At the beginning of the 22nd century, people like to talk about freedom of opinion in a democracy. From the most diverse groups, interest groups and client lists. But it is precisely these people who are also practicing cancel culture, the attempt to silence dissenters.

There have been differences of opinion since time immemorial, which can degenerate into battles of opinion for various reasons. However, these differences of opinion do not disappear if one of these parties is to be silenced by media power, mainstream opinion and manipulation of the other side. The result is simply a hardened front that, in the worst-case scenario, can tear through society as a whole.

In the past, taboos were used to keep the dialog between opposing parties open without having to touch on sensitive topics that could lead to discord or even harassment. In modern societies, it should actually be possible to have a taboo-free discussion on all topics from divergent opinion groups.

But if you don’t give others room to think differently, if everything is always without alternative, then you have reached the end of any discussion.

Regardless of the topic, a discussion in a neutral, objective style should always be possible, as there can never be agreement on all topics in societies.

Journalists attach great importance to freedom of the press and anonymization of their sources. What you unfortunately do not value is quality journalism, balanced reporting and critical illumination of important factual issues.

This is reflected in the work you deliver every day. Deplorable and pathetic, the poor workmanship is driving away more and more readers and subscribers. And rightly so.

But where does the discrepancy between self-perception and actual journalistic work come from? Why is there no look at other countries where quality journalism is still possible in marginalized areas and which could serve as a positive example?

Why is the level of your own standards so low that most published texts can only be subsumed under scribbling? Where is the professional pride and the ethos of the past to be enlightening and informative and to limit oneself to the important and essential?

The majority of content is cross-published, bought in or, it seems, agreed with competitors. Interchangeable and arbitrary content, interchangeable and arbitrary publishers, interchangeable and arbitrary authors.

Why are highlights of journalistic work so rare and the vast majority of publications completely irrelevant?

Journalists struggle with various adversities:

• Your own hubris
• The own inability
• The own phlegm
• The minimum value standards of one’s own work
• The learned scissors in the head
• The prevailing cost pressure
• Indirect pressure from politicians and publishers

As a result, mediocrity is still a euphemism to describe journalism published in Germany in the 21st century.

See also: Mainstream, Krüger Uwe