Who is the enemy of democracy here?
Censorship fetish fantasies and clearly defined enemy images only partially fit together--at least if one interprets Daniel Günther's statements as various journalists' associations, several renowned journalists and lawyers, and Marion Horn, the current editor-in-chief of BILD, do.
By Nina Kirsch
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--and public broadcasting as a whole--is pandering to politicians.
Lanz had indeed understood Günther's statements correctly. This is demonstrated by both his reaction on the show and his phone call to Reichelt. He recognized the explosive nature of the situation--as did all the viewers.
What is particularly unfortunate, and gets lost in the noise of the media industry, which has long since degenerated into a shark tank, is the one point that would actually have been worth discussing: Daniel Günther's demand for a social media ban for those under 16.
This demand should be seriously discussed across party lines and media platforms to protect our children. However, since we have largely lost the ability to engage in discourse and a culture of debate,It will probably remain just a demand.
Yet, given what adult men like Lanz exemplify on public television--or what ambitious X-users dump online daily--minors should indeed be protected for as long as possible.
But that would be material for another article.
One about the "media landscape."
Incidentally, Lanz once took over the cityscape debate from NIUS.
Again.
January 20, 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--and public broadcasting as a whole--is pandering to politicians.
Lanz had indeed understood Günther's statements correctly. This is demonstrated by both his reaction on the show and his phone call to Reichelt. He recognized the explosive nature of the situation--as did all the viewers.
What is particularly unfortunate, and gets lost in the noise of the media industry, which has long since degenerated into a shark tank, is the one point that would actually have been worth discussing: Daniel Günther's demand for a social media ban for those under 16.
This demand should be seriously discussed across party lines and media platforms to protect our children. However, since we have largely lost the ability to engage in discourse and a culture of debate,It will probably remain just a demand.
Yet, given what adult men like Lanz exemplify on public television--or what ambitious X-users dump online daily--minors should indeed be protected for as long as possible.
But that would be material for another article.
One about the "media landscape."
Incidentally, Lanz once took over the cityscape debate from NIUS.
Again.
January 20, 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