that the prohibition of censorship is one of the cornerstones of our constitution. Oops.
This demand shocked even the experienced showmaster Markus Lanz so much that he immediately pressed him for clarification. Lanz's exact words:
"What you're saying right now is basically: We have to..." "Regulate it, or if necessary, even ban it?"
"We may have to regulate it, or even ban it altogether." Günther replied, "Yes."
A short, strategically placed pause followed. Günther then attempted to reframe his fascist-like gaffe in the context of social media. However, this reframing made no sense.
The shitstorm erupted--and so did Lanz. It was an extremely aggressive, disreputable, and fundamentally unjournalistic one. In the subsequent broadcast, as is typical of the Lanz Tribunals he's been known for since the pandemic, he attacked an easy target: Beatrix von Storch.
He lied. He played distorted clips, constantly interrupted her, dominated her speech, and claimed that none of it had ever happened that way. He, Lanz, knew exactly what Günther had said and--allegedly--meant. This is a clear case of gaslighting.
Almost in the style of the Stasi, he asked the visibly perplexed von Storch where she had seen this supposedly non-existent clip. "Nothing? Nothing? Nothing?" NIUS???
Ironically, the otherwise so unlikeable AfD politician Beatrix von Storch garnered sympathy and solidarity as the victim of this unfair attack. Lanz once again--surely unintentionally--promoted the AfD.
Lanz, who wanted to discredit von Storch, NIUS, and "the free internet," ended up discrediting himself most of all. That's what happens with narcissistic hubris. However, no one had anticipated an even bigger media player.
For now, Julian Reichelt, former editor-in-chief of BILD and current managing director of NIUS, entered the media arena. And Reichelt broke with an unwritten consensus among media professionals: He revealed--supported by screenshots and interviews--that Markus Lanz had called him immediately after the Günther broadcast to express his outrage at Günther's statements.
It is now evident: The ZDF millionaire, with a princely annual salary of around 1.9 million euros, had lied.
This reveals his character and his lack of professionalism--but that's not the real political issue.
Because when a public broadcaster's presenter actively downplays a politician's statements, maliciously attacks other guests, and convinces viewers that they never saw or heard anything that was actually said, then one has to seriously question to what extent Lanz--aSome commentators, like Spiegel bestseller author Leonie Plaar, seem to be in a veritable blood frenzy. The fact that this constitutes various criminal offenses, such as incitement to hatred, may seem secondary. From a milieu where the knee-jerk reaction is usually "silence means consent," no criticism is forthcoming. In fact, criticism is no longer welcome at all.
This milieu relies on intimidation rather than reasoned arguments online. Critics--no matter how justified or carefully their criticisms are expressed--are then accused of nothing less than protecting the perpetrators. But who are the perpetrators here? Or are they women?
Absurd statements like "All men..." exhibit fascist characteristics. Condemning people wholesale based on their origin, religion, or gender, and then collectively carrying out inhumane measures like a public, media-driven execution, reveals profound depravity and demonstrates how susceptible these groups still are to fascist thought patterns.
Thus, through totalitarian combat mechanisms, supposed advocates for victims are transformed into a bloodthirsty group of perpetrators.
From the land of poets and thinkers to the land of judges and executioners. All online--and yet real violence, which, as Federal Minister of Justice Dr. Stefanie Hubig recently announced, is to be punished just as severely as real-life violence.
Whether the respective accusations are true is irrelevant. Because if the presumption of innocence is undermined by a rampaging, barbaric online mob, we lose one of the greatest achievements of civilization.
This staged morality leads not only to cheap populism and frantic symbolic politics, but directly to mob justice.
In the process, victims in our society, which is increasingly developing into a victim culture, are receiving more attention than ever before. Victim culture means that it is no longer solely law enforcement agencies, but an unqualified and uninhibited public that passes judgment.
Those affected, like the author herself, are allowed and able to speak about their suffering on magazine covers, in books, talk shows, and campaigns, as well as freely on social media. Their supporters are often men. They ask insightful questions. They want to understand the mechanisms behind structures of violence and educate the public.
Our society has generally become more sensitive and open to discrimination of any kind. This is undoubtedly a great status quo.
But is this fundamentally positive development fostered by online hate campaigns? Apparently not.
Because this moral narcissism isn't about real victims and their rights, but about the dominance and prestige of a group of so-called general activists, primarily from the left.
It's a shame, because this obscures the fact that men aren't the problem per se, but rather the perpetrators. This requires a minimum level of differentiation instead of the constant hyper-moralizing generalizations.
Our society has generally become more sensitive and open to discrimination of any kind. A more far-sighted approach: to listen calmly to all those affected--not just those whose alleged perpetrator is prominent and therefore suitable for campaign purposes--and not to ignore, downplay, or suppress victims of real physical violence in the legitimate debate about virtual violence.
In this way, no victim would be alone. That would be true solidarity.
03 26, 2026
By Nina Kirsch
I am a single mother of a little angel, have worked internationally as a model for over 10 years, study health psychology on weekends, work as an entrepreneur, and am a volunteer judge in Berlin.
This is precisely why the online portal NIUS filed a lawsuit with the Flensburg Administrative Court. A state, by its very nature, does not possess fundamental rights. Fundamental rights serve to protect citizens from the state. If a state constitutional body speaks condescendingly about citizens who enjoy precisely these fundamental rights, then, according to numerous legal experts, this is unlawful.
That Daniel Günther adheres to such a line of thinking is scandalous and demonstrates how unsuitable he is for his position. "Kiel Jong Un" and his bizarre demands are rightly irritating and should shake us all awake. If such a demand came from the mouth of an AfD politician, the calls for their resignation would be deafening.
Because you don't have to read NIUS or even like it. But to deny the portal its right to exist because of unfavorable reporting is authoritarian--indeed, fascist. But that's how it is with ideologies.
But back to the actual topic:
What really happened on the infamous Lanz show?
Well, Daniel Günther demanded--as the discerning reader has probably already deduced--a ban on unfavorable press. As a government representative, Günther should know that the prohibition of censorship is one of the cornerstones of our constitution. Oops.
This demand shocked even the experienced showmaster Markus Lanz so much that he immediately pressed him for clarification. Lanz's exact words:
"What you're saying right now is basically: We have to..." "Regulate it, or if necessary, even ban it?"
"We may have to regulate it, or even ban it altogether." Günther replied, "Yes."
A short, strategically placed pause followed. Günther then attempted to reframe his fascist-like gaffe in the context of social media. However, this reframing made no sense.
The shitstorm erupted--and so did Lanz. It was an extremely aggressive, disreputable, and fundamentally unjournalistic one. In the subsequent broadcast, as is typical of the Lanz Tribunals he's been known for since the pandemic, he attacked an easy target: Beatrix von Storch.
He lied. He played distorted clips, constantly interrupted her, dominated her speech, and claimed that none of it had ever happened that way. He, Lanz, knew exactly what Günther had said and--allegedly--meant. This is a clear case of gaslighting.
Almost in the style of the Stasi, he asked the visibly perplexed von Storch where she had seen this supposedly non-existent clip. "Nothing? Nothing? Nothing?" NIUS???
Ironically, the otherwise so unlikeable AfD politician Beatrix von Storch garnered sympathy and solidarity as the victim of this unfair attack. Lanz once again--surely unintentionally--promoted the AfD.
Lanz, who wanted to discredit von Storch, NIUS, and "the free internet," ended up discrediting himself most of all. That's what happens with narcissistic hubris. However, no one had anticipated an even bigger media player.
For now, Julian Reichelt, former editor-in-chief of BILD and current managing director of NIUS, entered the media arena. And Reichelt broke with an unwritten consensus among media professionals: He revealed--supported by screenshots and interviews--that Markus Lanz had called him immediately after the Günther broadcast to express his outrage at Günther's statements.
It is now evident: The ZDF millionaire, with a princely annual salary of around 1.9 million euros, had lied.
This reveals his character and his lack of professionalism--but that's not the real political issue.
Because when a public broadcaster's presenter actively downplays a politician's statements, maliciously attacks other guests, and convinces viewers that they never saw or heard anything that was actually said, then one has to seriously question to what extent Lanz--aSome commentators, like Spiegel bestseller author Leonie Plaar, seem to be in a veritable blood frenzy. The fact that this constitutes various criminal offenses, such as incitement to hatred, may seem secondary. From a milieu where the knee-jerk reaction is usually "silence means consent," no criticism is forthcoming. In fact, criticism is no longer welcome at all.
This milieu relies on intimidation rather than reasoned arguments online. Critics--no matter how justified or carefully their criticisms are expressed--are then accused of nothing less than protecting the perpetrators. But who are the perpetrators here? Or are they women?
Absurd statements like "All men..." exhibit fascist characteristics. Condemning people wholesale based on their origin, religion, or gender, and then collectively carrying out inhumane measures like a public, media-driven execution, reveals profound depravity and demonstrates how susceptible these groups still are to fascist thought patterns.
Thus, through totalitarian combat mechanisms, supposed advocates for victims are transformed into a bloodthirsty group of perpetrators.
From the land of poets and thinkers to the land of judges and executioners. All online--and yet real violence, which, as Federal Minister of Justice Dr. Stefanie Hubig recently announced, is to be punished just as severely as real-life violence.
Whether the respective accusations are true is irrelevant. Because if the presumption of innocence is undermined by a rampaging, barbaric online mob, we lose one of the greatest achievements of civilization.
This staged morality leads not only to cheap populism and frantic symbolic politics, but directly to mob justice.
In the process, victims in our society, which is increasingly developing into a victim culture, are receiving more attention than ever before. Victim culture means that it is no longer solely law enforcement agencies, but an unqualified and uninhibited public that passes judgment.
Those affected, like the author herself, are allowed and able to speak about their suffering on magazine covers, in books, talk shows, and campaigns, as well as freely on social media. Their supporters are often men. They ask insightful questions. They want to understand the mechanisms behind structures of violence and educate the public.
Our society has generally become more sensitive and open to discrimination of any kind. This is undoubtedly a great status quo.
But is this fundamentally positive development fostered by online hate campaigns? Apparently not.
Because this moral narcissism isn't about real victims and their rights, but about the dominance and prestige of a group of so-called general activists, primarily from the left.
It's a shame, because this obscures the fact that men aren't the problem per se, but rather the perpetrators. This requires a minimum level of differentiation instead of the constant hyper-moralizing generalizations.
Our society has generally become more sensitive and open to discrimination of any kind. A more far-sighted approach: to listen calmly to all those affected--not just those whose alleged perpetrator is prominent and therefore suitable for campaign purposes--and not to ignore, downplay, or suppress victims of real physical violence in the legitimate debate about virtual violence.
In this way, no victim would be alone. That would be true solidarity.
03 26, 2026
By Nina Kirsch
I am a single mother of a little angel, have worked internationally as a model for over 10 years, study health psychology on weekends, work as an entrepreneur, and am a volunteer judge in Berlin.
Write a comment