The crisis of modern science is often explained by political influence, economic pressure or collective fear. Those explanations neglect how those different phenomena communicate with each other. The deeper cause lies in the media architecture itself: the institutional reproduction of 'meaning'.
Where media plurality disappears, facts can no longer compete with policy narratives. This essay argues that the media does not reflect mass formation. They are not a symptom of it, they are the primary driver. They form the psychological ecosystem in which conformity is produced and criticism is defused.
From corona to cognitive architecture
The years 2020–2021 show on an unprecedented scale how government communication evolved into behavioral management. Well over a billion euros, almost ten times as much as in previous years, was spent on public influence, psychological research and narrative maintenance. The communications machine measured, modeled and modulated public perception.
What appeared to be “listening to the people” was in fact the construction of public support as a policy variable in two-week cycles. In the course of 2020, the population no longer asked for policy; it reflected the psychological preparation for it. Democratic support was not input, but output of an institutional process that reinforced itself.
Epistemic dependence
Perception is interpretation. Since Bartlett, Kahneman, and Slovic, we know that people do not store factual snapshots, but construct meaning within mental schemas. These schemas are socially shared and pre-structured by reliable sources: the media. They provide the population with a frame of reference – a shared sphere of meaning in which facts become recognizable and open to discussion.
This applies just as much to scientific findings as it does to news facts or politics. Science does not reach citizens directly either. There is always a communication filter between data and public knowledge. When that filter becomes homogeneous, truth loses its competitive effect. Deviating data is recoded as “coincidence,” “anecdote,” or “misinformation.” This creates an information monopoly from above, with dissent from below being dismissed as disinformation.
The mediacracy in focus
This mechanism has been extensively documented in communication science. Decades ago, Iyengar and Kinder demonstrated that news primarily determines what we think about . Gerbner described how prolonged media exposure cultivates worldviews, while Katz & Lazarsfeld observed how interpersonal communication primarily reinforces media frames.
The COVID years revealed these mechanisms in full force: an empirical illustration. “Speaking with one voice” became an openly professed policy goal. Talk shows, quality media, and government information sounded synchronized, even with literally repeated scripts. Thus, the public sphere became a self-reinforcing ecosystem in which politics, science, and journalism seemed to produce their legitimacy mutually.
Mass formation as a media construct
Where Mattias Desmet describes mass formation as a social-psychological process that arises from fear and authority, a communication science perspective shows that these emotions only take hold within a uniform information environment.
The uniform, mono-informative media are therefore not a symptom of mass formation, they are its designers.
The classical theories on which Desmet builds – from Le Bon and Canetti to Arendt – emerged in a world without digital networks, without influencers, without orchestrated mass communication day and night in every household. What they described as collective mindwe now see structurally embedded in technology and infrastructure. The modern masses are no longer brought together by chance in public squares, but are permanently connected by the same flow of meanings.
Mass formation is therefore no longer a purely spontaneous psychological hypnosis, but a direct resonance , invokable through the strategic use of technological infrastructure – a simultaneity of emotions, narratives, and moral reference points. The government provides direction, legitimacy, and resources; the media provide form, rhythm, and continuity.
Where plurality disappears, fear is no longer shared but conditioned. It is precisely when all channels follow the same narrative structure 'threat - sacrifice - redemption' that the silent obedience that Desmet characterized arises.
Media then no longer reflect a common state of mind, they feed it. Not a participant in the process, but a playmaker.
What appears on the surface as a mass psychological phenomenon is in reality communicatively orchestrated uniformity.
The paradox of trust
The mental inertia of the modern citizen arises from the pursuit of cognitive economy. Anyone who is inundated every day by one coherent worldview can keep their world comfortably manageable and understandable. Seen in this light, trust is more of an energy-saving mechanism than a virtue.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect illustrates this perfectly. People recognize inaccuracies as soon as the media reports on their own field of expertise, but as soon as the subject shifts, trust is instantly restored: the same source that was just wrong becomes an authority again. The need for stability is stronger than the pursuit of truth.
Our brains therefore prefer consistency over truth. A single incident can be dismissed; revising a worldview is disorienting. Dissonance is less comfortable than error. It is easier to reinterpret an experience than to reject the framework in which that experience does not fit. This creates not just indifference, but active self-correction in the service of conformity.
Cognitive dissonance is resolved by: “it won't be so bad”, “they'll know better”, “the mistake must have been exceptional.” It is not cowardice – it is a survival strategy in a communication regime that places a heavy burden on deviation. Those who place their own perceptions above the collective narrative risk social exclusion.
This is how compliance becomes rational behavior: critical thinking is not forbidden, it is ineffective. The subtle irony of mediacracy is that people feel free while constantly choosing the form of certainty that requires the least amount of thought. Or rather: precisely because they can choose the option with the least effort.
The lost pluralism
Media plurality is not a luxury; it is a society's capacity for self-correction. As soon as the media speak with one voice, the possibility of revision disappears along with dissent. Where there is no longer a clash of perspectives, knowledge becomes rigidified into confirmation.
We see this happen when the same message is repeated everywhere, at most with a different intonation. The appearance of debate masks the actual absence of difference. Institutionally framed truth only varies in tone and is no longer fundamentally challenged.
Science has thus become the backdrop for policy. Her data only acquire meaning after they have been fitted into the public storyline – the language of “social relevance”, “communicability” and “shared interest”. Anything that does not fit into that register disappears from view: sometimes unnoticed, sometimes openly defamed.
It is remarkable that this process is not perceived as censorship. After all, no one is prohibiting anything; harmony does the work. Facts that do not cause dissonance are believed simply because they do not disturb. After all, truth-seeking would only cause friction and could even undermine basic conventions. It is admirable how the infrastructure of knowledge is seemingly maintained—even with the cooperation of academics themselves—while academic output is curtailed and distorted, depending on a position or “agenda” that has been taken. As in journalism, ideological enthusiasm is taking over in academia, at the expense of truth-finding.
Therefore, the question is not really how we could cure the media. That's not possible. What we can do largely corresponds to the call of Mattias Desmet and Willem Engel: Keep speaking – and then translated into the (technological) actual situation.
Breaking the media monopoly
Reform from within is futile. Journalism's financing structure, legislation and social reward mechanisms are integrated into the same order that must monitor it critically. Every systemic-internal remedy is recursive.
But outside that circle, there is room for action:
- Support alternative channels.
Podcasts, blogs and decentralized journals form today's republic of ideas.
Share, quote, comment, donate; meaning grows with traffic. Don't be afraid to link your name, step out of the comfortable anonymity. - Increase the information pressure.
It is not a single masterpiece that convinces, but frequent, overlapping insights that pierce the narrative.
Repetition makes visible what silence conceals. Also in personal contacts, no matter how difficult. Dose carefully. - Popularize science.
Translation is not trivialization but democratization.
Knowledge that does not leak out does not exist in society. - Find the arena and repeat with variation.
Submit articles, join the conversation, respond.
Communication science teaches us that repetition with nuance is the strongest vector of persuasion. - Broadening of tone and language.
Speak in multiple registers: rational, personal, moral.
Ethos, logos and pathos are not alternatives but dimensions. - Cancel paid media subscriptions as soon as you catch them providing incorrect policy support.
That's the hardest part. Because then ‘wrong’ suddenly becomes your own judgment and you have to give up familiar voices. It's not about drying up newspaper magnates or the media park. They'll get their money anyway, because without them, the government has a problem.
The most important thing is to purify your own input: remember that you will only be told what you are supposed to think.
The task of the independent thinker is not only to keep speaking and critical listening, but also to keep sending, keep sharing – in many voices, many forms, in many places. Counter-power is not born from consensus, but from multiple resonances.
Conclusion: the invisible battle
The real Battle for Science is not fought in laboratories or at universities, but onscreen, through loudspeakers, on paper. These provide society - and therefore politics - with meaningful, semantic oxygen. As long as the distribution of meaning is centrally controlled, science will only remain functional as a decoration for policy.
The emancipation of knowledge does not require even more data, even more of the same facts. What is needed are more diverse channels, more dissonant sound. Traditional media in the Netherlands have in fact become a single channel, with a single exception — portrayed as extreme right-wing. Media organizations have grown from being “thorns in the side,” critical intellectual citizens, to the government Dept. of Communication and Information, but with the quasi-independent position that NGOs often occupy.
Breaking through the mediacracy is not merely a question of ‘freedom of expression’ nor an issue about the quality of data or facts.
Breaking through the mediacracy is the necessary condition for intellectual survival – and therefore for the survival of humanity as we now value it.
Accountability
The empirical data in this essay are based on the previously published two-part series The Mediacracy I and Of Mediacracy II (2026) which analyzed the Dutch government's media-related expenditures and communication structures during the coronavirus pandemic. All amounts are derived from public government sources, Woo publications, and reports from the Court of Audit.
Hat! 👏👍🙏
I just read an article in the AD-online about the higher number of deaths after corona. The chief demographer of CBS claims that it is probably the deteriorated health condition (due to corona?) of people that causes the additional deaths. Nice example. Based on nothing, subject handled quickly. Surely he knows better?
Top article again Anton!
I have Ruben van Gaalen been caught before on white lies.
I also responded to X's explanation:
“We did not expect this a few years ago,” says @RubenvanGaalen of CBS.
Well, we do.
If virtually the entire population is injected with untested genetically modified material, it says something about your own competence if you have not been prepared for poor health outcomes.
We are at the mercy of out-of-control technocrats. Take care of yourself!
See X
Beautiful, very substantive essay. Sometimes it feels a bit like a chicken and egg problem. I mean, are the media the engine of mass formation, or are the masses the engine of media formation?
'Those who are overwhelmed every day by one coherent worldview can keep their world comfortably manageable and understandable. Seen in this way, trust is an energy-saving mechanism rather than a virtue'
I consider it decadence. The comfortable belief in make believe. The big story that everyone follows explains the world. But the world is not that easy to discover. You have to do your best (as in chess for an excellent love).
“The need for stability is stronger than the pursuit of truth.”
Yet there is nothing more stable than truth. 2+2=4 is true and needs no story to make it true. 2+2=5 on the other hand, for that to be true… and this is what makes media so addictive, a constant search by the consumer for truth (which cannot be found in the media).
“Anyone who places their own perception above the collective story risks social ostracism.”
You do get stability in return (because finding truth as in 2+2=4 gives stability)
“Facts that do not dissonate are believed because they do not disturb.”
Facts that do not dissonate do not stick, which makes belief in those non-dissonant facts as meaningless, like fleeting dreams.
“The task of the independent thinker is not only to keep speaking, but also to keep sending, to keep sharing – in many voices, many forms, in many places.”
A day job yes. What can I say: a full time job! -good to combat boredom and a therapeutic for those who think too easily that they can control the world to their will.
“Truth”… what is that. I prefer to look at finding the truth: a search, a process. Truth (consensus?) in many sciences awaits a better hypothesis.
A mathematical example (not so much a truth as a circular definition: that's how the symbols are defined, after all) does not apply to all domains.
The chicken-egg question: Hundreds of millions have been spent on manipulating mass formation in the right direction. The government clearly identifies itself as the chicken.
Some findings/"hypotheses"/laws of nature can consider themselves fortunate that they possess eternal truth (Aristotle). Such as the statement 2 + 2 = 4.
And yet many scientists sin against such elementary truths.
Mi. that is precisely one of the major problems in current science.
And that is separate from the harmful role of the media that you very well described.
See my other response.
Good piece! And whoever gets this published in the mainstream media wins the grand prize...
“And the rooster crowed (three times)”, the chicken (government) does not want to hear it, we are/are even forbidden to ask questions. With the help of the media, most are indoctrinated. Steering towards secondary vocational education (MBO) and preferably in defense will result in fewer substandard HBO and university graduates... The influence, through policy and media, is shocking in education, so children are also told at a very early age that you better believe the chicken story, otherwise something will change. My grandchildren hear the rooster crowing at home, but because we always say “talk and write along a bit”, I managed to get good grades until last week when the class voted on “are you for or against the planet”. A very broad concept with the explanation that recognizing all themes such as Ukraine, climate change, vaccinations and anti-Sinterklaas without questioning is FOR the planet and if you do question it, you are AGAINST the planet. That went too far for my grandchildren so they shouted “what bullshit!” and came home upset because it will cost them points... Hopefully it will blow over, they are almost always free from school due to the extremely high absenteeism and/or absence due to family circumstances of the teachers.
Important insight. In fact, it is a supplement to Desmet's book Totalitarianism: if this book is subject to criticism, it is that it underexposes the power of the media.
In addition to this argument, I would like to mention Chomsky's analysis of the safe and comfortable path. This path is not only taken by readers, but also by writers within the traditional (old, mainstream) media.
A striking example is the vaccination discussion. There are hardly any journalists who want to write about this, there are hardly any doctors who want to speak out and the majority of the population would rather follow the path of the RIVM, even though research, policy formulation and implementation are handled by one hand and simply asking questions is labeled as morally reprehensible. Thanks Anton
It seems that we are being fooled by both the regular and most alternative media.
For example, participants in critical discussions about corona vaccines in the main alternative media often said that they were not anti-vaxers. However, if an injection that is unnecessary for most (not a risk group), barely tested and manufactured on the basis of an experimental (mRNA) technology is loudly pushed (in the mainstream media) as necessary, safe and effective, a right-thinking person would also question the usefulness of other vaccinations.
And if there are experts who, in fragments of genetic material fitted together by a computer program, are not a virus genome, but a “unique and complete arrangement of [human] genomic elements” ( https://web.archive.org/web/20031121154716/http://www.chronixbiomedical.com/Research/press_release3.html ) and the only other indication for the existence of SARS viruses is a toxic soup in which cells die (supposedly as a result of the virus), why do alternative media continue to cling so stubbornly to the lab leak theory?
In the new media there is more room for different opinions, debate and research without fiddling with figures, etc., but there are also people who consider their opinion more important than the opinion of someone else, with or without substantiation. I don't see that as being fooled or fooled. We have all been fooled for a very long time with the mainstream media in the lead, so let's continue to set a good example! Our freedom, self-determination and freedom of expression are at stake and have partly already been destroyed. I fully support the people who are sticking their necks out to fix that and admire them for their courage!
Anyone who is not an anti-vaxer will still have their children punctured and the lab leak theory leaves the door wide open for a next period of virus terror. These are therefore important issues.
It seems that there is a story for gullible citizens and (at least) a story for suspicious ones that differs little from it. It also seems that there are people who are paid to sell the latter stories, so-called gatekeepers, and they of course do not deserve support and admiration.
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter who the gatekeepers are and who those who only believe in the gatekeeper stories. More important is the realization that there may be writers and distributors of stories that are sold as nonfiction, but are fictional.
Test.
strange, I can no longer post messages here….. Too long?
Jeroen manages to post something... I am not aware that the length is a factor. Maybe the number of hyperlinks? Or is it a dump of AI output? There may also be disturbing elements.
No, not at all… I don't understand…
Doing these short posts is called.
Can you email it? Then I'll give it a try.
It is also special that the social media algorithms are blamed for maintaining misinformation. They ensure that similar messages appear on your timeline.
The reverse is of course also the case. The algorithm also ensures that there is no diversity on your timeline. So the narrative will also strengthen itself through this algorithm.
This is now also happening with AI. In addition to the fact that restrictions have been imposed in the software, AI may not bring constitutional matters into question, for example, AI will also use “majority votes count”.
What strikes me about this story is the energy put into steering opinion. If you take into account the effort made to limit X, you would conclude that there is a specific goal that is being strived for.
If the information that questions the narrative also disappears, then you will be able to mold the opinions in the direction you want.
All in all, I end up with the WEF and that this is not "just" a club...
Ever since the global kick-off of the corona deception in 2020, it has been clear that an agenda is being rolled out. The WEF is both a visible think tank and an implementer. In any case, I cannot escape the thought that there is a steering body up there, especially because - even years later - it still continues in the same way.
Excellent stuk, Anton!
Nice description of the mechanism in which we influence each other and “create” our own truth. That is exactly what all the responses to this post do, stay in your own bubble and confirm to each other how we believe in each other's truth and call the outsiders crazy, after all, they don't understand anything!?
Good example of an expression of opinion: stating something and showing disapproval without further stating reasons.
Everyone is of course allowed to express themselves - but it would help the discussion if something substantive was also reported. Are we all wrong? Where and how, what is wrong with the article? I'd like to hear it.
Well, then you probably didn't read all the comments.
Because I sometimes make a critical voice here. In general, I agree with what is said/written on this bubble. But sometimes not at all.
But it would help, as Anton writes, if you indicate what your substantive criticism is of the article. Then we can “sharpen the knives” in search of The Truth…..
So: I am very curious to know where you think that the bubble here is “no good” or is contrary to science/empiricism/logic.
I think this is a very good and plausible analysis of how the masses are played. Yet something is wrong. And that is the role and action of the scientists themselves.
I am of the opinion that scientists at both universities and institutes such as the RIVM, KNMI and TNO should rise from their own echo chamber even without the press. They in particular should listen less to the press and let their Aristotelian scientific compass work. And they almost structurally don't do that. That is really very worrying. The scientists themselves and the scientific institutions in general are rotten through and through.
*Continued 2*
The ideology of many scientists plays a major role in this, as a result of which they no longer observe the facts accurately. And of course the vested interests, as Kuhn established more than sixty years ago: financial interests make it difficult to go against government policy. As a result, you will miss out on funding for your next research. That's what you call systemic captivity.
The whole scientific enterprise is as rotten as a medlar. That is separate from the mediacracy. Scientists are simply not scientists anymore. Of course, I wholeheartedly support your remedies: keep speaking out against the nonsense!
The scientists who settle in and work their way up within an institute are not so rebellious, Jan. I know some who have been transferred or have had to seek refuge in another department. Then you will quickly unlearn your stubbornness within your working environment.
It is also not entirely separate from the mediacracy. Academics feed pre-eminently on information from the quality media. For example, if they report positively about wind turbines, they think they are doing well. Their worldview is pre-packaged by talk shows, NRC and Volkskrant.
Independent media could also play a role in 'exploding' fluff research. The opposite happens, we have learned from the corona period.
Scientific publishers (also 'media') are no better.
I get that. But they don't have to be rebellious. They “just” have to keep thinking logically. But they don't even do that. Ok, it takes a little courage to make a different sound. And of course media indoctrination also plays a role in this. But I find it very worrying that scientists allow themselves to be deceived in this way.
You undoubtedly know that Maurice has many contacts in the inner circles. He has also repeatedly noticed that they are honest with him/say something different than in the media. So they lie in public.
I think those scientists are really no good. That is why I think the scientists are “rotten as a medlar”. Regardless of how great the influence of the media is... So I don't disagree with you. But I place much more responsibility on those scientists than on the media. You turn that around. I really have trouble with that. Especially because every ignoramus knows that the media is after hype and has no pure motives. So I think you can certainly expect scientists to allow themselves to be influenced by the media to a very limited extent. If they allow themselves to do so, it is not due to the media but to the fact that those scientists are not real scientists.
It is not “or” but “and”. Even “and and and and”: Science, education, politics (government), media. In no particular order with (financial) interests (conflicts). Courageous people with a sense of justice and logic are in the minority. Look at the terrible game that is going on now in the media and politics. Horrible pictures and Lubach's item about a political party continued to portray very intelligent people as stupid and bad, etc. Everything is allowed when you are in that bubble. A very large, intense file is made small with “some Dutch models are involved”. Who orders all this management? Answers can now be found in that big horrible file, so these could be golden times for journalists because science has also been guided, as the first three million documents show. What a shame, forgive my choice of words.
Yes, you have high expectations of 'scientists'. In an ideal world that should be possible. Unfortunately, it has now become clear that the percentage of independent thinkers, especially among institutionalized scientists, is no different than among the rest of the population. 5%, 10%? There may be more, but they certainly won't show it or the institute will filter them out. Then that percentage becomes even lower. Lowest at the top of the pyramid.
You can blame those people - “you have to be critical, wise and honest” - but if you put others there, over time the same thing will happen again and the system will reward the most compliant officials and push them to the top.
Such a pattern can only be filleted from the outside. I thought that was a job for the media – once. However, the transparency requirement has been completely forgotten and the media no longer enforces it. Journalists are also encapsulated in large conglomerates, yearning for the favor of friendly scientists who can provide a scoop. The biggest bullshit is shouted with great bravado by 'science journalists'.
Hence my hope for alternatives and information pressure from below. You are of course right that the watchdog function of the media should not even be necessary. But then the systems would have to have different incentives. Scientists themselves should insist on transparency. That won't happen within an institute whose first goal is to continue itself. It applies to every authority and all concentrations of power: without transparency and strict control - call it distrust - things will always go wrong. Especially in billion-dollar markets, the stakes are simply too great, both personal, institutional, national and geopolitical. Then a scientist thinks: What should I actually mean as a stubborn little man...
I agree with you 100%. It shows that the “scientists” and their institutions are rotten through and through. The people who work there do not deserve the name of scientist, with the exception of perhaps those 5 to 10%.
And the media allow it to happen or keep quiet about it or even give it a helping hand.
At work I have been told that I discuss “what is not said”.
It is also indicated “you should not exaggerate this”.
See here the “shadow dance” that takes place.
We are happy that you are critical and don't keep your mouth shut, but be careful, it can also be too much.
So you can be 100% right with what you say, but it shouldn't hurt too much. So you are intimidated/warned that you can also go too far.
This is the dual situation that those scientists also find themselves in. They know it's not right, but to be the one to kick the bucket...
The example is renowned colleagues who have been canceled and have lost their reputation and job. Only the emeritus professors who have nothing left to lose will continue to speak.
They give their opinions privately, but openly they follow the consensus.
As long as people keep quiet, continue to follow the prescribed narrative, nothing will change. Rising together is something we have either forgotten or never had.
I know that this is not the intention of your articles and forum, but I would still like to share this song (already 10 years old) by an activist artist with whom I have often disagreed in terms of activism, but morally I often do.
Because activist-wise, the singer in question is too one-sided (is on a music label of a classmate and still friend of Prince Harry from England, but claims to be an anarchist) and is therefore anything but pluralistic, to say the least.
However, this number still makes sense, no matter how simple it may be, I think it touches on most of the titles of the points you mention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ixUlfFVmY.
You probably wouldn't have accepted this 10 years ago anyway, is my bias, based on your introspective and substantive articles. And since this is not a music forum, I understand that this cannot be allowed.
However, the song has an emotional charge.
Greetings,
Teun
Met zo’n motivatie kan ik niet weigeren 🙂
(maar maak er geen gewoonte van svp)