What happens when a society can no longer agree on facts? What if people can no longer distinguish between information and fabricated content? Three media experts discussed these issues at SCCON 2026 on the panel ‘Resilience, but for everyone: How can we successfully combat disinformation and defend our democracy in a digital society?’

Disinformation undermines fundamental democratic values

According to the Digital News Report, almost 40 per cent of 14- to 28-year-olds use social media as their main source of news, as reported by media scholar Prof. Dr Christoph Neuberger, scientific director of the Weizenbaum Institute. One in two say they are no longer able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. “Disinformation has contributed to a significant sense of uncertainty,” says Neuberger. Public discourse is suffering, and this has repercussions for all the values underpinning democracy: equality, truth, knowledge, cohesion and accountability.

“Those who no longer believe anything are easier to manipulate”

“The most dangerous thing about disinformation is not the individual lie; the most dangerous thing is the insidious effect,” explains Florian Hager, Director-General of Hessischer Rundfunk and Chairman of ARD. When authoritarian actors from home and abroad deliberately sow mistrust, their aim is not “that we believe them. Their aim is that we no longer believe anyone”. After all: “Those who no longer believe anything are easier to manipulate.”

A major problem is that, with AI, it is easy and cheap for both laypeople and professionals to produce vast quantities of fabricated news stories. Reputable journalistic outlets, on the other hand, which are based on facts and research, are labour-intensive and expensive. And they are under constant fire from those who deliberately attack their credibility.

Wave of hatred following investigative reporting

Take, for example, the public-interest media organisation CORRECTIV, which practises investigative journalism and operates on a donation-based model. It came to widespread public attention in 2024 through its Potsdam investigation into the debates on ‘remigration’. At the time, CORRECTIV had only 60 staff and was completely unprepared for the wave of hatred that swept over the editorial team, reports editor-in-chief Anette Dowideit. The organisation now employs almost 200 people. Internal and external communications have been strengthened – “and we also spend a great deal of money on legal advice”.

Rules for social media platforms

Furthermore, media scholar Neuberger argues that social media platforms must be held to account. He considers regulatory measures such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and AI Act to be the right way forward. A ‘platform levy’ should also be discussed: if the major platforms profit from journalistic content and earn a great deal of money from it – shouldn’t they then pay for it?

Fact-checking is important in combating disinformation, adds ARD Director-General Hager. But that won’t be enough: “We won’t be able to cope with the flood.” Ultimately, media literacy is needed across all age groups. It is important to approach information “with a healthy dose of scepticism” and to ask three questions: “Who is saying this? How does that person know this? Who stands to gain from this news?”