The hegemonic political mass-mediated communication in the context of the Covid pandemic is increasingly perceived as risk and fear communication, leading to the division of society into vaccinated and unvaccinated, vaccination supporters and vaccination skeptics or vaccination opponents. Fear is a term from psychology that describes an emotional state: Fear is

This paper is not about anxiety as an individual psycho-physiological phenomenon, but rather about anxiety as a communicative problem. Referring to modern societies, Bergmann states, “Fear is outdated and at the same time current; in many respects it has become obsolete with the advent of modern societies – and yet it is currently produced again and again” (Bergmann, 2002: 2) in order to disturb or upset.

What can be concluded from this paper is that, by all appearances, one requirement was and is to put the population in a state of fear by way of argument in order to enforce the respective measures to contain and control the pandemic. The requirements for this type of communication are directed at institutions that manage the pandemic, politicians, and the hegemonic journalistic mass media by it in print, radio, or digital.

In this way, the pandemic communication can be charged with morality through fear. Referring to ecological communication, Luhmann formulates:

What is meant by this is that anxiety can only be coped with within the consciousness of an individual. Now, it cannot be denied that in the pandemic situation every individual is surrounded by a rhetoric of fear and perceives and processes it in different ways. Journalistic media play an essential role in this process. As with other media – such as film or video games – it is true for articles in the daily or online press that the pandemic communication can evoke emotions such as fear, shame, hatred or guilt in images and text. If one assumes, as Eckoldt does, that journalistic media operate in the symbolically generalized medium of attention, then fear communication could be interpreted in terms of news value theory as an attracting negative variable with attention-enhancing value (Cf. Eckoldt, 2002: 202). Gaining attention or recipient loyalty to the medium itself cannot be considered in isolation. Rather, the contribution that mass media perform for society must be illuminated. Luhmann sees this in the “formation of public opinion” (Krause, 2005: 50). If, in this context, fear-related communication is a resonance principle “that magnifies certain things and obscures others” (Luhmann, 2008: 160), it is, according to Luhmann, being connected to a persuasive function – related to the pandemic it is the function to legitimize decisions instituted by laws or regulations. The fear of illness and death is supposed to promote acceptance for the Infection Protection Act [Infektionsschutzgesetz], hygiene ordinances [Hygieneverordnungen] or contact restrictions.

In a linguistic perspective, it is not possible to investigate the fear that spreads in persons as a feeling. This would require recipient interviews. The aim is to examine, on the basis of communicative acts in the daily and online press, which type of rhetoric promotes fear-related communication and is available for perception.

Here [Cosmas II] we can also find the Frankfurter Rundschau article titled “Needle on the playground / three more months of uncertainty / Ministry of Health a prick frightens parents: Was their son injected with the HIV-virus?” [Spritze auf dem Spielplatz / Noch drei Monate Ungewißheit / Gesundheitsamt Ein Piks macht Eltern Angst: Wurde ihr Sohn mit HIV-Virus infiziert?] (FAZ 1997: 17). So the use of the term prick goes back to the context of “little patients” being vaccinated and the vaccination is being downplayed toward these to avoid fear. In the second document, however, the prick is then associated with danger. In the meantime, small children are provided with a four- or six-fold vaccination against quite a few childhood diseases and infection possibilities. Uses of the lexeme prick are also common in this context in the texts of the written language corpora in COSMAS II. The year 2020 shows the most evidence in the Cosmas search, which refers to mass media – 144 hits in 128 texts. However, piks, which now metonymically stands for vaccination in general, says nothing about the content of the vaccine and also hides the fact that one does not die from a prick, but a vaccination can occasionally lead to death. Thus, the language of the Corona pandemic continues to use prick in a trivializing way with reference to children and adults. This is related to the fact that little or no open and critical discussion is taking place about the new vaccine technology using mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines and about vaccine side effects. Thus, downplaying is now used to pacify, to reduce fear.

The following section of this paper deals with aspects of the selectivity of a rhetoric of fear as Luhmann formulates it which will be illustrated with regard to mass media journalistic communication. He outlines that “selectivity is also inherent in the rhetoric of fear insofar as it emphasizes the development for the worse and conceals the many remarkable advances [...]” (Luhmann, 2008: 160). It will be shown below that selectivity is a central aspect not only for fear-related communication, but in mass media communication in general.

Luhmann explains this paradox in his reflections precisely not with the concept of manipulation, but with an effect of the functional differentiation of modern society and describes the “internal-behavior” [Eigenverhalten] of the system. In the search for an “inclined audience” the mass media construct a reality in the sense of “what appears as reality for them or through them for others” [emphasis in original] (Luhmann, 2009: 12). The advantage here is that in mass media communication, interaction among those present is excluded by the “interposition of technology”. A spontaneous reaction to utterances, as can occur in the face-to-face situation, is not possible (Luhmann, 2009: 10).¹ This, according to Luhmann, ensures

From his approach of observing mass media observers “as they construct reality”, Luhmann describes the self-reference and external-reference of the mass media (Luhmann, 2009: 15). The external reference, he argues, is reflected in the choice of topics that concern society as a whole and are the basis for communication. In other words: In the absence of self-referential content, the mass media select objects of observation in society and address them in their sections such as politics, economics, or sports. The relationship between external and self-reference requires a constant reconciliation, as Luhmann notes: “At the thematic level, therefore, there is an ongoing reconciliation of external reference and self-reference within the system's internal communication” (Luhmann, 2009: 21-22 emphasis in original). The current situation in the Covid pandemic illustrates how the selection of topics occurs. An event in its course over two years largely determines the media’s choice of topics and is also likely to portray and maintain a perpetual potential for danger by presenting these topics in particular as worthy of representation. Since it is impossible to comprehensively observe everything that happens in society, the omission of information is common practice. Even for a report on a governmental press conference, it is necessary to select what information can be included, and this is the type of information that can be kept within the narrative of dangers to public health and the overburdening of the health care system. For example, the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quotes the press conference held by Drosten, Wieler and Lauterbach on January 14, 2022: “As a result of the anti-corona measures, contacts in Germany have been reduced to about 50 percent of the ‘pre-pandemic age’. ‘Nevertheless, there is no reason to sound the all-clear signal’, Lauterbach said”. Referring to Wieler, the report noted that “due to the mass of infections, one would have to be prepared for the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths to rise again. So far, deaths had not yet increased again: ‘But that will change’” (Schmoll, 2022). All in all, it is the negative statements that are directly quoted and counteract possible approaches moving in a positive direction.

First, note the current meaning of the lexeme maverick [Querdenker], which the Institute for the German Language's Dictionary of Neologisms notes in Corona pandemic as: “Person who rejects the generally applicable rules of conduct for containing the COVID-19 pandemic as well as other government regulations in connection with the pandemic (with varying political and ideological motivations)” (Dictionary of Neologisms: Keyword Querdenker).⁴ A statement made by the Prime Minister of Hesse, Volker Bouffier, in November 2020, is listed as evidence, who warned against a wholesale condemnation of the protests. However, he was critical of people who use violence and should therefore be observed preventively by the German domestic intelligence service [Verfassungsschutz].

Ultimately, such a derivation of the rejection of injections, the effectiveness of which would have to be critically reflected in politics, lacks any plausibility. It does, however, seem to attract attention and stimulate introspective reflection by actors in the system itself.

Within the communication about the Covid pandemic, a lack of clarity is particularly noticeable with regard to changing decrees depending on the current situation on 2G, 2G+, 3G (vaccinated and recovered; vaccinated, recovered and tested; vaccinated, recovered and unvaccinated tested), which regulate access to social life and institutions. What applies at one moment in time can already be outdated, such as the decision of the Robert Koch Institute in consultation with the Ministry of Health on Jan. 14, 2022, to cancel the convalescent status after a lived-through infection after three months; previously, six months applied. The Nordkurier only reported on 18 January 2022 about under the title: “Recovered - attention: status is valid only three months”. In the beginning it is outlined: “Omikron is spreading at lightning speed – and politics and authorities are trying to adapt the rules to the Covid variant. Now the guidelines have been changed for those who have recovered”. Although this change is justified with scientific findings, it is not explained, as the author of the article also reflects in indirect speech: “The background was – it is said [sei] – that due to Omikron there was a much greater risk of falling ill again or being a carrier after that period” (Meyer, 2022: 17). The subheading of the article reads “New ‘rules of the game’ for compulsory vaccination due to Omikron?” and it continues “At the same time the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] explains: ‘These guidelines are reviewed regularly and may change according to the state of science’”. And indeed – two days later, a full vaccination counts as valid only when inclusive of a booster, while first and second injections are considered basic immunization only. These types of changes can cause irritation, disturbance and worry. It is also disturbing, however, that the article’s editor uses the term rules of the game. Gaming rules are usually valid for a certain time and changes to them must be indicated to the gaming partners, otherwise one plays and acts assuming misplaced preconditions. In this respect, there is not the slightest comment from the editor, whose task actually is to inform, what he has effected with the attention mark. Nevertheless, the term rules of the game appears inappropriate in the context of reporting during the pandemic, since it is not about a game, but about a serious matter that affects millions of people. Furthermore, the article quotes Christian Drosten, who refers to a broadly anchored vaccination-based protection in the population. The author deems it important to add and to reproduce Drosten in an indirect quote “- otherwise too many people would die” while the article concludes with the Covid-infection figures of the day in the sentence: “Within 24 hours 30 deaths were recorded” (Ibid.).

The neologism Corona mortality [Corona Sterblichkeit] is described by the Neologism Dictionary on Coronapandemic of IDS as the “proportion of deaths among all persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (Neologismenwörterbuch zur Sprache in der Coronapandemie). What does this definition mean? Does infection refer to disease or severe disease, or does it mean that people die from other underlying diseases and were coincidentally found to be infected with the virus? In the mass media communication on the daily documentation of deaths during the pandemic, the formula “due to or in connection with” the virus had become established in this regard. It can currently be observed (in January 2022) that this formula is used less frequently, varied through the omission of “due to” or is no longer used at all (Matuschek, 2022), but instead it is formulated that: “The number of deaths increased by x to y”. Through this, the controversial formula is no longer used and also no longer questioned, as it remained equally unclear what due to or with the virus means and what a differentiated numerical balance might look like. In September 2021, a contribution by Nils Metzger on ZDFheute already argued:

The article in Welt-online dated Aug. 30, 2021, to which this reference is made, it is argued with reference to a medical doctor: “For a large part of the Covid deaths reported by the RKI, it is unclear what they died of – the death statistics are increasingly being distorted”. The journalist at ZDF hence cites a rather critical paper in the self-monitoring of the system. At the same time is weakened in both media through the use of the term probably. The term increasingly distorted in Die Welt, is countered by the attribute thin in the ZDFreport. The concessive adverb announces the opinion that improvement would be good. With reference to the AfD and Kubicki, it is noted whom such critical contributions, like the one in Die Welt, could benefit (Cf. ibid.).

A similar percentage figure is used in the following days by BildTV. The preceding evidence demonstrates the complicated – due to direct taking this from the authorities – and non-transparent way of portraying numbers in the media – because it is taking place in an observation of second order – within pandemic reporting. Numbers create a factual and scientific impression in the selective journalistic operations. They are no longer transparent for the readership and also the idea that the readership could make up its own mind on the basis of named studies appears as an imposition, so they have to use what they are being presented with.

The figures, taken from a study, turn out to be quite coherent for understanding the text. But what do the numbers ultimately mean to an individual who is asked to take a decision concerning the vaccination. A few weeks later it becomes obvious, communicated via various news channels and information from the RKI, that even individuals provided with a third injection are not spared from vaccine breakthroughs, but perhaps from severe illness.⁸ The numbers and comparisons could be reassuring to a readership. However, they are noted in the text as a quantity, which is put into relation with a following adversative, however, which leads to a warning that Drosten had pronounced.

In summary, it can now be stated against the systems theoretical background that communication represents something improbable that must be transformed into something probable. Panic and fear scenarios are used to generate attention as well as to form opinions and “social(s) expectations” (Köstler, 2011) so that communication, willingness to communicate, readability, follow-up communication as well as follow-up practices become more probable and legitimate. This occurs within the framework of a preformed communicative practice. Fiehler defines communicative practices as “preformed modes of procedure that are socially available when certain recurrent goals or purposes are to be realized communicatively” (Fiehler, 2004: 99). The findings gathered in this paper up to January 2022 can be summarized and systematized into a communicative (journalistic) practice at the macro level of a social subsystem. It has emerged as a conventionalized practice in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, the practice to be described here emerged from certain social contexts of action of journalistic writing, within which it gains its functionality (Deppermann et al, 2016: 7). In this context, Depermann/Feilke/Linke also speak of “context-bound customs” (Deppermann et al, 2016: 8). The rhetoric of fear communication in hegemonic journalistic media (their information and opinion text varieties), charged with moral impetus, has coined a pattern that can be summarized in a scheme of journalistic writing on the micro-level of linguistic means:

The maintenance of alarm beyond the previous period of study is evident in current reporting by hegemonic media on Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5. ZDF.de, for example, reports Frank Ulrich Montgomery’s concerns on May 31, 2022, that “the variant will also spread in Germany”. He warns of an outbreak: “Corona is not over yet – this is evidenced by the violent outbreak of Omicron in Portugal”. It is further reported that “many people – including vaccinated people – would fall ill. However, vaccinated people would have much milder symptoms”. Then follows, in bold type and in larger size, the “Recommendation for vaccination: ‘Vaccinate, now more than ever! And no pitting freedom against security’” (ZDF, 2022). The emergence of the subtype of the Omicron variant BA.5 is further linked to the question “Is a new Corona wave threatening to take place?” in a Panorama report on zdf.de, 01 June 2022. The background to this is the spread of the variant in Portugal: “In Portugal, the Omicron subtype BA.5 is spreading rapidly. Minister of Health Lauterbach hence warns of a Corona-autumn for Germany as well. How likely is that?” Lauterbach continues to be quoted warning, “In Portugal, unfortunately, it shows that with the BA.5 Omicron variant, mortality is also rising again. In the fall, we have to be prepared for this”. Other experts (Drosten, immunologist Watzl) confirm the likelihood. Watzl is finally quoted on vaccination: “In addition, for many people there (in Portugal – C.G.) the booster is now more than half a year behind. I therefore also assume a Stiko recommendation for a fourth vaccination for people 60 plus in the fall” (Hamann/Metzger, 2022).

In the run-up to the WHO meeting in Geneva from May 22 to 28, 2022, reports of monkeypox infections appear in countries in Europe where the disease has not previously appeared. At this point in time, the G7 ministers around Karl Lauterbach, together with the WHO and the European Union, simulate a smallpox pandemic scenario with the aim to practice and improve crisis management for crises and possible pandemics.

With modal verbs [German: sollen, is said and can], the modal adverbials very well or at least partially, the verb seem with modal character, restrictive particles and indefinite pronoun not yet all as well as the assumption suggests, a presumptive positioning on the dynamics of an event (e) takes place. The quoted actors consider deaths “very unlikely”, yet reference is made to the fact that “the Central African variant of the pathogen [...] causes about ten percent of those infected” to die. “In Africa, the West African variant of the virus, which occurs in Europe and the United States, causes death in about one percent of those who become ill”.