On our own behalf: Why journalism is not a conspiracy theory and Multipolar is not a “right-wing” magazine

The RKI protocols that Multipolar sued for have triggered a broad political debate about coming to terms with the Corona period. Some media are now trying to attack our credibility. Multipolar is “right-wing” or “conspiracy-theoretical,” according to SPIEGEL and the Süddeutsche Zeitung. A reply.

PAUL SCHREYER, April 4, 2024, 18 comments, PDF

In December 2023, our editorial team received surprising news. The internationally active media rating platform Newsguard, whose conflicts of interest have been sharply criticized by us in the past and which is not suspected of having any particular sympathy for our magazine, informed us of the result of its rating: 82 out of 100 possible points. Multipolar is “mostly credible” and the magazine “largely meets the basic standards of credibility and transparency.” This rating was preceded by an intensive discussion between our editorial team and the evaluators. They initially did inadequate research and corrected themselves after information from us. What's interesting is that in the 16-page Newsguard review (PDF), which was preceded by weeks of review, nowhere does the accusation appear that we express "right-wing" or "conspiracy theory" views. On what factual basis do media outlets like SPIEGEL and Süddeutsche suddenly make such accusations?

The fact that the question of evidence in this case is not a trivial matter arises from the fact that our magazine should be clearly recognizable to any unbiased reader as left-wing liberal. The attribute “right” is factually incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. Multipolar stands for classic liberal and social democratic values such as solidarity with the weak and excluded, criticism of rule and freedom of expression. Our mission statement is a peaceful, free and plural world in which people treat each other with respect and open-mindedness. We have recently published on topics such as matriarchy, ecological energy transition, climate protection, interviewed left-wing politicians about their criticism of the AfD, looked favorably on the social democratic ideas of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance and recommended books that refer to Marx and call for a “democratization of the production process”. . And now: Multipolar a right-wing magazine?

The incorrect classification appears even more striking in light of the fact that an assessment of our magazine is largely irrelevant for the assessment of the RKI protocols. These papers, official documents for decision-making during the Corona period, stand on their own. By filing a lawsuit in court, we simply made sure that everyone could read it. Where Multipolar stands politically and whether we otherwise do good or bad journalism should therefore actually be irrelevant when it comes to articles about the content of the protocols. But the publication of these papers is about much more. At issue is not only the credibility of the RKI and the federal government, but also large parts of a media landscape that has followed official announcements uncritically for years - and which is now trying to avoid a thorough analysis.

However, differentiation is also necessary here. The false framing of our magazine is by no means shared by all or even the majority of the reporting media. Welt, Bild, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Cicero, Berliner Zeitung, Nordkurier, Focus, Merkur and many others do not use judgments such as “right-wing” and “conspiracy theory” in their reporting. The report on ZDF, which brought the breakthrough in the leading media, was also kept neutral with regard to Multipolar. Co-editor Stefan Korinth recently explained these differences in reporting:

“Now the journalistic wheat is separated from the chaff: Who will prevail in the big media companies? The real journalists who research the protocols, do investigative work and keep a critical eye on the government - or the information warriors who ignore the protocols, attack the bearers of the message with insubstantial terms and throw themselves protectively in front of the government? Now it’s time to show our journalistic colors.”

It becomes clear that the harsh term “information warrior” has its justification when you check the negative ratings from SPIEGEL and Co. for existing evidence. Multipolar asked several of these media outlets about this. Der Spiegel, which had already made it clear in the first paragraph of its very first article on the subject in its print edition that Multipolar was “the medium of a right-wing conspiracy theorist”, told us succinctly when we asked for evidence:

“We have nothing to add to our contribution.”

Bayerischer Rundfunk is at least engaging in the beginnings of a debate. In his article “RKI Protocols: How sentences are taken out of context,” the four authors explain that our magazine is “classified by some observers as a conspiracy theory blog” and that “numerous” of our articles “distort the facts.” Upon request, we will be sent three links to articles without comment. When we investigate which information in the three articles mentioned is wrong and why, things get interesting. Birgit Gamböck, co-director of BR24 digital, now explains to us “three examples of distorted facts” and quotes from the three articles:

WHO pandemic treaty: “This means an expansion of the WHO’s powers beyond health crises and a delimitation of its mandate.” The assessment of renowned experts is different. Read in detail here

“PCR tests whose significance for infections and diseases can be manipulated and is at least doubtful” The news agency afp, among others, has researched that PCR tests reliably indicate an infection with the coronavirus: PCR tests are approved and reliably indicate an infection with the coronavirus | Fact Check (afp.com). Further facts, statements from virologists, studies, linked research and clarifications here #Faktenfuchs: What PCR tests say about corona infections | BR24

Covid-19 vaccination: “…is in reality a huge, comprehensive observational study with novel genetic engineering manipulations of our immune systems.” For scientific assessment, see section “Can the mRNA on which the vaccines are based change my DNA?” BR

A circle is now closing here: The RKI protocols have shown that the old Corona narrative was full of holes and largely false, while media like the BR are now accusing the person who delivered the documents of not having believed the old narrative back then. It couldn't really be more absurd.

There are also difficulties with the logical distinction between assertions and considerations. As it turns out, it's obviously the same for the BR:

“One of the Multipolar editors spread the conspiracy theory that the pandemic was supposedly planned.”

When we asked for evidence of this, the broadcaster timidly backtracked: “The alleged possibility of conscious planning is raised and kept open through a detailed derivation.” Our subsequent note is that this is something significantly different than that in the article The claim that was made and we therefore request a transparent correction under the article was then rejected:

“We see no reason to make a correction. You explain the conspiracy theory in detail on your public blog and thereby spread it. You don't mention that there is no evidence of a conspiracy. You leave out facts that contradict your “observation.”

Those responsible for the broadcaster are therefore simply unable to distinguish between an incompletely substantiated claim (that was not made) and the (actually made) discussion of the conclusiveness of a consideration. The latter is a prerequisite for any kind of progress and intellectual development, because where considerations can no longer be discussed because they have not (yet) been comprehensively proven, there is intellectual standstill.

The level of debate at the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) is similar - but at least it is the only paper from the leading media that contacted us before reporting and sent questions. The SZ report then states that Multipolar is “a website with a penchant for conspiracy myths”. And when we asked for evidence:

“As part of the reporting, we looked at some of the articles on your website and your previous publications, as well as using publications on this. For example, the political scientist Markus Linden describes you in his essay The Legend of the 'Pressure to Conform', On the Doubtful Criticism of the Corona Debate, published in Merkur, Issue 7/2021, as a 'comparatively skilled conspiracy theorist'. The political scientist Werner Bührer also shares this assessment in his review essay New Literature on Conspiracy Theories, published in Neue Political Literature, issue 67/2022. The author Matthias Holland-Letz also comes to similar conclusions in his review of your book 'Chronicle of an Announced Crisis' from October 23, 2020 in the newspaper Neues Deutschland. There are also other reviewers - for example in the FAZ - who come to the same conclusion after reading your 2014 book 'We are the Good'. The sociologist Andreas Anton cites your work as an example in his essay 'Conspiracy theories on September 11th', published in Sociology of Conspiracy Thinking, 2013.”

The first-mentioned political scientist Markus Linden is known for his critical work on opposition media (“Opponent Analysis Project”), which was funded with government funding. A few months ago, Telepolis mockingly described him as a “critic of circumstantial evidence” and explained that Linden “apparently likes to work on media critical of the government for a fee” and compensates for “his lack of analysis and scientific knowledge through ideologization.”

The last name mentioned by the SZ is more interesting: Andreas Anton. The doctor of sociology is one of the few high-profile researchers in the field of conspiracy theories. An expanded new edition of his standard work “Conspiration. Sociology of conspiracy thinking”, supplemented by a chapter on Corona. Multipolar asked Anton whether he was being interpreted correctly by the SZ here. His answer should give the editors of this newspaper more than just something to think about:

“The term 'conspiracy theory' (or as it is often called today: 'conspiracy narrative' or 'conspiracy myth') is more than ever a fighting term that is often used to discredit opinions or people. Given the fact that there are real conspiracies and conspiracy theories can of course also be true, the accusation that someone is a 'conspiracy theorist' is in itself completely meaningless. Conspiracy theories may or may not be plausible. Blanket judgments are prohibited here. We use a neutral definition of the term in our sociological analyzes of conspiracy theories. For us, a conspiracy theory is simply an explanation that interprets current or historical conditions or events as the result of a conspiracy. No more and no less. We therefore contrast the common negative connotation of the term for scientific discussion with a neutral understanding of the term that does not make any general statements about the plausibility or truth content of conspiracy theory interpretations. Unfortunately, this is often misunderstood. Calling someone a 'conspiracy theorist' with reference to our work and thereby declaring them dubious is somewhat absurd.”

Here Anton comes to the essential point that is often avoided in the established media: Whether something can be considered nonsensical is not already clear by the fact that it is called a conspiracy theory. Because, says Anton, conspiracy theories “can of course also be true”. The plausibility must be checked in each individual case.

I myself published articles and books on 9/11 many years ago, long before Multipolar was founded. According to some observers, I was spreading conspiracy theories. At the time, I also perceived the terrorist attacks as a turning point in the media world. My impression is that government criticism in journalism has tended to be on the decline since 9/11. Wolf Reiser, a journalistic free spirit with publications in many leading media, put it more clearly years ago:

“Anyone who openly distrusted the official conspiracy would lose their job in the foreseeable future. Anyone who did not pass the acid test of splitting off their identity could end their career as a full-time or freelance journalist. Anyone who didn't whimper along with the degenerate, traumatized lead wolves was finished. As of September 12, 2001, questions were no longer asked. The taboo began to devour its onlookers. Schizophrenia took its place in the garden of the confused.”

I myself put the 9/11 issue aside at some point, but I learned a few lessons from the way many media outlets dealt with it that were also fruitful for our work at Multipolar: We don't shy away from controversial topics, but rather try to do so in a deeper and more thorough manner to follow up. However, we can only allow ourselves to do this because we are reader-financed and our readers want this journalism and regularly donate to it. Some examples:

• Multipolar reported last year that Pfizer used two different processes to produce the corona preparations: an expensive one that was used in the approval process and a cheap one that led to contaminated injections and a massively increased number of serious side effects. The substance produced in this way was inoculated into the rest of the world's population.
•  
• Multipolar reported how the Federal Statistical Office falsified the excess mortality figures to support the government narrative, and the manipulation can be proven from the official raw data.
•  
• Multipolar reported why a connection between the corona vaccination and the observed decline in births is scientifically plausible, despite denials.
•  
• Multipolar reported on how precise and targeted American scientists researched disease-causing coronaviruses in the years before 2020 and why there is much to suggest that the history of the coronavirus crisis needs to be completely rewritten.
•  
• Multipolar reported on what is behind the pandemic treaty, how questionable its premises are and how it is currently being implemented in disregard of the legal processes.

None of this research spreads nonsensical or absurd ideas. In the opinion of our editorial team, the texts are solidly researched and relevant - that is, critical, independent journalism. Anyone who dismisses it as conspiracy theory is making it very easy for themselves. It is also questionable whether these terms can be used to convince many readers in the future not to take a closer look at media like Multipolar. In any case, our increased readership numbers speak a different language.

The battle for the authority to interpret Multipolar is currently raging on Wikipedia - where, as a reporting media worker, you can easily use it in the future, which closes the self-referential circle. It should be noted that closed circles, exclusion and isolation will hardly defuse the increasingly emerging social crises. Rather, what is needed is respect and dialogue – also on the part of the leading media.

https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/rki-protokolle-4

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/38483

TRANSLATION BY ANTON MARX (DRESDEN)