Verengte Meinungskorridore: Sind Shitstorms Teil der Normalität? | Markus Lanz vom 27. November 2025

In 2022, I think, Richard Barstooz, you signed an open letter in which you spoke out against further arms deliveries to Ukraine. No, I didn't sign the famous rumor. But in the summer of 2022, I signed an appeal for more diplomatic peace efforts against Russia. Which doesn't make any difference. No, Which doesn't make any difference. No, what doesn't make any difference is that I didn't sign the open letter for arms delivery.

Because we had already started with arms delivery. And to start with arms delivery and then say from the sky, oh no, we thought differently, of course that's not possible. That's why I didn't sign the letter. But I was always of the opinion that if we deliver weapons, we have to work much, much harder as Germany, as the European Union, to achieve peace and to undertake much stronger diplomatic missions.

And we haven't been successful in all these years, as we know. So, and you write that it was quasi-dogma that Ukraine had to lead to victory militarily with the help of weapons. At the moment we have a peace plan that gives up this idea once and for all. to What does it mean to be treated badly in this context? Well, the problem I have with this is that in the surveys on the subject of arms deliveries, it was about 40% of the population who were actually more against arms deliveries to Ukraine. But in the crew of the talk shows, there was always only one person who was against it in case of doubt, and the others were all in agreement that they were in favor of it.

And of course, this was not an adequate return of the mood in the population. In view of diplomatic missions, there was always a clear majority in the population who said, we have to do more diplomatic work. But also in talk shows, these were the rarely occupied positions. And you can see why that was the case. If you were in this talk show and said, I see this as critical,

you had to expect that the next day in all the media it would be said that you told strange things, that you are a Putin supporter, etc. That means we quickly labelled someone who expressed this opinion and tried to put their opinion in a certain position. And I would like an open discussion in this very difficult question, where it is not clear for many people how to position themselves,

an open discussion. And that was especially in the early years, in the first year, but it has also been going on for a long time, not a really open discussion. But was that really the topic? I mean, the debate was there. You describe it more precisely.

So there is the position, it is represented, everyone can say it freely and openly. Is it about the majority ratio or is it about not being able to speak freely? And is it about not being able to withstand the consequences of this statement in doubt?

Because you say, I've got a headwind now. Yes, there was definitely a lot more courage in a position that was represented by 40% of the population than to express the other positions, because you had to expect that you would be massively attacked afterwards. That means, what I'm talking about here, of course you can say all this, but the social costs are very, very high. And that's why I know a lot of people who had the same view,

who said, I wouldn't sit in a talk show, I wouldn't do that, I wouldn't say it so loudly and publicly. And that's where the restriction of freedom of expression begins. It doesn't start at the level of the law. It starts where people think very, very carefully whether they can bear these social costs.

And this wasn't a radical opinion, it was not a completely crooked opinion, it was not an aggressive opinion, but it was an opinion that deviated from the narratives that the media particularly like to represent. And you need a lot of courage to represent them. The social costs, Mrs. Brose-Skjersdorf, you nod.

Yes, and you don't just have to look at the debate about the peace plans in Ukraine. There were other issues that we found to be taboo. You don't have to just look at the debate on the peace plans in Ukraine. There were other issues that we found to be taboo. There are reasons why a large part of the population thinks that the subjective freedom of expression is fading. And I would also say that it is not a legal problem, but it is a problem that certain issues in this country have perhaps been tabooed more than ever in the past.

Not only in social media, but also in the mainstream media. We have to depict the entire variety of opinions and topics. This does not have to be in every single program, but it has to be the case in the broadest sense. I would also like to see a small topic on the level of the law. If we think about how opinion-making works in social media,

how opinions are transported, which opinions are transported. This often happens through algorithms. And the algorithms are programmed in such a way that they are not the differentiated, quiet and sensitive tones, but the loud voices, the one-sided positions. There is a new study by the University of Potsdam and the Bertelsmann Foundation

that shows quite well that in the political spectrum, in the political parties, those parties that are particularly strong in the newsfeed, that is the list with the scrollable content that you see when you come to the home page of the platform, are particularly at the edges, on the left and on the right, regardless of how much content they actually have, even if you don't have most of the content. And that's one of the reasons why people have subjective freedom of speech.

And when I address legal problems, I think we can at least think about improvements on the legal level. Because I think Mr. Lanz, in part, freedom of speech is already comprehensively guaranteed in Germany, especially on the constitutional level. You described it very well. You can say whatever you want.

You have the right to express your personality, to open your mouth, to let air out. It always ends with the freedom of the other. That is human dignity, above all, that is the right to personality. But in social media, opinions are already being narrowed. There is still a process of attention economy.

And if we think about what can be improved legally, why don't we think about a plurality obligation for social media? More diversity of perspectives, more diversity of social opinions, also to be mapped in the newsfeed. That would be a means of counteracting this.

Mrs. Marinitsch what is your view on this? I know you both had a debate on Ukraine, Richard and Ms. Marinic, and you had very different views. But you both expressed these views. And you were allowed to express them. My question is, do we really have a...

We have found that legally there is no restriction of freedom of expression. There is a kind of self-censorship.

Is it really there or have we simply forgotten to argue? I would see it much more openly and maybe even much more positively. Because, to be honest, especially in the Ukraine, it was actually the case at the beginning that many thought it was a historical event and it was was about explaining to people that Ukraine had to stand by them. Many came to this explanation mode, which, however, had its justification for the beginning, I would say, as it did with Corona. There is a historical exception, and perhaps one tries to do everything as well as possible in the pursuit of saying that this is the right action. But what would have resulted from this would be that some would have been particularly insulted

and the others not, I don't see that. Both sides have always been insulted. So those who said at the time, we have to help Ukraine, have received the same amount of backlash from the other 40 percent you just mentioned. Those were the war drivers, those were the most brutal insults. And we are in the social media, there is often neither respect nor boundaries in the handling of this criticism. But we are actually talking about insults.

When we talk about opinions, about the question of how much we are able to...

Insulting is justifiable.

Exactly.

We are talking about freedom of opinion. That's why it's good that you make the point of clarifying the terms.

Right.

There are the insults and I found that the opinions were quite possible and that they were fought hard. And you are right, at the beginning there was the majority opinion per Ukraine. But if you look at what happened now, three years later, I would say that it is the other way around. That those who say at the moment, we have to help Ukraine, have to listen immediately, yes, then go to war yourself and are you ready to fight with the weapon? So that has almost been the other way around. Those who were in the minority at the beginning are now in the majority,

I would say. And I would say, in contrast to this danger diagnosis, sometimes we forget to put the problems, the factuality, the solution culture in the center and actually do through the meta-level, are we allowed to have freedom of expression or not? Do can have freedom of speech or not, we have freedom of speech or not, we forget what Germany should stand for, for a factual, solution-oriented discourse, for the intellectual resources that we have together

to say, okay, we have a situation A, B, C, we have to focus on this or that solution, erode the problems, the advantages and disadvantages, and move forward. And then there is this debate about freedom of expression. Everyone is staging themselves as a victim. This side, that side, and we are not making any progress in terms of facts. And that's where I say in Germany, we are getting bored with our own discussions,

we are losing an incredible number of people we actually needed to discuss opinions in plural, as you just said, and to find the best possible, worst possible solutions. Because no solution that is real will be utopianly brilliant. There will be disadvantages everywhere, but sometimes we no longer come to a factual assessment of the best possible solution. And if we could get out of that, freedom of expression, so to speak,

I the victim, you the victim, I may not, you may not, everyone sitting here has already experienced shitstorms. So it's about whether we have a culture that we say that the shitstorm probably belongs a little bit in the age of digital media. On a certain level, I think it is justifiable, where it comes in the area of insults. But we have to learn to put the issues back in the center.

Mrs. Bruse-Skerstoff, you are shaking your head. Yes, I would really disagree. At the point when Mrs. Marinić said that the shitstorm is obviously part of it.

We have to look at the basis. Freedom of expression is legally guaranteed, as well as personal rights and human dignity. And what we are experiencing is a complete change in the debate culture. This has something to do with the fact that today everyone can express themselves in mass media on the Internet.

In the past, this was the classic media, it was press and radio. These were trained journalists, they have an ethos. And there were or are also qualification standards. Today, everyone can express themselves anonymously on the Internet.

And the algorithms contribute to the sensational content being promoted. It's also cross-border. Foreign actors can also participate. And sometimes you're confronted with social bots that make an opinion where you can't see if it's a person or a machine. And this has changed the communication culture. This has enormous advantages.

I don't want to talk about it. It has contributed to an enormous democratization. Because people can express themselves in social media, who otherwise may not have such a voice in public. But we cannot overlook the disadvantages. And the disadvantages are, keyword shitstorm,

that hate and hat hatred has increased enormously. And I share the thesis that we as a society have to become more resilient. This is also something that you have described very nicely in your book, Mr. Precht. But only against permissible statements, not against shitstorms that cross the limits of permissibility. I'm talking about criminal offences here slander, people-hating, bad remarks, insults.

But I'm also talking beyond the possibility of punishment about false claims. That's not a contribution to public opinion formation, slander, false claims that are proven to be false, that don't enjoy protection, that endanger our democracy. And I think we don't have to be more resilient. We need a more consistent approach.

I would like to add something to that, Ms. Meirets. I am looking at America right now. The keyword is the claim to facts. If you look at it, and I think Corona is a good example of this, what was probably still considered something at the beginning, where you would have said, this is hard on the been considered a lie at the beginning.

For example, the question of whether it is dangerous for children, whether the cohorts that transmit the virus are safe. That was controversial at the beginning and was also put into discussion. In the end, it was consensus. That means that things that were allegedly a lie in the beginning, suddenly become something that is true.

If you start to intervene there, it becomes very, very difficult. Where do you start and where do you stop? And America is a very, very good example.

This question, where does it stop, where does it start, I ask myself, but also on the subject of digital regulation, and I can also make a point about the USA. We have a very strict EU digital regulation law, the Digital Service Act, which not only targets illegal content,

but also, it says there, harmful content. Who defines what harmful content is? So, the point about the USA. I lived in a country for eight years where we probably have the best, most professional, largest media machinery, but also the most polarized we have. So we still have a country where everyone can say everything. That's not the problem. The problem is not that we are 24-7 on permanent air.

The problem is that this perceived opinion corridor, which we have all talked about, the Ukrainian war, the incitement campaigns or the corona debates, that they all have the problem that perceived restrictions of an opinion lead to real problems, namely to the threat of politics, to the loss of trust in institutions. That means that even a perceived loss of freedom of expression has real effects on politics and on our society. In the USA, it was very specific.

Corona.

Corona.

A really good keyword in this context.

A very, very important example, because that also shaped me massively. I wrote a book about women who vote for Donald Trump and why they voted for Donald Trump. I lived in Washington at the time and I had the feeling, I'm part of it, well, you have to know that 98% of the people in Washington vote for democracy. The first to put their signs in the front yard are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Democrats, etc. But they are also the very first to launch a neighbourhood campaign against someone who forgot to wear a mask in the drugstore.

And they are also the first to be loud when you say that it is not the best idea to publish a book about transgender surgeries at the age of four. What I mean by that is that of course you can say all that, but in a very left-wing liberal city like Washington, you are immediately, and I observe that here in Germany, you are immediately put in a corner. With Corona we had the topic of mass... Pregnancy. We had, that was one topic, I for my unborn child could be harmful.

I spoke to my doctor.

A very understandable question.

What was the problem? I could ask doctors. That's good that we live in a Western industrial nation with good health care. Great. But I couldn't get any personal information about it. Because who first detailedly discussed this topic? Right-wing and right-wing conservative media.

They first discussed this topic of vaccination side effects for female bodies for unborn life. And the left-wing media? Nothing. Nothing. New York Times, Washington Post, all the media I trust,

haven't even mentioned it. And I ask myself, what's going wrong? When this vacuum arises, distrust of people, who should fill it? Right-wing populists. Now I'm not someone who would vote for Donald Trump or the AfD, but other people do.

That means, there is this mechanism, as it is described, Richard, there is a feeling that there is a gap, there is a lack of information. If you are evil, you say, something will be hidden from us. The question of what is the connection between the damage of an unborn child and a corona vaccination.

And then you find this information exactly where you don't expect it to be. And you get the impression that something is hiding up there. Is that the feeling that breaks the ice and you say, okay, let's not take this so seriously with freedom of speech. People have a fine, I want to go back to this, fine censorship for this.

Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, is another very good example. People have a fine, and I want to go back to this, fine censorship for this. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, is another very good example. I still don't know how many liberal media houses have defended Joe Biden until the end and said, there is no problem, no cognitive issue, this man is awake, he is mentally absolutely fit. And how shocked you were when you found out afterwards what the American electorate has really been keeping quiet about in this context. I myself have experienced on reportage trips

that people in the Middle West told me, you can't say that, but we know that he is a very, very old, fragile, demented man and you can no longer seriously elect him as president. And we also wish him that he to live long and stay healthy. But as president, sorry, it's not possible anymore.

People have felt it. It wasn't even transported in the media. It's actually the same whether I have a left government or a right government. The moment I try to narrow the discourse corridor or reduce my tolerance for opinion, an important word where we all agree on, is that freedom of expression has many aspects,

but tolerance for opinions, which is why we have this heated debate, has become less. If I do that, if I narrow the freedom of expression, there will always be people

who benefit from it. Because Covid is a good example. Everyone had a different opinion. Some were more afraid of the state, others were more afraid of the virus, etc. Everyone has been looking for their own opinion

in a situation where we have very little information and very little knowledge. And if I go there now and say, no, no, you have to see it this way or that way, or you shouldn't even start to see it any other way. And you are massively excluded if you doubt anything about these stories.

Sometimes rightly, as it turns out, sometimes wrongly. Then those who are outside this narrative benefit. And that was especially the right-wingers in recent times, both in the USA and in Germany, who have addressed all this, whether it is right or wrong, that is a completely different question,

which was not possible to say in public discourse or was immediately fought as an opinion. And that is what I mean. The smaller the opinion corridor, the more radical forces are given a boost. And actually, you narrow the discourse corridor in order to prevent radical opinions from growing. But you achieve exactly the opposite.

And that's why I believe that it is important for liberal democracies to cover a wide range of opinions, with a limit that we have talked about, where it is about someone committing criminal offences. That means, in the moment when someone insults, defames, commits genocide or threatens violence, then his opinions do not belong in the public sphere. But if he moves within the framework of the permissible, it is important to have a broad spectrum,

because otherwise the exact opposite of what you want will happen. You make those strong who you actually want to fight with. That's right, Ms. Marinic. But how far can that go? Can you use the freedom of speech that is on paper to, how shall I put it, to present completely deviant things,

in doubt, to present lies, to present half-truths, to then say, if there is a contradiction, look, now freedom of expression is in danger. I observe this mechanism relatively often. So you can't, when positions are presented that are beyond good and evil, that are simply false in fact, you can just say, I'll just let it run in the sense of plurality and diversity of opinion.

And when there is a contradiction, then the other person immediately shouts again, oh, you are now again censoring freedom of expression. We recently had a debate here on the topic of America, and in Germany, I think, it is now a bit the same. It was about the question of how it is at universities.

Melanie Amann described in Harvard, for example, that the biggest blow is simply made and claimed. And you don't say, like in the past, attention, counter-argument, let's really argue about this perhaps stupid argument. But, oh, it's good that you made that claim. We are very happy that you brought that into the debate.

And the end of the discussion.

It can't be.

I don't think that lies and collusion are necessarily being presented in Harvard. I am always careful when we run into each other. I don't know if the opinion corridor has become so narrow, because in the first round we described that we have too little regulation, even though you say there is a lot, but there are already many insults that are going on and that are not prevented. I think we have the opposite at the moment.

We have an extremely broad spectrum of opinions, we have extremely many publics, we have extremely many different publics, not all of them are equal in all publics, we have many different publics. Not all of them are equal in all publics. Not everyone in the digital space knows how speech works, knows it as well in the print field, knows it in the analog media. So we have a very complex public space.

All these voices somehow collide. And I have the feeling that we are in a learning process. How do I organize this space? How do I organize my opinions on TikTok? Where they say that the right-wing extremists are even better at controlling the moment. Now the left is trying to learn that too.

But what you describe is actually more of a Trump strategy. So I'm even throwing a radical idea into the world via my medium, Truth Social. a radical idea in the world. This idea is then discussed worldwide. But he already did that in his first term. That's this flood the zone with shit. And then the whole world does agenda setting à la Trump. That means ping pong, ping pong.

We're just going to talk about what Trump says. Is that right or is that wrong? We try to get facts with it or not. And then Trump, as one of the most privileged people in the world, can stage rich, unpunished, although he should have been punished, incredible privileges as a victim,

and others say, yes, he speaks for me. I can now too. So I see the danger that we have to learn to unmask that. So to say, hey, watch out, someone is actually abusing here. Maybe the feeling of not being heard by some people anymore. I think we have the problem in these democracies at the moment

that many people feel they are not heard. And whether that is necessarily to be equated with I am not allowed to say my opinion, or is it more like my opinion does not matter, I am not heard anymore. We are also with such an argument, why should everyone express themselves who is not an expert should speak up.

On the contrary, I think we need more opinions. We need competence to hold opinions, to argue, and then to say, okay, that's the state of science, to see the part of the population, that's what we haven't been able to do during Corona, to have them in the political space.

It's not a scientific debate that we have to lead on panels and in democracies, but the more opinions we have and the more unbearable they are, the better, because we have more information about what is going on.

But you have to withstand the headwind, the counter-argument, and you can't use it as a proof that supposedly freedom of expression is in danger. That's what's happening in America right now. But that's where we're at.

That's the manipulative strategy that Donald Trump is using.

Exactly. I quoted you earlier, we had the debate about the cityscape here in Germany. And Friedrich Merz tried to explain that in a second loop. It made the eyes of many people worse. He always said, just ask your daughters, then you'll understand what's meant. and tried to explain it to him. In fact, he was more able to explain it to him. He said, just ask your daughters, then you will understand what is meant.

You say, I felt picked up there, I understood very well what he meant. You have interpreted him, so to speak, in a kind way, if you will. And you say, nevertheless, I will not say it out loud and publicly,

now we do it here in a protected space, I think it's good that you're doing it. Very protected. But you say you have to be careful, because why? Do you pay social costs? Or what is the topic? A social price?

Yes, I may also be very influenced by the USA, in this really incredibly polarized country, where friends of mine, close friends, define

you are outside or inside my value system. in a country that is so polarized, where close friends define me.

You are outside or inside my value system. And I think that we are getting more and more of this here in Germany and Europe. Are you on my side, yes or no? Why is that? Because it is now too much politically. We are talking about war and peace here, Ukraine. We are talking about abolition here.

We are talking about topics that all of us ... That means that's why the emotions are so high. In the cityscape debate, that was only the first debate I experienced coming back from the USA to Germany, and that totally annoyed me. On the one hand, as a political journalist, because it was just mutely communicated by the federal government, you have to say that.

But on the other hand, that I immediately, also in the media, I read the German media and everything I read was a storm of disarmament. How can you say that? I studied in Düsseldorf 25 years ago and I already pushed past the train station to the predominantly migrant men's groups and was afraid to pass by at 8 p.m. I think I would have liked the cityscape debate back then,

if you talked about it in a factual way, and not with racist reasoning, but just looked at what is going on in big cities and why women might be afraid. And that's exactly why I feel taken aback by a sentence like Friedrich Merz's, who, as I said, was poorly communicated, but he was right about the matter.

But the question is why you feel like you can't say it out loud and clearly. What are you afraid of?

No, of course, we're back to the starting point of Ukraine.

Exactly, about self-censorship.

That's the argument, you can say things and then you have to bear the fact that you get backlash. But honestly, we're back to the point, is that still a healthy debate culture if we have to be afraid of something we say, that there will be a backlash. I understand people who say they don't consume any more news or they don't want to change their opinion because they are afraid of deviating. I have a great understanding of that.

But what are you afraid of? I want to understand it again. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the big public out there? No, I'm not even important enough for that. Or are you afraid of the reaction in your own bubble?

In my own bubble, of course. Of your own people?

Yes, but that's the way it is for all of us here in the round. That you might have a thought that didn't fit perfectly with the circle of friends and acquaintances. And you have the feeling that it're not being asked anymore. The other side doesn't ask, why do you think that? Just one example. 15 years ago I wrote a comment in the mirror

about why I'm not a feminist. Or why I don't think the term left-wing feminist is appropriate for me. I went to an event with a lot of women. I could have left after 10 minutes, as hostile as I was looked at. Why didn't I come into the newsroom with women, and after 10 minutes I could have left again, as hostile as I was looked at.

Why didn't I talk to them? Why didn't I talk about it? Why didn't I look them in the eye? But that doesn't work anymore.

Richard just nicked Mrs. Boses-Gerstauff.

Richard, is that what you mean when you say, this self-censorship is beginning? Yes, that's a very precise description of what I mean. And I think we agreed on one topic, that the debates are being led more excitedly today. The judgments are being made faster, they are being made more case-by-case. And I think the reason for this is that we are no longer growing up properly in certain respects. That's the core thesis of my book.

I mean that we have become more emotional in our society, which is a good development. In the past, men were sent to the basement to be felt. Today, you can show your feelings, you can talk about your feelings. That's a good development. We have become more sensitive, that's good.

That's also good in terms of moral development. But if we are all very sensitive and emotional, we are constantly caught up in it, we are insulted, we can no longer bear that someone sees things differently than we do. And that is basically the climate of excitement that we have in our societies. And that leads to a relatively harmless statement that can result in very high social costs. I mean, Friedrich Merz is a good example of this.

What happens in the city is actually a harmless statement. and that this is a problem that can be solved by the financial costs. I mean, Friedrich Merz is a good example of this. What happens in the city is actually a harmless statement. You can interpret everything in there and so on. And there are people who are massively upset about it. I would never get upset about it. I would just ask the counter question or the follow-up question.

Okay, I understand now where the problem is. I think you have a problem with crime at the train station, I can understand everything. Now I would like to know from you, you are Chancellor and not a media representative, what you are planning to do during your government to solve this problem.

But that's not a reproach or anger, but that would have been the legitimate follow-up question in the debate. Instead, we have a huge excitement and outrage. Friedrich Merz was called a racist. If we treat the term racist so lightly, we will long-term take away the meaning of the term racist.

A huge label will be put on it, so to speak. And if I don't like it so easily and everyone is racist and whatever, but just said something or did something, we will not deal with each other permanently. we will not deal with each other permanently. And the result will be that we will de-value the term racism.