Democracy under Attack. Disinformation Campaigns, AI and the Role of the Media in the 2024 Super Election Year

Thursday, 12 September 2024, Orangery Sanssouci, Potsdam

WELCOME

Sabine Sasse, Head of Programme at M100, began by welcoming the participants to the Orangery at Sanssouci and thanking the supporters, sponsors and partners for their support, as well as her team.
Prof. Dr Christoph Martin Vogtherr, Director General of the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation (Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten) and thus head of the Orangery at Sanssouci, explained that the state of democracy, especially in view of the upcoming state elections in Brandenburg, also affects him and the Foundation. “One of our tasks is to present the history of Germany and especially the history of the monarchy in an ambivalent, open and critical way,” he said. This could be endangered in the future, because there are certain expectations that certain things presented here will be steered in a positive direction. He also pointed out the alarming dangers of climate change: “None of the trees we see here are healthy. I personally suspect that none of these trees will survive the next decade. An open and productive discussion about climate change and its consequences is only possible in a democratic society”.

OPENING SPEECH

Then, the 20th M100 Sanssouci Colloquium was officially opened by a keynote by Dr Anna Wieslander, Director for Northern Europe at the Atlantic Council, Chairman of the Institute for Security and Development Policy in Stockholm, and Secretary General of the Swedish Defence Association. Herr speech was entitled “With Russia as a Systemic Threat, Europe Needs a New Recipe for Peace and Prosperity”.
In it, she warned that the West is underestimating the Russian threat, including hybrid, and called for a new recipe for peace and prosperity in Europe, with solid defence as the foundation, not as an add-on: “A wait-and-see-approach will be devastating for European security,” she said.

Her main points:
• Russia is not a local problem. Russia is a systemic threat with ambitions to change the international system to its favour.
• Russia does not compare itself to regional powers such as Germany and France, but to the US and China, the other potential poles of an emerging multipolar system, which Russia strives for.
• Even if Russia’s war on Ukraine would end, that will not be the end of Russia’s ambitions internationally.
• To compensate for its economic weakness (GDP less than Canada or Italy) Russia aggressively uses its modernized military power, hybrid warfare, nuclear rattling and alignment with China.
• A systemic threat like Russia, that strives for greater political power and territory, cannot be stopped by inaction or appeasement. It has to be actively balanced by other great powers.
• Therefore, Europe must realize that future prosperity will not come unless it makes solid and long-term investments in resilience and defence.
• As of now, after a decade of intense hybrid warfare against the West and its war on Ukraine, Russia is not deterred.
• Apart from solid defence spending at the level of 3% of GDP, with an additional 0.25% yearly on military support to Ukraine, Europe must focus much more on deterrence against hybrid warfare.
• Russia is linking its hybrid warfare between domains, such as disinformation, cyberattacks, political subversion, espionage, sabotage and economic coercion.
• Therefore, Europe must develop tactics to respond across domains.
• A new European security order will have to balance against Russia, not attempting to include it as a trusted partner.
Read and watch her full speech with more political recommendations here.

In the subsequent question and answer session, Anna Wieslander pointed out the importance of traditional media in the fight against Russian propaganda and disinformation. She clearly answered in the negative when asked whether Europe was

prepared for a repeat Trump presidency. Trump’s entire political essence consists of being unpredictable. If he were to be elected again and make good on his promises, it would be ‘like the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a completely new situation for Europe and there is absolutely no plan B or preparation for it and I am not sure that we could prepare for it at all. Maybe the day after such a decision is made, we just have to face reality and realise that it is a completely new game for Europe.’
To solve the structural problem of European insecurity and disunity, she answered another question: political leadership is needed, which does not currently exist. Europe must start investing in its own defence and providing sustainable support to Ukraine and NATO. This could be done through a common fund. “We should send a signal that this is a long-term commitment from the West when it comes to supporting Ukraine, when it comes to spending on defence, when it comes to providing military capabilities to NATO, when it comes to effectively counter hybrid warfare, work on our own public and stand up for what we are and deter Russia,” Wieslander said.

PLENARY SESSION I
Plenary Session I followed on from Anna Wieslander’s remarks. With the title “Quo vadis, Europe?”, the organisers also drew a link to the very first M100 Sanssouci Colloquium in September 2005, which had the same motto. For to this day, the question has lost none of its justification and validity: Europe and the EU still seem to be at a loss as to what the future holds and where it will lead them – and, above all, they lack the creative will and ability to shape it. “We are here in Sanssouci and I wish I could say I am sans-souci, without care,” began Steven Erlanger, Chief Diplomatic Correspondent in Europe for the New York Times, his inspiration speech. “But I am not.” He mentioned the following points:

• Growing political challenges: There is increasing support for right-wing populist movements, particularly in regions like Thuringia and Saxony, driven by complex emotions around migration, foreign policy, and distrust of Berlin’s leadership.
• Emotional politics: Populist parties excel in appealing to emotions, while centrist parties, especially in Berlin, struggle to connect on this level. This “politics of emotion” needs more focus from liberal democrats.
• Defending democratic values: Democracies must safeguard voting rights and listen to citizens’ concerns, even when populism rises. Patronizing voters is counterproductive.
• Internal threats to democracy: Leaders in various countries (e.g., Orban, Modi, Trump) have weakened democratic institutions from within by undermining checks and balances.
• Rise of nationalism: Populist rhetoric about “recuperating sovereignty” is gaining traction, particularly against the EU and its values.
• Democracy under threat: There is a real danger to democracies from internal dissatisfaction, and failing to address these issues could lead to deeper divisions.

In a second impulse, Stefan Schaible, Global Managing Partner and Spokesperson of the Executive Board of Roland Berger, brought the economic perspective to the discussions – ‘because a robust economy is crucial for Europe to promote peace,

freedom and democracy worldwide,’ said Schaible. To ensure our future competitiveness, Europe needs a new agenda that reflects the new geo-economic realities. According to Schaible, these include in particular:
• Economic Basis for Democracy: Economic stability is crucial to upholding democracy and human rights. Reforms in labour markets and pensions in Europe are essential but often unappreciated by voters.
• Political and Economic Challenges in the US: The US faces political instability and significant debt, which will limit future governments’ ability to act. This will have global consequences, requiring Europe to take a stronger leadership role.
• China’s Challenge: China’s growing innovation and totalitarian political system present a major challenge. Its economic growth is crucial to maintaining domestic stability, but long-term sustainability is questionable.
• Europe’s Role: Despite challenges, Europe can still take a strong role by strengthening its economy, fostering free trade, and innovating. A stronger euro could serve as a reserve currency, and infrastructure investments are key.
• Migration and Demographics: Europe must adopt a managed migration policy to address demographic challenges. Failing to do so will harm its economic future.
• Security and Foreign Policy: Europe needs a unified military and nuclear strategy to defend democracy and counter rising totalitarian tendencies. Urgent reforms are needed to prevent anti-democratic forces from gaining ground.
• Call to Action: The media should emphasize the long-term economic and security challenges facing Europe, encouraging faster action and public support for reforms. The next few years are critical for shaping Europe’s future.

The following key points emerged from the ensuing discussion:

• Orbán’s influence in Slovakia: It was pointed out that Robert Fico in Slovakia was following Viktor Orbán’s example and spreading pro-Russian disinformation, as he does in Hungary. Slovakia is seen as a crucial test of the EU’s ability to defend its values.
• The role of governments in disinformation: Both the Hungarian and Slovak governments are now important sources of disinformation, which complicates efforts to combat it. The EU must play a more proactive role in combating such disinformation,

rather than treating it as an internal national policy.
• Resilience of democratic institutions: It was discussed whether democratic institutions, as in Slovakia, can withstand illiberal governments. One participant compared Slovakia’s resilience to the weaker democratic structures in Georgia and emphasised the difficulty of dismantling established institutions.
• European naivety towards Russia: Some in Western Europe, particularly in Germany, still cling to the hope that Russia can become a ‘better’ partner, reflecting a persistent naivety despite aggressive Russian propaganda and influence in countries like Hungary and Slovakia.
• Challenges of a common European defence: The lack of progress in creating a common European defence policy was mentioned in the discussion, due to nationalist tendencies in countries such as France and Germany and the influence of Russia’s divisive tactics in European politics.
• Populism and the media: Media professionals face challenges in combating populism and Russian propaganda. It is difficult to ensure comprehensive coverage of underrepresented sectors (e.g. rural or working-class communities) without inadvertently promoting populist narratives.
• EU and Eastern Europe: Eastern European countries, including the Western Balkans, look to the EU for moral leadership. There are concerns about double standards, with environmental and political standards in Western Europe being ignored in the east.
• Environmental concerns: One participant pointed out the lack of attention paid to the climate crisis in political discussions in Europe. This would drive migration in the future and pose significant challenges.
• Media influence on public perception: It is becoming increasingly difficult to report on slow-moving crises such as Russian influence in Eastern Europe, as media consumption habits favour shorter, crisis-related stories.
• Distrust in the media: Despite efforts to better represent underrepresented communities, mainstream media struggles with a lack of public trust, a key factor fuelling populist movements. There is ongoing reflection on whether the media can adapt to better meet these challenges.

LIVE JOURNALISM: DISINFORMATION IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Presentation of the M100 Young European Journalists Workshop

This year’s M100 Young European Journalists Workshop (M100YEJ) focused on fake news and disinformation in election campaigns. 19 participants from 17 European countries were invited to Potsdam from 7 to 12 September to deepen their knowledge, exchange ideas and network. In addition, they learned about the different conditions and challenges for journalism that arise from the different political and social systems in their respective home countries.
In the first, theoretical part, experts Caroline Lindekamp (CORRECTIV) and Dr Katja Muñoz (DGAP) taught various tools and approaches for uncovering different types of fake news and disinformation and explored the question of the influence of AI on elections. In addition, the participants presented initiatives against disinformation in their home countries in elevator pitches.
On 11 September, the workshop culminated in a public “Reporter Slam”, which was performed by six participants of the YEJ at the cultural centre FreiLand in Potsdam and accompanied by live music. The Reporter Slam was organised by the Potsdam agency Headliner (Jochen Markett and Christine Liehr), which specialises in live journalism. Especially in times when trust in journalism is dwindling, formats that rebuild trust through personal encounters between journalists and users are particularly important.
On 12 September, the young journalists participated in the M100 Sanssouci Colloquium, where the winner of the public Reporter Slam, Christoph Schwaiger from Malta, once again presented his moving slam about the Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was assassinated by a car bomb in October 2017.
Read a detailed summary here.

INSPIRATION: “HOW TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY ON SOCIAL MEDIA?”
Luai Ahmed, Host at „Builders of the Middle East“, Columnist at Bulletin, Sweden

Luai Ahmed, a journalist and content creator from Yemen, shared his personal journey of transformation from deep-rooted extremism and anti-Semitism to becoming a vocal advocate for peace, coexistence, and deradicalization in the

Middle East. He detailed how his upbringing in Yemen shaped his initial extremist beliefs and how moving to Sweden and forming meaningful connections, particularly with an Israeli friend, shifted his worldview. Today, as part of the “Builders of the Middle East” movement, Ahmed works with both Arabs and Jews to combat hatred and extremism by telling human stories of unity, understanding, and shared experiences on TikTok, Instagram and Twitter. He emphasized the need for deradicalization efforts to create a peaceful Middle East and called for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine as a crucial step towards lasting peace.
Read his whole speech here.

STRATEGIC WORKING GROUPS
In the four strategic working groups which took place in parallel, the participants discussed the following topics:
I. Europe’s future (inspiration: Nicolas Tenzer, Non-Resident Senior Fellow Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), France, moderation: Anja Wehler-Schöck, International Editor Der Tagesspiegel, Germany)
II. The influence of disinformation on elections and media (inspiration: Mykhaylo Dubyak, media analyst, SEO expert, Ukraine; moderation: Caro Kriel, CEO Thomson Foundation, UK)
III. Artificial intelligence and journalism (inspiration: Amy S. Mitchell, executive director, Center for News, Technology & Innovation (CNTI), USA; moderation: Prof. Dr. Alexandra Borchardt, senior journalist, university teacher, media adviser)
IV. Journalism between objectivity and activism (inspiration: Dr Gregor Peter Schmitz, Editor-in-Chief of STERN; moderation: Antonia Marx, Hanns Martin Schleyer Foundation)

OUTCOMES:

I. Europe’s Future: How can Democracy become more assertive?

• There was broad consensus in the discussion that democratic leaders are often weaker at conveying clear and convincing messages. Extremist politicians, on the other hand, use simple black-and-white narratives and appear with great self-confidence, which helps them to address the concerns of the population in a targeted manner. It was criticised that leading politicians such as Chancellor Scholz and President Biden often do not appear confident enough to successfully communicate their policies.
• It was emphasised how effectively extremist politicians use social media, while traditional parties lag behind. These deficits in addressing young people in particular are hardly reached by established parties.
• Some M100 alumni emphasised that politics must invest much more in creative marketing strategies to present its messages attractively on social platforms. Humorous and concise memes, for example, could help spread a positive narrative of freedom.
• One participant expressed pessimistic concerns and warned that we are heading for a bleak future if politicians do not deal with realities more openly and transparently. Extremist parties feed on people’s fears and mistrust of government, which gives them a huge boost. The demand was made for more discussion of the rule of law, international law and human rights. The silence of democratic governments in the face of human rights violations, for example by Russia or China, leads to confusion and weakens the credibility of Western values.
• In conclusion, the central question of the waning self-confidence of Western democracies was brought into focus. Major political initiatives such as Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act or Scholz’s ‘Zeitenwende’ (turning point) could not have strengthened this self-confidence. There is a profound need for more open self-reflection and a stronger connection to citizens in order to restore trust in democracy.
In addition, it was discussed that the perception of the economic situation is often more important than objective reality. In the US, for example, Republican voters perceive their situation as worse, although their situation is similar to that of Democratic voters in the same regions. These subjective perceptions have also been observed in eastern Germany. It is therefore important to listen to people and to represent one’s own position more confidently.

II. In Propaganda’s Net: How Disinformation Campaigns influence Elections worldwide

Key takeaways:

• One point of discussion was the complexity of measuring the impact of Russian disinformation. Its main goal is to sow doubt, rather than persuade individuals to take specific actions. These doubts can hinder democratic participation, such as voting in

elections, through confusion and mistrust. Quote: ‘Russian disinformation has one big goal: to make you doubt, to make you doubt your principles.’
• Russia is not only waging a physical war against Ukraine, but also an information war. And it is waging this information war throughout Europe, and it risks succeeding in both.
• In Western Europe, Russian disinformation may influence the outcome of elections. In Eastern Europe, people are fighting not against Russian bots, but against the Russian regime and their often pro-Russian governments, as in Georgia, for example. They are receiving money from Russia to undermine a European future for the countries.
• Russian actors support different groups to divide society and create confusion. The polarisation of societies is far more dangerous than ‘just’ influencing elections.
People who believe pro-Russian narratives are out of reach for journalists. At the same time, journalists and media are the main targets of the Russian propaganda machine.
• One participant suggested that ‘propaganda’ might be a more appropriate term than ‘disinformation’ because Russia has been successful in both physical and information warfare.
• Journalists face ever greater challenges in this context, including online attacks.
• Journalists reporting on Ukraine are often subject to personal online harassment.
• Another challenge for journalists: reporting critically on Ukraine (e.g. corruption) without spreading Russian narratives. When reporting on such sensitive issues, context must be taken into account. Corruption is often limited to certain individuals or institutions and does not affect an entire country.
• There are major challenges in attributing disinformation campaigns, which may involve both foreign and domestic actors – such as authoritarian regimes or non-state actors.
• Democratic governments must vigorously prosecute, expose and neutralise the purveyors of disinformation in their countries.
• A recent example from the presidential elections in Turkey illustrated how domestic, government-controlled media can influence public opinion, making attribution more complex than simply blaming foreign actors like Russia.

III. How to balance potential benefits with potential harms? Journalism and Artificial Intelligence

Opportunities:

• AI enables journalists and audiences to interact with new sets of data in a completely different way, it will change how everyone interacts with archives, accesses and processes large amounts of data, searches for information.
• AI assistants can replace the human assistants some privileged journalists used to have.
• Small newsrooms with very limited resources will profit tremendously from AI in content creation, particularly visuals and audio files.
• “AI will profit from journalism probably more than journalism from AI.”

Challenges:
• Managing the speed of the development is challenging, bringing it to time-pressed colleagues who are reluctant to go out of their ways.
• It will be tough for regulators and other institutions to keep up with the speed of the development.
• There will be start-ups in the news space invested in creating content without being bound to the ethical principles of journalism.
• Part of the public will use it to create disinformation and misinformation.
• Journalism could become invisible in new search environments.
• “The news industry used to be very slow in taking advantage of technology. We have to make sure we don’t miss the boat again.”

Audience research:
• The audience wants to be certain that journalists don’t use AI to replace journalism but to make it more meaningful. It is about trust.
• Many people use AI tools but not to get the news.
• People are more concerned about fake images and videos than about misinformation in texts. They are more tolerant about mistakes in automated translation and transcription than they would have been in traditional journalism.
• Audiences want meaningful transparency. Sometimes labelling builds distrust rather than trust.
• “The public will not judge our products against the ideal of journalism but against how they experience journalism in their lives.”
Bottom line: Journalists, publishers, and regulators have to get ahead of the curve, understand how (generative) AI works, what it is good at and what it is incapable of achieving.
Conclusion: Journalists, publishers and regulators need to engage with the topic and understand how (generative) AI works, what it is good for and what it is not capable of.

IV. The Future of the Media: Journalism between Objectivity and Activism
The discussion clearly showed how opinions differ on the role of journalists in today’s world. This is also a generational issue: older journalists are much more likely to reject activist journalism than younger ones. However, all participants agreed that

editorial offices should be diverse in order to represent different opinions and backgrounds. However, no consensus could be reached on how journalism should position itself between objectivity and activism.
Questions:
• How much activism can journalism take? And what does this mean for the independence, future and credibility of (traditional) media?
• Who is allowed to write about which topic? For example, can a white older man write about racism?
• Is objectivity a desirable goal for media companies from an economic point of view? Would it be better to become more partisan since people respond more to more emotional reporting?
Do we, as journalists, take ourselves too seriously as ‘defenders of democracy’?
What role does journalism play when liberal democracies are at stake?

Some key points from the discussion:
Diversity in editorial offices: All participants agreed that editorial offices should represent a wide range of backgrounds and opinions. More perspectives lead to more objectivity in the debate.
Different positions:
• One participant, who comes from an autocratically governed country where independent journalism is suppressed, emphasised that objectivity in journalism is not possible in his country and that journalists must also be activists. In authoritarian states, merely reporting on certain topics can be interpreted as activism, which means that the term is often instrumentalised.
• Other participants took the opposite view, saying that neutrality was an essential duty of journalists.
Difficulty of neutrality: It is challenging to remain neutral when access to facts is limited or the context is missing. Selecting topics could already be considered a form of activism.
Specialisation vs. activism: Specialists in certain topics should not automatically be labelled as activists.
Challenge to traditional media: Large editorial offices that adhere to neutrality could put themselves out of business as the media landscape becomes more challenging.
Credibility problem: Credibility is of the essence, but it is declining. Personal opinions contribute to this decline. Blending activism and journalism can lead to a loss of credibility, especially since many readers now prefer opinions to facts.
Generation change: There is a noticeable change where younger generations are more interested in opinions than facts. This can have different effects depending on the region.
Fine line between objectivity and activism: The line is very blurred, and transparency in journalism is crucial. Cultural influences and phenomena such as cancel culture further complicate the definition of activism.

SPECIAL TALK “IN THE SHADOW OF THE US ELECTIONS”
After a longer rebuilding break for renovations, the live-streamed panel discussion “In the Shadow of the US Elections’ took place in cooperation with POLITICO. The panel included Tanit Koch (journalist, The New European, Germany) and Olga Rudenko (editor-in-chief, The Kyiv Independent, Ukraine). Adam Jasser (Deputy News Director, TVP World, Poland) and Jakob Hanke Vela (Senior Correspondent, POLITICO) joined the discussion online. The discussion was moderated by Jürgen Klöckner (Head of Pros and Senior Politics Reporter, POLITICO).
Key points of the discussion:

• Beyond Ukraine, the discussion also focused on how Europe remains overly dependent on the U.S. for its security. Although eight years have passed since Trump’s first election and the need for European defence independence is becoming ever more apparent, Europe still lacks military contributions and self-sufficiency.
• The panellists criticised Europe for not keeping its promises, including the promised shortage of ammunition for Ukraine. They emphasised that Europe must develop its own coherent defence strategy, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.
Fear of escalation:
• Fear of provoking Russia by supplying more advanced weapons to Ukraine has limited US and European support. Panelists stressed that this caution could be misconstrued by Russia as weakness, further destabilising the situation.
• German Chancellor’s repeated references to the nuclear threat posed by Russia was largely contributing to fear-mongering among the German public. This was in contrast to politicians like Boris Johnson, who played down the nuclear threat to avoid panic.
• The discussion then shifted to the broader implications of the German contributions to the defence of Ukraine, with criticism that the government was not effectively communicating the strategic importance of its support for Ukraine, presenting it instead as an altruistic act rather than one linked to Germany’s own security.
• A Ukrainian perspective was introduced, emphasising that Europe and the US overestimate Russia’s potential for escalation. Although Ukraine entered Russian territory for the first time in 70 years, Russia’s reaction was restrained, and the significance of the incursion was downplayed in the Russian media. It was emphasised that while Russia remains aggressive, its actions do not pose an imminent nuclear threat.
• There was also criticism of the West’s hesitation, with the argument that more pressure should be put on Russia, including tougher sanctions and the unfreezing of Russian assets, without escalating the situation.
• The upcoming US elections were also raised in the discussion. Uncertainty about America’s future support for Ukraine after the elections is worrying. Europe, especially Germany, should have prepared itself better over the last decade, but the US still provides the bulk of military and financial support for Ukraine.
• European politicians, especially in Germany, are focusing too much on domestic politics and failing to address the broader geopolitical challenges.
• The historical fascination and sympathy for Russia in the West, based on cultural and economic ties, was also addressed. This view has allowed for a certain leniency towards Russia despite Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
• The topic of a possible peace conference, proposed by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, was also discussed. Olga Rudenko judged the initiative to be naive, especially in view of the ongoing Russian threat and the political division of the West.
• There was scepticism about whether Russia would seriously negotiate for peace. Putin would only consider this if sufficient pressure was applied, including by the American leadership. However, the prospect of a resurgence of US isolationism, particularly under a future Trump administration, raised doubts about long-term American commitment.
• Finally, the importance of Western unity was emphasised, both in supporting Ukraine and in countering Russian influence and carefully navigating the complex geopolitical landscape shaped by elections in Europe and the US.
The recording of the live stream of the discussion can be found here.

M100 MEDIA AWARD
The M100 Sanssouci Colloquium concluded with the presentation of the M100 Media Award to Dr Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, President of the Republic of Kosovo, and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland.
The prize honours them as indispensable voices for a democratic, free society in Europe and as pioneers for a modern, stable Europe.
Professor Adam Bodnar, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Poland, accepted the award on behalf of Donald Tusk, who was unable to attend in person. TV journalist and M100 Advisory Board member Astrid Frohloff hosted the evening.
Please find a comprehensive summary with the transcription of all speeches here.

We thank our supporters, sponsors and partners!
M100SC: City of Potsdam, Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg, Deutsche Postcode Lotterie, Federal Foreign Office, Medienlabor Agency, DemokratieCampus, AFP, MVFP, Reporters Without Borders, Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation
M100YEJ: Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, Deutsche Postcode Lotterie, ZEIT Stiftung Bucerius