In an era where emotions can be easily manipulated, public broadcasters like ZDF have a special responsibility to deliver well-founded and balanced information. Yet often it seems as if these stations rely more on sensationalism and fear-mongering rather than empirical data and scientific facts.

A current example of this is the paid program about tsunamis that was broadcast on September 11, 2025.

Mediterranean Tsunami Threat: An Exaggeration?#

The program claims that the Mediterranean is particularly vulnerable, which sounds surprising at first glance. Tsunamis typically require open and deep waters to build up and develop their destructive energy.

The Mediterranean, with its relatively limited dimensions and many islands, does not provide the same conditions as the open oceans where most devastating tsunamis originate.

Historical Context#

Historical examples, such as the tsunami that struck Messina and Reggio Calabria in 1908, show that such events in the Mediterranean are possible but rare. Scientifically sound reporting would emphasize this rarity instead of fueling unfounded fears.

Facts:

  • Mediterranean tsunamis are documented but extremely rare
  • Geographic conditions severely limit tsunami development
  • Historical data shows no systematic threat

Emotional Narratives Instead of Hard Facts#

Instead of focusing on scientific data and historical incidents, the program seems to rely on dramatic scenes and emotional narratives. This could lead to viewers being overwhelmed by the dramatic presentation and losing sight of the actual risks and facts.

Problematic Presentation Methods#

The ZDF program relies on:

  • Dramatic visualizations without empirical basis
  • Emotional testimonies instead of scientific analysis
  • Worst-case scenarios without probability estimates
  • Fear-based narratives in the context of “Agenda 2030”

What’s missing:

  • Statistical classification of actual risks
  • Comparison with other, more probable dangers
  • Scientific counterarguments and classifications
  • Objective risk assessment

Critical Sources and Independent Verification#

For viewers who want to form a well-founded judgment, it is important to rely on serious sources based on scientific studies and empirical data. Unfortunately, such sources are often difficult to find in the media, as many reports are emotionally charged and dramatically prepared.

Scientific Classification#

Actual Tsunami Risks:

  • Pacific “Ring of Fire”: 80% of all tsunamis
  • Indian Ocean: 15% of tsunami events
  • Mediterranean: <5% of documented tsunamis
  • Atlantic: Regional, limited events

Comparable Risks in Germany:

  • Flooding: Several events annually
  • Storms: Regular damage worth millions
  • Droughts: Increasing agricultural losses
  • Earthquakes: Rhine Graben as actual risk area

The Agenda 2030 Narrative#

Particularly problematic is embedding tsunami fear-mongering in the Agenda 2030 narrative. This creates the impression that natural disasters are being instrumentalized to support political goals.

Instrumentalization of Fears#

Reporting Patterns:

  • Linking rare events with current political agendas
  • Exaggerating risks to justify measures
  • Emotional manipulation instead of factual information
  • Neglecting scientific classification

Funding and Conflicts of Interest#

The fact that this is a “paid program” raises further questions:

Critical Questions:

  • Who funds such programs?
  • What interests are behind them?
  • How independent is the reporting?
  • Why are risks systematically exaggerated?

Media Responsibility vs. Rating Chase#

Public broadcasters have an educational mandate that goes beyond mere entertainment. Systematic fear-mongering undermines this mandate and public trust.

What Would Responsible Journalism Look Like?#

Serious reporting would include:

  • Classification of risks in statistical contexts
  • Presentation of scientific uncertainties
  • Balanced expert selection
  • Separation of facts and speculation
  • Avoidance of unnecessary dramatization

International Comparison#

Other countries handle natural disaster reporting more responsibly:

Examples of Better Practice:

  • UK: BBC’s balanced climate reporting
  • Netherlands: Fact-based flood risk communication
  • Japan: Realistic tsunami preparedness education
  • Switzerland: Scientific approach to natural hazards

The Broader Pattern#

This tsunami program is part of a larger pattern in German public broadcasting:

Systematic Issues:

  • Climate catastrophism without nuance
  • Political agenda-driven reporting
  • Neglect of scientific skepticism
  • Emotional manipulation over education

Public Trust and Democracy#

Fear-mongering undermines democratic discourse and public trust in institutions:

Democratic Consequences:

  • Citizens cannot make informed decisions
  • Scientific debate is poisoned
  • Political manipulation becomes easier
  • Media credibility erodes

Conclusion: Loss of Trust Through Sensationalism#

The tsunami program within the framework of Agenda 2030 is another example of how public broadcasters often rely on sensationalism and fear-mongering instead of well-founded and balanced information.

The Consequences:

  • Systematic loss of trust in established media
  • Public confusion about actual risks
  • Instrumentalization of fears for political purposes
  • Undermining of scientific discourse

It remains to be hoped that future programs will rely more on scientific facts and empirical data to provide viewers with a realistic and objective presentation of actual risks.

The public deserves better journalism – one that informs rather than manipulates; that educates rather than spreads panic; that puts scientific integrity above ratings success.

The responsibility of public broadcasting is to serve the public interest, not to manufacture consent through fear. When this responsibility is abandoned, democracy itself suffers.

Sources: Welt, Spiegel, Tagesschau, Zeit, BR24, Süddeutsche, Deutschlandfunk, European Parliament, EIKE, UncutNews