Column The media tends to make snap judgments and prejudgements, reversing the burden of proof. Those affected react with denial, self-PR or the creation of counter-publicity, and increasingly only what is publicly perceived seems true and important. Who or what crosses the collective attention threshold is primarily decided by the media today. The consumer media are the postmodern record keepers, listening posts, loudspeakers, but also the judges and executioners of our time. This abundance of power has earned the media in modern democracies - which can be described as the rule of the public over the media truth - a reputation as the fourth estate in the state.How and why the media use their authority in the attention society is not only diligently discussed, but also widely lamented. And by no means only by people who have been pilloried virtually. The damage caused by the media goes further and has deeper roots. The way in which the media exercise power today is inextricably linked to journalistic faux pas and has downsides that are to a certain extent inherent to the media business.
In this sense, the system has two categories of mistakes. Firstly, journalists only ever report and interpret reality selectively, i.e. incompletely, pre-selected and therefore ultimately subjectively. Secondly, media makers, as self-appointed guardians of public morality, are increasingly resorting to the weapon of outrage journalism. All too often, however, such artificial indignation leads to prejudgement and a reversal of the burden of proof: until the contrary is publicly established, accused officials are considered guilty. And because detailed investigations take a lot of time, once an office holder has been shot, they often lose their job and honor even if the accusations subsequently prove to be greatly exaggerated or even unfounded.
The most recent, but certainly not the last, media victim is former Graubünden cantonal councillor Peter Aliesch, who has been stripped of his office on suspicion of corruption. It is true that the subsequent criminal proceedings deemed the incriminated invitations and gifts to be irrelevant and the Federal Supreme Court recently even ruled that the legal costs imposed on him were unlawful. However, to the people who had made the "Aliesch affair" into one in the first place, both were only worth a few lines.
However, such omissions, like the previous prejudgements, now have consequences that are not only diametrically opposed to the basic mission of the media (creating publicity, controlling the powerful), but are also slowly but surely undermining their credibility and importance. This also includes the increasing refusal of capable people to make themselves available for public functions at all. Another form of resistance to media arbitrariness is the heavy PR weaponry used by politicians and managers in response to the media's negligent and often fatal distortion of complex reality in an attempt to make it serve themselves. Finally, the increasing popularity of corporate publishing and other forms of internal communication must be interpreted in a similar way: namely as serious efforts to create small but important "counter-publics" beyond the media mainstream.
The fourth estate in the state often takes on the role of judge and executioner.
> Kenneth Angst worked in the editorial offices of NZZ and Weltwoche and is now an independent consultant for public affairs.
