No Power to the Fakes: How the "Volksverpetzer" Clears Things up

Charlotte, Thomas, does the fight against fakes need a different kind of journalism?

Thomas: Short answer: yes. Journalists do very good work. But with social media and actors spreading disinformation, especially the far right, the end result is that we see that a gap has been created.

Charlotte: People often run after the issues, especially the fakes, but it's difficult to classify them comprehensively. That's the gap that Thomas mentions. At "Volksverpetzer", we are a small team, so we can afford to be bold and fill this gap with a new spirit, which established media houses still leave open. Journalism has taken on a different role in recent years. Journalists used to be primarily gatekeepers. Now, however, everyone can distribute their content online. For journalists, this means taking on more of an observer role and categorizing topics instead of placing them. The industry needs to accept this understanding of their role and adapt to the speed of social media.

Thomas: Journalism today is being tricked and exploited by people who call themselves journalists and misuse serious content for targeted disinformation. As a media landscape, we need to learn how to deal with the staging of fake propagators. We at Volksverpetzer would like to be a source of ideas on how this gap can be filled.

Classic fact checks are supplemented with new methods

To what extent does the "Volksverpetzer" have a different concept from the usual fact checks?

Thomas: The "Volksverpetzer" uses fact checks in the broadest sense, but I prefer the term "anti-fake news blog." When I founded the blog, I wanted to differentiate it from decidedly journalistic, classic fact-checking formats. We aim to supplement existing fact checks with a new approach and thus give the content more reach. This also means adopting the methods of the disseminators themselves, especially on social media, to make counterstatements to fakes go viral. Even with meticulous proof of sources, fakes and conspiracy myths benefit from more reach if you want to clear them up.

How do you deal with this tension?

Thomas: When you address a disinformation campaign, there is always the danger of making it known through the Streisand effect or giving it more reach. You have to bear in mind that many people often only read teasers and headlines. If the media that spread the fake and the media that explain it deliver almost indistinguishable headlines, this causes more damage. I advocate abandoning the framing of fake and conspiracy myth narrators. The focus should be on the facts and not the myths. It is important to do more advertising for the truth. The true facts should come first in articles. For example, you can report on the disinformation campaign instead of quoting it.

What can reporting on disinformation campaigns look like in concrete terms?

Thomas: The disseminators rely on people adopting what they say. If you immediately categorize their framing in the first report, you can avoid spreading false claims or misleading assumptions. Conversely, corrections or fact checks react very soberly to a very emotional message. This no longer resonates with people. We believe that corrections must also be very emotional in order to be interesting for people. This gives the fact checks a greater reach, especially on social media.

Charlotte: In addition to the classic fact checks, there needs to be much stronger and more present media journalism that analyzes discussions and discourse and can then put them into context. In the sense of: What are the motives of those spreading disinformation? For example, the same old racist narratives are always used. But where do they originate? It would make sense to provide this context in reporting instead of just reacting to disinformation. Then it would be easier to recognize the fakes' narratives.

Is there an example of a very successful post from you?

Charlotte: TikTok videos or Instagram reels work best with emotions. This encourages interaction on the platforms, which leads to more reach. The packaging has to be right, but the content also needs to be of high quality and relevant. This worked well, for example, when AfD politician Josef Burkart said in 2023 that giving out free menstrual products to women was the same as giving out free alcohol and cigarettes. I then posted a humorous video in which I portrayed my menstruation as an addiction. It starts off very emotionally, with sad music in the background. The video went viral and many women adopted my framing in comments.

Grey area instead of fictitious: The quality of fakes is different today

How have fakes developed over the last ten years?

Thomas: We see three things. Firstly, the quality has changed, there are hardly any completely fictitious stories anymore. This is also because they are particularly easy to refute. Today, the reports are in gray areas, the authors play with ambiguity. They use framing in a more targeted way and take sentences out of context. Secondly, the disseminators have become more professional. Along with the rise of the AfD, a parallel media world has developed, with publishers, TV stations, newspapers and groups that are decidedly outside the traditional media and are trying to replace them. Thirdly, it is successful. This parallel media world contributes to public and media discourse and manages to influence debates. It pushes the boundaries of what can be said.

Social media portals have also changed. What position do fake disseminators have in the channel landscape today?

Charlotte: Right-wing groups have very quickly managed to take over Instagram and TikTok in particular. They are conquering the discourse space with a mass of accounts because they are very coordinated in their approach. There is a whole network of AfD channels on TikTok; no other parliamentary group in the Bundestag has so many active accounts of MPs, and no other party is so successful on this platform. It was very quick to build up this network, in which all accounts stream similar content and, for example, repost AfD speeches – even in poor quality. This works because authenticity counts on TikTok. These accounts want to convey to their target group: "We are close to you." This network was discovered too late, and the platforms are not doing enough to prevent questionable content.

What can media professionals do to build a common basis on which constructive discussions are possible again?

Thomas: We have to manage to push the extreme narratives out of the public discourse. Our strategy is not only to educate people but also to be louder than the fake creators. The strength of the far right, for example, is that it communicates its narratives more strongly and therefore appears more attractive. One approach is to take away this appearance; then it will also lose a large proportion of its supporters. People will then feel ashamed of having fallen for their campaigns. Instead, the media should be more critical and cautious when dealing with extremist politicians, for example, who are known to spread disinformation. I advocate not inviting AfD politicians to talk shows. An alternative would be to talk about their statements in a panel of experts so that facts can be checked in peace.

Are you currently seeing the effects of artificial intelligence on fake production?

Thomas: Occasionally. There are always AI images. But I don't share the opinion of those who warn that AI will create a "post-truth" society and that nothing will be true anymore. I can see that people have already fallen for fakes without AI, and not because the content was polished to a high gloss. It's because they appeal to emotions and confirm a very specific world view. Technology can also help us. During the coronavirus pandemic, we developed a bot that searched relevant Telegram groups and spit out the stories with the most shares. We can also use AI for fact-checking and are currently working on solutions for how this development can make our work easier.

Too journalistic to be considered charitable?

Your financing model shows that your work  is highly valued and supported: for years you have been able to uncover misinformation on the basis of crowdfunding. Recently, your non-profit status was revoked. What exactly does that mean for you?

Thomas: We are still completely financed by crowdfunding. However, the tax office has now revoked our non-profit status, with retroactive effect from 2021. For us, this means that we now have to pay taxes on the donations we receive. This means that we can use less of the money we receive for our work and our projects and, above all, that we first have to pay a high five-figure sum in arrears. In addition, we are no longer allowed to issue donation receipts. As we mainly receive a lot of small donations, this is fortunately not so relevant for our donors.

What were the reasons for this?

Thomas: Unfortunately, we don't know exactly. On the one hand, there were complaints about errors in our articles of association and on the other, the argument was put forward that our work is too journalistic, but there has been no non-profit journalism to date. The strange thing is that these things were still completely in order during the last audit by the tax office.

What's next for the Volksverpetzer – can we continue to hope for your clarification in the future?

Thomas: Fortunately, we have a very large community that has given us a lot of support over the past few weeks. Many have donated even more after this news, so we haven't had to cut anything from our planned projects and can continue our work as usual. We can't yet really say how the whole thing will develop in the medium term, but we are very happy about the support and can say: The Volksverpetzer will continue as before!