With numerous guests from the fields of science, politics, culture, and media, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) on June 17 and 18, 2025. Since 1950, the institute has been researching the development of media communication and its impact on society – in an interdisciplinary, practice-oriented manner and considering the democratic foundations of public communication.

Festive Kick-Off with a Senate Reception at Hamburg City Hall

The festivities kicked off with a reception at Hamburg City Hall, hosted by Senator for Science Maryam Blumenthal. Representatives of the founding institutions, the President of the Universität Hamburg, Prof. Dr. Hauke Heekeren, and NDR Director General Joachim Knuth, as well as the President of the Leibniz Association, Prof. Dr. Martina Brockmeier, praised the development of the institute – from its founding in 1950 to its current role as one of Europe’s leading centers for interdisciplinary media research. Diemut Roether (epd medien) moderated the evening.

All speakers emphasized the growing social importance of independent media research. Senator for Science Maryam Blumenthal: “Hamburg is proud of the Hans-Bredow-Institut and its unique success story. This is because it works on issues that are crucial for the future of our democracy – especially at a time when algorithms, echo chambers, and disinformation are becoming an ever greater challenge. The strategic expansion of the institute to include the field of computer science is therefore an important step forward for Hamburg as a center of science and for media studies in Germany overall. The Hans-Bredow-Institut has its finger on the pulse and exemplifies what makes science in Hamburg so profound: interdisciplinarity, practical relevance, and social responsibility.”

To the press release of the Ministry of Science, Research, Equality, and Districts

Scientific Symposium: Why Media Research?

The following day, the HBI hosted a scientific symposium at the NDR Conference Center in Hamburg Lokstedt. Under the title “Why Media Research? How the Discipline and Its Role in Society Are Changing,” experts from various disciplines discussed key challenges and future prospects of a changing media society.

In his opening speech, Hamburg’s Senator for Culture and Media, Dr. Carsten Brosda, called for a social debate on how communication works today – and how it should be shaped. He criticized the fact that public discourse on social networks is increasingly taking place in an economically dominated system in which any opinion seems to carry the same weight as years of research. Brosda warned against allowing oneself to be driven solely by the logic of the attention economy and called for greater social reflection on the foundations of democratic communication. In this debate, he said, the advisory capacity of independent research institutions such as the HBI plays a central role.

How Are the Central Key Concepts Changing, and What Does This Mean for Our Research?

This was followed by a discussion of fundamental questions in media research: How are the key concepts of communication, media, and norms changing?

Dr. Lisa Merten (HBI) and Prof. Dr. Chris Biemann (Universität Hamburg) approached the meaning and modeling of communication from social science and computer science perspectives over time. They vividly demonstrated that automation with artificial intelligence challenges conventional communication models, prompting the question: “Is AI a tool, a conversation partner, or just a particularly eloquent parrot? And how much machine is still communication?”

On the key concept of media, Prof. Dr. Barbara Hans (Hamburg University of Music and Theatre) and Prof. Dr. Christoph Neuberger (Weizenbaum Institute / Freie Universität Berlin) emphasized that journalism has lost its monopoly in the digital public sphere, but has by no means lost its social relevance. Mass media has increasingly lost its role as a source of order due to the platform logic of social networks, where content is disseminated less according to journalistic criteria and more according to algorithmic visibility. “The internet is leading to a fluidification of media formats and usage,” says Hans. Nevertheless, journalism plays a central role as a cultural technique of doubt and verification. Because: “A resilient democracy needs resilient journalism.”

Prof. Dr. Natali Helberger (University of Amsterdam) and Prof. Dr. Christiane Eilders (CAIS / University of Düsseldorf) discussed how media actors, platforms, and users are changing their behavior in the digital public sphere. They also talked about the new questions of regulation and responsibility that are arising as a result.

During an interdisciplinary discussion moderated by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulz, Dr. Gregor Wiedemann (HBI), Prof. Dr. Michaela Pfadenhauer (University of Vienna), and Prof. Dr. Sascha Dickel (University of Mainz) talked about the implications of the outlined changes for media-related research and the requirements they place on theory, methods, and institutional practice. They illustrated this by discussing the work of the DFG research group on the automation of social communication, of which the HBI is a part through several projects.

In the second panel  Dr. Maximilian Müller-Härlin (BMFTR), PD Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt (HBI/RISC Hamburg), Eva Holtmannspötter (NDR Media Research) and Nicola Wessinghage (communications consultant) discussed the relationship between science, politics, the media and the public, moderated by Korinna Hennig (NDR Info). The focus was on how scientific findings can be incorporated into social decision-making processes. A central aspect of the discussion was the need for a conscious positioning between contract research, the legitimization of political decisions, and a purely academic perspective. These roles must be rebalanced constantly. At the same time, the participants emphasized the importance of protected spaces for confidential exchang, especially where uncertainties can be acknowledged and different perspectives can be made productive. Successful exchange between science and society requires both sides to understand each other’s working methods, content, and communication logic, so that consultation becomes an interface for social understanding.

Review in the Evening

The anniversary celebrations concluded with an evening event at NDR Rotherbaum. The three former HBI directors, Prof. Dr. Uwe Hasebrink, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, and Prof. Dr. Otfried Jarren, reflected on the history of the institute and their respective roles as institute directors. The panel discussion was moderated by Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner (HBI).

Outlook & Acknowledgments

The anniversary was not only an occasion to look back, but also to look ahead. With the approval of a strategic expansion by the Leibniz Association, the Hans-Bredow-Institut will receive additional funding starting in 2026 and will permanently have twice its current basic budget starting in 2030. This long-term boost will enable the institute to strengthen computer science as an equal disciplinary perspective and develop new, agile formats for transferring knowledge to society. By doing so, the HBI is establishing the structural conditions necessary to critically accompany future media change and providing impetus for a democratic public sphere in the digital age.

We would like to thank all contributors, guests, and cooperation partners for their support, their tangible solidarity, and their numerous congratulations. We would especially like to thank the Leibniz Association, which welcomed us so openly and warmly into its community in 2019. Our sincere thanks also go to the Ministry of Science, Research, and Equality and Senator Maryam Blumenthal for hosting the Senate reception; to NDR for hosting the expert and evening events, and to the Hamburg Scientific Foundation and the Rudolf Augstein Foundation for financially supporting the expert event.

Publications marking the anniversary

• Press release dated June 16, 2025
• Brochure “Facets with 75 years of the Hans-Bredow-Institut”
• Special episode of the BredowCast podcast

Photos: Leibniz Institute for Media Research / Jann Wilken

From June 2025, the Leibniz Research Network “Evidence-Based Science Communication” aims to counteract the increasing fragmentation of the research field by strengthening the links between theory and practice. The goal is to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of scientific communication and enhance its quality in the long term.

This three-year project will bring together partners from 14 Leibniz institutes, including representatives from all five sections of the Leibniz Association. The network contributes a wide range of perspectives, including those from educational research, psychology, and applied museum communication research. The HBI will contribute its expertise in communication science in the context of transfer research, including health communication.

The initiators of the network intend to strengthen the position of science communication as an interdisciplinary field of research within the Leibniz Association. The focus includes:

• Analyzing the interactions between science and society (e.g., in the context of impact research)
• Further developing evidence-based approaches to communicating scientific content
• Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and methodological innovations

Further information on the network can be found in the Leibniz Association’s press release of June 4, 2025: https://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/ueber-uns/neues/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilungen-single/newsdetails/neues-leibniz-forschungsnetzwerk-staerkt-evidenzbasierte-wissenschaftskommunikation.

More information on the Leibniz Research Networks is available online at www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/forschung/leibniz-forschungsnetzwerke/.

Image: Tung Lam on Pixabay

The 2025 federal election campaign once again demonstrated how much the digital attention economy influences the media visibility of political parties, especially benefiting the radical right. Four articles published on the blog of the Research Institute Social Cohesion examine the mechanisms, strategies and platform dynamics employed by the radical right to gain media exposure, and consider ways to counter this. The analyses focus particularly on the TikTok platform. Additionally, the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) is critically evaluated, especially with regard to restricted access to research data.

In their article, “Flood the Zone with Shit – Elon Musk, die AfD und das Agenda-Setting der radikalen Rechten im Bundestagswahlkampf2025” [Flood the Zone with Shit: Elon Musk, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), and the Agenda-Setting of the Radical Right in the 2025 German Federal Election Campaign], Jan Rau, Christoph Richter, and Daniel Wehrend explain how US billionaire Elon Musk’s communicative interventions have increased the media presence of Alice Weidel and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. They also discuss how these dynamics are driven by mechanisms of the digital attention economy. Linking international actors with social networks and traditional media creates new dynamics in political discourse.

Two additional articles focus on the TikTok platform, where the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is particularly effective at reaching young audiences. Although all parties represented in the Bundestag are now present on the platform, it is clear that the AfD continues to dominate — not least through emotional short videos and an active supporter base. In their article “Bundestagswahl 2025 auf TikTok” [Bundestag Election 2025 on TikTok], Dr. Gregor Wiedemann and Philipp Kessling analyze this using their own data from the Social Media Observatory. Following this analysis, the article “Election Campaigning in Time with the Algorithm” explains why the AfD continues to be successful on TikTok and how other parties can strengthen democratic public spheres on the platform. Although the SPD, the Greens, and Die Linke were able to increase their reach toward the end of the election campaign, the authors emphasize that democratic parties should view TikTok as more than just a tactical tool for election campaigns. They should also consider it a strategic and permanent space for democratic public discourse. However, current analyses show that engagement by democratic parties has declined since the federal election.

In their article, “Art. 40 DSA and Research Data Access in the German Federal Election: A Mixed Experience at Best“, Jan Rau, Philipp Kessling, Gregor Wiedemann, and Felix Victor Münch discuss the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA). While the DSA is intended to increase transparency regarding platform data, the authors report restricted access, technical issues, and a lack of cooperation. These issues make it difficult to analyze digital risks in the context of elections.

The article illustrates the strong influence of social platforms on political visibility. However, they also demonstrate that democratic parties can increase their reach under the right conditions, provided they strategically utilize digital channels in the long term. At the same time, there is a need for regulation to ensure the quality of research and debate.

Illustration: Ditho Design GmbH

Leonie Wunderlich has successfully defended her dissertation on “Information-Related Practices of Young People in the Hybrid Media System.” Congratulations to her!

The cumulative dissertation was supervised by Prof. Dr. Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw and Prof. Dr. Uwe Hasebrink, and the defense took place on the 27th of May 2025 at the library of the HBI, chaired by Prof. Dr. Judith Möller.

Leonie Wunderlich has been working as a research assistant at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) since July 2020 in Research Program 1, “Transformation of Public Communication – Journalistic and Intermediary Functions in the Process of Opinion Formation.”dung“.

Her research interest lies in the use of media and news in digital media environments. She is working on the project “Use the News – News Usage and News Literacy in the Digital Age”, which examines how people in Germany keep themselves informed and what the state of news competence is, especially among the population under the age of 30. Currently, she is investigating the role of (non-)journalistic actors in the information behavior of young people in the context of the #UseTheNews project.

Prof. Dr. Wiebke Loosen is a media expert and guest on Deutschlandfunk’s media podcast “Nach Redaktionsschluss” (After Editorial Deadline). What makes this format unique is that listeners determine the topics. This episode focuses on the relationship between journalists and their audience. Click here to listen to the podcast episode.

Listener Benedikt Herudek feels that journalistic offerings often fail to meet the needs of their audience. Topics that are relevant to readers, listeners, and viewers are not given enough attention. Instead, he often finds that reporting reproduces the opinions and worldviews of journalists. Where does this impression come from, and how can it be changed? And is there really such a thing as journalists and the general public? Holger Stark (ZEIT) discusses these questions in the podcast with Benedikt Herudek and media researcher Wiebke Loosen.

Loosen works at the HBI, where she focuses on the transformation of journalism in a changing media landscape and researches how audience expectations and journalistic practices relate to each other. In the podcast, she emphasizes that journalists in Germany fundamentally represent the same values as their audience — such as objectivity, neutrality, and diversity of perspectives. Conflicts often arise not from different basic attitudes, but from differences in how these values are implemented in practice.

Must or Should Journalists Align Themselves with Audience Expectations?

“I believe […] that good journalism also involves occasionally failing to meet audience expectations,” says Wiebke Loosen. In political journalism in particular, she argues, it is important to address issues that are central to democratic opinion-forming. According to Loosen, this can be understood as a “duty to keep informed” – a responsibility that can also be observed on the part of the audience.

Who Is the Audience?

Loosen points out that the view of the audience has changed significantly in recent years: editorial offices are increasingly thinking in terms of target groups and developing user-centric products. She thus emphasizes the clear shift in focus toward the audience. “There is no such thing as ‘the reader,’” she says, adding: “And when you talk to journalists, hardly anyone talks about ‘the audience’ anymore […]; instead, there are all kinds of different terms.” At the same time, according to Loosen, we have expectations of journalism and journalists to create a public sphere themselves.

Loosen emphasizes that it is important to address the contradictions and tensions associated with target orientation and user centricity in journalism.

For a special issue of the International Journal of Press/Politics on “Global Myth and Magic around AI: Enchanted Determinism and Folk Theories in Public Discourses on AI”, the guest editors Michael Reiss and Judith Möller (both HBI), Tomás Dodds (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) and Aleksandra Urman (University of Zurich, Switzerland) welcome submissions until 15 June 2025.

In many countries, public debates suggest that the rapid spread of generative AI is inevitable, portraying its application and implementation as essential for individuals, businesses, and even economies and societies as a whole. Such narratives, promoted by politicians, observers, and tech companies use a strategy described as enchanted determinism (Campolo & Crawford 2020) to present AI as an unstoppable force beyond human comprehension and control, without genuinely addressing its complexities. These actors deflect scrutiny from the technology’s biases, limitations, and ethical concerns by exaggerating AI’s capabilities. Consequently, this techno-optimism might shift the focus from critical evaluation to accepting AI’s supposed benefits, potentially sidestepping accountability and framing AI as a magical panacea for all kinds of social and political challenges—such as Milei’s proposal to use AI for crime prediction in Argentina, plans by the new U.S. government to let AI find budget savings or attempts in several countries to rely on AI to combat misinformation.

At the same time, enchanted determinism finds fertile ground in existing folk theories that view AI as objective, autonomous, and mythically powerful, reinforcing the misconception that these systems operate without human bias or error and are universally applicable. Together, enchanted determinism and folk theories limit transparent discussions by reducing the public’s ability to question or challenge these technologies. Fueling these folk theories by portraying AI as an autonomous force rather than a product of human choices narrows the scope of debate, limiting civic engagement, tech companies’ accountability, and regulatory oversight.

Furthermore, the dominance of U.S. and Chinese tech companies in the realm of AI, including hardware, software, and infrastructure, has been described as algorithmic colonialism (Birhane, 2023) and technocoloniality (Mboa Nkoudou, 2023). This domination is also reflected in a cycle of epistemological and consequential inequalities that disadvantage local and non-Western countries and societies. First, these tech giants control the development and operation of key AI systems, limiting others’ access to agency and knowledge. Second, they often ignore local needs and contexts. These factors create an opaque environment where narratives of enchanted determinism and techno-utopianism easily take hold, imposing a U.S./China-centric worldview and further reducing local agency and the opportunity for constructive and open societal debate.

As AI continues to integrate more deeply into various societal contexts globally, it becomes increasingly important to foster a transparent and inclusive societal conversation about its development and use. The imperative for such discourse is growing as AI technologies must adhere to societal values, ethical principles and the public interest–particularly in non-Western contexts such as in Africa (Adams et al., 2023). This special issue seeks to advance our understanding of contemporary AI-related debates by critically examining the discursive strategies and power dynamics that shape public discourse around AI. We invite contributions that engage with these themes through empirical or theoretical approaches, including but not limited to:

• Comparative qualitative or quantitative empirical analyses of how enchanted determinism and/or techno-optimism is employed by different actors and how these narratives shape public discourse on AI.
• Comparative qualitative or quantitative empirical studies of folk theories or imaginaries of AI and their influence on societal perceptions, expectations, and governance debates.
• Empirical or theoretical work on power relations in global AI development, particularly the role of U.S. and Chinese tech companies in shaping AI discourse in non-Western contexts.

Submission information

Proposals should include the following: a 750-1,000-word abstract (not including references) along with brief background information on the author(s), including details on previous and current research related to the special issue theme. The abstract should include a (preliminary) research question and, if applicable, a clear description of the methodological approach.
Please submit your proposal as a single PDF file, ensuring that your names are clearly stated both in the file name and on the first page. Proposals should be sent to ai.ijpp@protonmail.com by June 1, 2025, as indicated in the timeline below.

Authors of accepted proposals are expected to develop and submit their original article for full blind peer ­review through the journal’s online submission portal, ScholarOne, where authors will need to select the designated special issue “Global Myth and Magic around AI: Enchanted Determinism and Folk Theories in Public Discourses on AI” during submission. Articles must adhere to IJPP’s guidelines, which can be found here, and must not have been published, accepted for publication, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors are encouraged to pre-register empirical research designs and publicly share data, materials, and code after their manuscript is accepted. This is voluntary, but authors who adhere to the journal’s transparency standards will be awarded OSF Badges, acknowledging their contribution to open and replicable research. For more details on the journal’s open science guidelines and the criteria for earning OSF Badges, visit our announcement here.

Authors with any questions prior to submission are welcome to contact Michael Reiss at m.reiss@leibniz-hbi.de.

Timeline

15 June 2025 Submission deadline for abstracts (to ai.ijpp@protonmail.com)

15 July 2025 Notification of acceptance/decisions

15 November 2025 Submission deadline for full papers

The online publication of accepted articles is planned for June 2026.

About 75 years ago, in June 1950, the constituent assembly of the ARD took place. The aim was to strengthen the position of the broadcasters in the political arena and to have a say in international affairs, for example in the allocation of broadcasting frequencies. At that time, “the broadcasters” meant exclusively radio.

In a podcast by Rainer Volk for SWR Kultur, media historian Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner and other experts shed light on the history of the ARD. Wagner points out that the abbreviation “ARD” did not appear in 1950, but only in 1954. He explains why they initially tried to persuade people to register their radios with entertainment, why coordinating the introduction of FM programmes was so important and how the constitutional judges in Karlsruhe play a mediating role in this liberal model of broadcasting regulation.

Today, says Hans-Ulrich Wagner, the ARD as a public service broadcaster is a great success – and careers are no longer dependent on party membership as they once were.

The podcast “Die ARD und die Politik – Ringen um Unabhängigkeit” [ARD and Politics – The Struggle for Independence] is part of the SWR podcast series “Das Wissen” [The Knowledge] and can be found in the ARD audio library, which is only available in German.

Media researcher Dr. Sascha Hölig is an expert advisor to ZDF Television Council and has been supporting the council for two years in implementing the quality goals of ZDF’s voluntary commitment. Within the team, he has been mainly concerned with ZDF Kompass measurement tools, their potentials and limitations. In an interview published in the newsletter of ZDF Television Council, he draws a conclusion.

“I found our work extremely interesting and challenging. With the large number of key figures available from ZDF KOMPASS, it was sometimes not easy to keep track of the informative value associated with the measurement instruments used and how they can be used to accurately classify the achievement of the SVE goals. The diverse composition of our team was very helpful in this regard, and it was a pleasure to work together to address the interplay between legal requirements, their translation into SVE objectives, and a robust empirical review. I hope our work has helped the television council to some extent in assessing whether the objectives have been achieved or not.”

In Sascha Hölig’s view, the five core objectives formulated for 2025/2026 reflect the mandate of public broadcasting as formulated by the legislature. In accordance with the requirements of Section 31, Paragraph 2 of the Interstate Media Treaty and Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the ZDF statutes, ZDF publishes a report every two years on the fulfillment of its mission, the quality and quantity of its offerings, and the planned focus of its programming services (so-called self-commitment declaration).

Sascha Hölig personally finds core objective 1 “ZDF provides information with facts” and core objective 3 “ZDF illuminates backgrounds and helps to understand contexts” the most interesting. In both cases it is a question of whether ZDF succeeds in maintaining or gaining the trust of its users in order to be perceived as the most suitable source when it comes to understanding the world. This is a crucial point where ZDF as a journalistic actor can positively differentiate itself from the multitude of other content providers and generate significant added value for its audience.

Regarding the innovations in the metrics, Hölig said that one of the things he noticed was that in the context of the trust mentioned above, “trust in reporting” and “agreement with credibility” were generally mentioned as metrics. In his view, this is a rather general approach, where a more sensitive consideration might be helpful. The credibility of facts is an important aspect of trust in journalistic performance, but there are other factors involved, such as which facts are chosen in the first place or how they are classified by journalists. Insights into this broader view of trust could certainly be useful both in terms of assessing the achievement of objectives and as strategic knowledge for decision-makers.

Read the full interview in German here.

 

The Senate of the Leibniz Association has decided to continue funding the Leibniz Research Alliance “Value of the Past” until September 2029. In addition to the partner institutes’ own funds, the network will receive an additional 1.2 million euros for research and knowledge transfer. Within the research network, the HBI is part of the Research Lab “Practices of Appropriation”, which also focuses on historical memes and TikTok videos as well as historical Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Reasons for Continued Funding

In its statement, the Senate Committee on Strategic Planning (SAS) of the Leibniz Association praised the alliance for having achieved the main goals of the first funding phase in an “impressive way”. These include the development of an interdisciplinary working structure and the heuristic and conceptual clarification of the fundamentals. It has succeeded in building an internationally and publicly visible research network and establishing a new field of research, the topic of which is highly topical and relevant. “The network has achieved a convincing interdisciplinary approach to a central topic in the humanities and cultural studies, which has no equivalent in terms of scope and ambition in international comparison,” said the SAS.

Tasks of the Research Alliance

The Leibniz Research Alliance “The Value of the Past”, led by the Leibniz Centre for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF), brings together 21 Leibniz institutes and cooperates with numerous international partners. Together, they are exploring processes of value formation and value competition in societal debates about the past. The research alliance investigates the value of the past for past and present societies. This includes current debates on colonial art, reinterpretations of National Socialism and historically legitimized wars.

The First Funding Phase

The first funding phase saw numerous publications, particularly in the series “Wert der Vergangenheit” [Value of the Past] (Wallstein-Verlag). Outstanding publications include the handbook “Historische Authentizität” [Historical Authenticity] and studies on the demolition of historical monuments in contemporary history and the question of how musealization generates cultural values. Most recently, Henning Trüper’s book “,Unsterbliche Werte’. Über Historizität und Historisierung” [Immortal Values’ On Historicity and Historicisation] has received widespread attention. In addition, an online exhibition was created on the loss of historical architectural heritage in Ukraine as a result of the Russian war of aggression. The blog ‘Value of the Past’ provides insights into the ongoing research.

The Second Funding Phase

In the new funding phase, the network is addressing the value of the past in the context of current debates on climate change and biodiversity, the post-colonial responsibilities of the Western world, and the use of the past by resurgent right-wing populism and radicalism. The research network also addresses very practical issues, including the importance of concepts of space and time for understanding history, and questions of documentary evidence, for example in the field of digital history.

HBI Participation in the Research Alliance: Research Lab 3.2 “Practices of Appropriation”

The Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut is a full member of the Leibniz Research Alliance “Value of the Past”. Together with Dr. habil. Barbara Christophe from the Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute (GEI), Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner heads the Research Lab 3.2 “Practices of Appropriation” in the research network. This lab is dedicated to new communicative practices of appropriating the past, which can be observed against the background of media change. The projects and networking activities examine the processes of negotiating history and the past in the public sphere and in sub-publics with regard to which historical events and topics are declared relevant to the present by different actors.

The research examines the extent to which the multiplication of communicative spaces in which the past is contested challenges previously valid monopolies of interpretation and creates new ones. At a time when people co-produce their historical knowledge through a wide range of media, from the arts sections of transnational newspapers to TikTok videos and Hitler and Holocaust memes, consensus in the culture of memory is becoming increasingly difficult. The global availability of communication services and media representations is leading to a surge in heterogenization, especially in nation-state societies.

The work in the Lab takes these dynamics into account in various fields of action. Among other things, it analyzes historical-political interventions and media strategies of populist and new right-wing actors. It also focuses on practices of remembrance in the history classroom, where members of different generations come together with different media repertoires; the debate about rituals of remembrance in memorials and on anniversaries; and new forms of historical narrative in interactive digital media.

The Past in Social Media

As a small-scale study for a current social media memory project, Daria Chepurko, Ken Phan, Kira Thiel and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner examined the Instagram account “@ichbinsophiescholl” of the public broadcasters Südwestrundfunk (SWR) and Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR). This account promises an “honest” and “intimate perspective” on the young resistance fighter Sophie Scholl in the “Third Reich” by presenting her as a contemporary social media user. The results of the study have been published in the blog dossier “Sophie Scholl on Instagram: A Communication and Historical Analysis” on the HBI Media Research Blog.

Other Institutes Participating in the Leibniz Research Alliance “The Value of the Past”

Leibniz Centre for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF), Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum – Leibniz Research Museum for Georesources (DBM), Deutsches Museum (DM), German Maritime Museum – Leibniz Institute for Maritime History (DSM), Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute (GEI), Germanisches Nationalmuseum – Leibniz Research Museum for Cultural History (GNM), Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe – Institute of the Leibniz Association (HI), Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History Munich-Berlin (IfZ), Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS), Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG), Leibniz Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO), Leibniz Institute for Jewish History and Culture – Simon Dubnow (DI), Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS), Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM), Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie (LEIZA), Leibniz Center for Literary and Cultural Research (ZfL), Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient(ZMO), Senckenberg – Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research (SGN).

Further information

Press release in German on the “Leibniz Research Alliance ‘Value of the Past’ Receives Four More Years of Funding”, ZZF, March 26, 2025.

Website of the alliance with results and participating institutes

Blog of the alliance

What opportunities and risks does social media pose for political education, especially during election campaigns? Prof. Dr. Judith Möller gave an interview to Julia Stelzner in the magazine “Vogue” and referred to her research at the HBI.

Read the interview in German here

Summary

In the interview, Judith Möller points to the Reuters Digital News Report 2024 (published in German), which shows that 18 percent of Germans use social media as their most important source of news. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the figure is as high as 27 percent. Here they can find out which topics are important, who represents which opinion and which facts are relevant. Nevertheless, Judith Möller emphasizes that political opinions are also shaped by personal values, norms and the reality of life.

According to Judith Möller, there is little correlation between social media sympathies and voting decisions, but social media does have a relatively large influence on whether people vote at all.

Social media offers the opportunity to make politics approachable again, the scientist explains. Politicians can get involved directly. Judith Möller emphasizes the importance of authenticity and knowledge of the platform one is using.

The AfD occupied TikTok early on and uses the platform effectively to spread its messages in a targeted manner with simplified and pointed content. Judith Möller explains that the AfD is particularly popular with people who mistrust traditional media and spend more time on social networks.

Personalizing political content on social networks is not problematic as long as it does not replace substantive debate, says the researcher, who also emphasizes how disinformation and fake news can influence the formation of political opinion. The responsibility of the platforms, in particular through the EU’s Digital Services Act, is crucial to counteract lies and misinformation.

Photo: Luiza Nalimova, iStock