Data analysis of the Winnetou debate
The invented Winnetou shitstorm: Chronology of a media failure
Since Ravensburger Verlag withdrew a companion book to the film "The Young Chief Winnetou" on August 19, 2022, a discussion about coercion, censorship, thought control, cancel culture, speech bans, book burning, woke madness, left-wing activist groups and an alleged threat to democracy has been raging in the media. After just one week, there are well over 100,000 posts (as of 02.09.22: 150,000), which have been liked, shared and commented on millions of times - including 8,600 editorial articles, 3,200 of which are from daily newspapers and news magazines. The tenor: fiercely loud but unfair criticism by "woke groups" on social media had put the publisher under so much pressure in a shitstorm that it ultimately had no choice (or at least thought it did) but to "submit to a radical minority". The angry crowd sees a "tyranny of political correctness" and fiercely opposes any form of ban.
However, data analyses show that this shitstorm about the book or the film never happened, nor did calls for bans. Rather, both are the invention of resourceful journalists and populists who are either media-incompetent or are inciting out of political interest or economic calculation. And many other journalists, politicians, CEOs and citizens have fallen for it and allowed themselves to be instrumentalized. According to its own statements, Ravensburger Verlag has taken the criticism of its community seriously, recognized a mistake and made a business decision as a result. However, this does not fit into the world view (and business model) of some publishers. So they invented the "woken shitstorm", spread heaps of distortions and created the uproar that we are now experiencing: an "anti-wokenshitstorm" that is unparalleled. And they also prevented us from dealing with the question of whether racist stereotypes are problematic even when they are supposedly positive or well-intentioned, and how we deal with them. Our media system is broken.
A debate unworthy of an enlightened democracy
After analyzing the data from the Internet with the market-leading analysis tool Talkwalker , it becomes clear that the current discussion about Winnetou is a perfect sham debate that creates real reality. The hysteria about the alleged dictatorship of politically over-correct minorities and an alleged threat to democracy in connection with Winnetou proves to be insubstantial: the data does not reveal any significant and illegitimate public pressure on Ravensburger from any activists.
What is recognizable, however, is that there was indeed criticism. Not of Winnetou per se, but of the new film. However, not from ominous "woke leftists", but from renowned journalists, from film funding, from indigenous people, from moviegoers, from academics and from Ravensburger customers. And what is still recognizable: BILD in particular is running an almost incomprehensible distortion campaign and earning an incredible amount of money in the process.
What the data suggests for conclusions:
The shitstorm was not caused by any massive, loud criticism of Ravensburger or the Winnetou film by "agitators" (BILD), but solely by Ravensburger's completely casual announcement that it would not be bringing the book onto the market. In their own words, the publisher did not do this because they had folded, but because they realized that they had made a mistake. And that was just a comment on an Instagram post. How could they have known what would happen?
The actual shitstorm was triggered by the distortion of the facts in the media, although it has to be said: by BILD. They did not believe Ravensburger, sensed interest from their audience and insinuated that they had just caved in, had "self-censored" and were submitting to "radical minorities". This was readily supported by many politicians, represented by Markus Söder, who criticized in a completely uninformed (and factually incorrect) manner that one should "bow to the loud opinions of a few" and that "ARD should therefore not ban Winnetou under any circumstances". There were no "loud opinions", nor did anyone, especially not ARD, ever intend to ban "Winnetou" because of these opinions. Söder simply allowed himself to be instrumentalized by BILD for their Woke agitation and their business model. The lie consisted above all in suggesting that "Winnetou should be banned". It was never, not even remotely, about "Winnetou", nor about Karl May's books, and certainly not about the films from the 1960s, not even the current, new children's film. The subject of the discussion here is exclusively a merchandising product for the new film, which itself has no independent literary value. The population was made to believe - also by Söder - that they wanted to take "Winnetou" away from them altogether, which is hair-raising nonsense.
The amplifiers were, on the one hand, other journalists who simply copied the narrative of "public pressure from the Internet" from others and simply adopted demonstrable lies and distortions from BILD, as well as multiple comments from celebrities, politicians and even CEOs who simply adopted the narrative of speech bans, censorship and book burning without further examination or even spun it further. Theresa Schopper, Baden-Württemberg's Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, also fables something to the effect that all children's books, including Struwwelpeter, for example, wouldhave tobe "banned" - once again overlooking the fact that, firstly, no one ever wanted to "ban" anything and that it was never about earlier works. The farce culminated in the fact that from August 26, ARD's decision two years ago to stop licensing the Winnetou films was also brought into the current context of this issue, and BILD speculated that this was because it was no longer allowed to say "Indians". BILD's key witness was a "responsible editor at RBB", who then turned out to be the editor responsible for Sandmännchen. Apart from the fact that the Winnetou films are still fully available on ZDF.
The cause is the excessive demands and (it has to be said) the media incompetence of journalists and opinion leaders. If the journalists had adhered to journalistic standards, this would not have happened. However, this is presumably not (just) an individual problem, but a systemic one: publishers would be robbing themselves of their economic success if they did not jump on these waves of excitement. And social media only rewards news that triggers excitement. Preferably hatred and agitation. No matter how stupid or factual it is. What's more, many media outlets are under so much economic pressure and at the same time under so much news stress that hardly any editors have the time to do even a rudimentary amount of responsible research. And politicians really do "parrot" things they have read somewhere completely unchecked and without reflection, without checking their truthfulness - at least if the supposed message fits in with their agenda.
The victim is possibly our democracy. It thrives on the fact that we "as a people", from whom all power in a democracy emanates, can form appropriate opinions in order to make smart decisions. The media (including social media) play an important role in this process. Unfortunately, we make decisions based on information launched by political populists or unscrupulous editors who mercilessly exploit the sick mechanics of social media. Unfortunately, this mechanism can also be seen in many other topics: Gendern, Leyla, Cancel Culture, currently there are many topics that are being poisoned according to the exact same pattern. The model for BILD is obviously FOX News in the USA, where this mechanism and above all FOX made Donald Trump's success possible in the first place.
The victim is the cause. Because instead of dealing with the question of how we deal with racism, whether it is good or not, the hysteria has prevented almost any substantive debate and further polarized society. Instead, everyone just got upset about something that doesn't exist. And everyone was busy pre-emptively emphasizing that they were definitely not racists. Although nobody said that.
Hopefully our democracy will benefit . Namely when we learn from it. I'm not sure yet, but I'm hopeful.
Disclaimer: Why is this text on the Scompler website?
We are a strategic communications consultancy. For a long time, we have also advised companies on crisis communication, especially on the social web, including Deutsche Bahn from 2010 onwards. Scompler emerged from this project. Scompler is a "Content Command Center", a strategic communication management system that is used in newsrooms, among other things. It also includes media monitoring. And we are very concerned with media change and what this means for corporate communications. In this context, such incidents are relevant for us and our customers. We investigated the topic, found it very interesting and wanted to make our findings available to the public.
What it's actually about
Amidst all the hysteria, it is important to say once again what it is actually about: namely a new film that was released in cinemas in August 2022: "The Young Chief Winnetou". It's a children's movie that has nothing to do with the Karl May films and books that were the heroes of our youth, apart from the names. Nothing at all. However, Karl May's books and films have been criticized for decades as tending to be racist. This is about "well-intentioned" racism, i.e. that Karl May's Indians are all good and noble, but that this image has nothing to do with the reality of the indigenous people. The old Karl May works would not take enough account of the fact that the "cowboys" (including Old Shatterhand) were not the "heroes of the West", but colonialists who committed genocide against the indigenous American population: six million dead Indians, as many as dead Jews under National Socialism. Instead, Karl May decisively shaped our image of Indians, in which fiction and reality intermingle.
This discussion has already been widely discussed and is not problematic in itself. It has always been said that Karl May must of course also be seen in its historical context, and no one has ever called for the books to be banned. Currently, the discussion has been brought to the fore again because the new film also takes up the old stereotypes completely uncritically, as it did 100 years ago, but also as it did in the 1960s. There are many people who have asked whether the new film could not have been seen as an opportunity to take a more differentiated view of this topic and also to give children more knowledge about the background.
The chronology
To make the chronology clear once again.
August 01, 2022: First previews of the new movie "The Young Chief Winnetou" are shown
10. August 10,2022: Promotion for the theatrical release begins (albeit without any response)
August 11, 2022: Ravensburger announces a book to accompany the film on Instagram
19. August 2022: Ravensburger announces in the same post that it will not be publishing the book after all
21. August 21, 2022: Media (especially BILD) pick up on Ravensburger's report
August 26, 2022 : Media (especially BILD) follow up with a report about ARD.
August 19 is a crucial date. That's when Ravensburger announced the decision on Instagram not to publish the book. The alleged pressure that Ravensburger caved in to must therefore have taken place at some point before then!
The overall course of the discussion about "Winnetou"
The data analysis shows that there were almost 100,000 posts on the internet from May 1, 2022 to August 27, 2022, and the trend is still growing). This applies to all media, social media as well as news portals and newspapers. It is striking that there was hardly any activity about Winnetou before August 19, the date when Ravensburger announced that it was withdrawing the book.
From August 22 , the figures for the activities virtually exploded. This was after the media distorted the issue and claimed that Ravensburger had buckled under pressure from radical minorities.
The curve then flattens out on August 25 before shooting up again on August 26 after the ARD report.
What happened before the fall of man
The analysis of the data prior to August 19, i.e. the notification from Ravensburger, showed little activity on the keyword "Winnetou". However, these were mostly general posts about Winnetou, mostly completely unrelated to the new film or racism or similar. So there is no trace of a "shitstorm" here at all.
The graph is deliberately kept much flatter in order to put the ratios at least somewhat into perspective. In fact, the upper graph should be much higher: The values at the top range from 0 to 21,000, the lower ones from 0 to 260. The height of the lower graph should actually only be 1/10 as high. What you see here in the lower graph as an enlargement, so to speak, can be seen in the graph above as a tiny deflection.
And which of these referred to Ravensburger?
It will be interesting to see how many of these posts actually relate to the new film, "The Young Chief Winnetou". Before August 19, there was only an increase in activity from August 8 to 10, with 150 to 200 posts per day. Otherwise, apart from a few tiny ripples, the Silver Lake was absolutely silent.
Here, too, the dates provide precise information: these are almost all messages announcing the release of the new film. The official release of the film was on August 11, and the distributor's campaign for the theatrical release began at the beginning of August. Before that, there were already a few references to various previews in the cinemas. But what also becomes clear here: Obviously nobody was interested in the movie's release! The 150 to 200 postings are even mainly press releases in regional online media.
Among the 400 or so posts that immediately preceded Ravensburger's withdrawal, there was also some isolated criticism. But it can be said quite clearly that there is definitely and unequivocally no evidence of any kind of strong pressure.
And this is exactly what the analysis of the hashtag "Winnetou" on Twitter points to. It has to be said that the term "anti-woke shitstorm" is probably correct. So it wasn't "woke activists", but "anti-woke..." whatever.
And finally, you can see exactly the same pattern in Google's search queries. Here is the chart from Google Trends. It shows how many people in Germany searched for the term "Winnetou". In the context of this debate, people were looking for more information.
To put this into perspective: Interest in "Winnetou" (blue line) was significantly greater than interest in "electricity price" (yellow line) and "inflation" (green line). It even soon reached the interest in "petrol price" (red line) in March 2022, when the price of diesel jumped from EUR 1.65 to more than EUR 2.30 in just a few days!
The Springer publishing house is the main beneficiary
The data analysis shows that the issue is being massively driven by "traditional" media, i.e. daily newspapers, news portals, news agencies and online media with trained journalists.
The analysis also shows that it is almost exclusively the Springer publishing house that profits from the hate speech and that it is mainly spread further. Here are the top 8 articles according to "engagement", i.e. how many people reacted to the articles. Only Focus was able to keep up by jumping on the bandwagon of "censorship" by ARD.
The calculation behind this is illustrated by a sentence from the former editor-in-chief of BILD, Julian Reichelt: "Nothing has demonstrably damaged our economic reach as much as our clear, humane, empathetic stance in the refugee crisis," he said at the "Formats of the Political" conference in Berlin(source). After this realization, BILD changed its stance, once again strongly agitated against refugees and thus profited economically again.
A lot of factual criticism that should be taken seriously
The core problem is that a narrative quickly took hold that Ravensburger only withdrew the book because they were put under pressure by a "shitstorm", because there was only criticism from "woke groups", because the criticism was "particularly loud" and the like.
This narrative attempts to delegitimize the criticism of the film. Of course, if the criticism was not legitimate, the decision was wrong and is incomprehensible. The data shows quite clearly and without any doubt that there was definitely no "shitstorm", no "loud shouting from a minority of left-wing agitators" or anything like that. Yes, there was criticism, but it was quiet and, above all, objective.
But the data also shows that after Ravensburger's decision, which is absolutely justifiable from a factual point of view, there was a clamor that is unparalleled in the history of shitstorms. And that is the reason why the case is "unworthy of a democracy", as we wrote above. Here, factual criticism is absolutely shouted down and delegitimized by lies.
The graph is deliberately kept much flatter in order to put the ratios at least somewhat into perspective. In fact, the upper graph should be much higher: The values at the top range from 0 to 21,000, the lower ones from 0 to 260. The height of the lower graph should actually only be 1/10 as high. What you see here in the lower graph as an enlargement, so to speak, can be seen in the graph above as a tiny deflection.
Here is just a small selection of the factual criticism:
- At the end of June, the MDR podcast asked whether Karl May plays are still up to date.
- In an interview in Stern, Kendall Old Elk, one of the few Native Americans in Germany, speaks out clearly against the narrative surrounding Karl May.
- Carmen Kwasny, chairwoman of theNative American Association of Germany, criticizes in an interview with Deutschlandfunk Kultur that "The Young Chief Winnetou" conveys numerous clichés.
- Tyrone White, an indigenous person living in the Rhineland, says in the same interview that the film trivializes the history of the indigenous peoples of America for entertainment purposes.
- And in another interview with Deutschlandfunk Kultur , ethnologist Markus Lindner asks what prevents screenwriters from making fictional books or films that are carefully researched.
- The ZEIT notes that the film brings "Apaches invented in Germany" into the present day without taking into account how the subject has changed since the last films in the 1960s: "Curious and loveless" and "in the spirit of the mini-playback show".
- Even in the FAZ, where the progressive wind is not necessarily blowing, Claudius Seidl says that the narrative "may not be evil racism". But: "But it is stupid, provincial, ignorant and arrogant towards both: the history and reality of indigenous Americans."
- Or the Frankfurter Rundschau tears the film apart in a movie review. And moviegoers have also given the film a very mixed response.
- And the German Film and Media Rating Board (FBW) had classified the film as "particularly valuable". However, the decision was close and very controversial. Two out of three jury members described the film as a "kitschy, backward-looking play". And Karl May's original was "a lie that ignores the genocide of the Native Americans". The full justification with some of the fierce criticism can be found on the film rating page, but it is difficult to find. You have to scroll all the way down here and then click on the "Jury statement" tab.
In her opinion, it is no longer acceptable in this day and age to make a film, and in particular a film for children and young people, in the spirit of the mythically charged and very clichéd Karl May "folklore". This film is a kitschy, backward-looking play that has nothing to do with reality. According to the jury members, Karl May's literary idyll in the land of origin of the indigenous peoples of North America is a lie that completely ignores the genocide of the Native Americans and the injustice inflicted on them by the white settlers' land grab and the destruction of their natural habitat. The setting chosen in the film, the portrayal of the indigenous people, the background music and the staging style would be in line with the kitschy Karl May films of the 1960s.
And what do those affected say?
Here, by the way, is a voice of this alleged "radical minority" and the agitators who want to dictate to the majority in Germany what they are allowed to read and watch.
The unbelievably infamous distortion of the facts in the media
I am sometimes stunned by the brazenness (or bottomless incompetence) with which editorial offices twist the facts into the opposite.
The Berliner Zeitung, for example, writes;
In the debate about the canceled Native American book "The Young Chief Winnetou", real Native Americans are now speaking out! Background: The publisher Ravensburger withdrew the book from sale a few days ago because accusations of racism had been raised in the social media. The criticism: cultural appropriation.
However, the publisher apparently did not consult members of the supposedly discriminated minority before making its decision. Because they don't mind the Winnetou book at all, but are annoyed by Ravensburger's withdrawal!
She copied that from the BILD newspaper again. BILD had asked Native American performers at the "El Dorado Templin" theme park. One of them: Kendall Old Elk (51). He told BILD: "I think this is an overreaction. The fact that the publisher has taken the books off the market - why? That's a bit too much of a good thing. Why do we have to put a label on every person? We are all human beings."
The point is: yes, he did say that. Only he said it in the context of a much longer interview, namely in STERN. And Kendall Old Elk is exactly the same man who appears directly above in Vode. And yes, he says the book shouldn't have been taken off the market straight away, but in terms of content he says exactly the opposite!
Quote: "It would have been better to leave it alone. The work is part of a long tradition of material that would never have been published." And he means "the young chief Winnetou"!
Unfortunately, the article is behind the paywall. That's why other journalists can't do any research and only copy from BILD. I invested the EUR 2 to actually find out what he says. And that is, among other things:
What if Ravensburger has not folded, but has simply "learned"?
There was some critical feedback on the Instagram channel and on Ravensburger's announcement on August 11. According to schwaebisch.de, which was the first to report on August 19, there were 180 comments. This is also far from a "shitstorm" - and it came from Ravenburger fans. One of the criticisms was that the film portrays racist stereotypes that have their origins in colonialism. And that is undeniable. After all, Winnetou is "an account of the time when the white man built the path for the fire horse through the hunting grounds of the red man." (Quote from the official movie trailer for Winnetou 1 from 1963)
What if Ravensburger did what might be reasonable with all this criticism and took it seriously? And that's exactly what Ravensburger wrote (see the Instagram post above):
"We wouldn't make the same decision to publish the titles today. We made a mistake at the time and we can assure you: We will learn from it!"
And that's exactly what it was in the end. Ravensburger listened to its customers and others in the market and realized that it was not a good decision.
And now comes the point: listening, learning and changing your mind is not something that needs to be massively criticized. Basically, this is to be commended. But for the majority of people in Germany, this is absolutely not an option: "No, we won't capitulate!"
And instead of taking Ravensburger at their word, everyone accuses them of self-censorship, caving in and giving in. So yes, maybe there's more to it than that. Maybe Ravensburger was lying and they really were afraid. But there's no evidence of that - they said otherwise, and there's no evidence of external pressure.
"Racism" is just the trigger
And finally: We didn't look at this topic because we think that Karl May, his books, the famous films from the 1960s or the current movie are a massive problem. Anyone who takes an objective look at the works of Karl May and the films will find, quite neutrally, that the accusation of "racism" can be substantiated quite objectively, that the work as a whole is problematic from many perspectives. And you will find that this criticism is by no means only voiced by "woke left-wing activists" who "want to ban everything". One could say that the opposite is the case.
However, it has to be said: The term "racism" has very emotional connotations and is anything but clearly defined. Many people associate it with extreme forms such as slavery or the persecution of Jews and feel hurt in their feelings when they are accused of racism. This extreme form of racism clearly does not apply to Karl May and his work. But academics subsume many more, much more "harmless" effects under racism, such as the attribution of stereotypes. This is not about "political correctness" or somehow "hurting the feelings of others". It's about the fact that people should have the right to be treated impartially and that they can determine their own image of themselves. That is also freedom. This form of racism is often "well-intentioned", and in many cases it is not even conscious, but it is still considered racism.
Karl May undoubtedly had a massive influence on the image people have of the "American Natives" we call Indians. And he drew an image that we perceive as "noble" and "positive", which makes the accusation of racism seem absurd: The fact that children enjoy playing Indians so much is without question thanks to Karl May. However, the image that Karl May and his works convey could not be further removed from reality. Not on a large scale, because the Native Americans are not first and foremost a "noble people", but a people who were victims of a war of aggression and on whom a genocide was committed that is comparable in its impact to the atrocities of National Socialism: with six million dead Jews and six million dead indigenous people each. And not on a small scale, because only the Indians in the movie constantly say "How" and "Hugh", because "squaw" actually means "whore", Indigenous people don't have "red skin", don't "howl" in war and certainly know pain and have nothing to do with the romantic folklore conveyed in the works. Just like Germans don't all wear lederhosen and spiked hats and only drink beer and eat pork knuckles all day.
And unfortunately, it has to be said that not everyone is able to clearly recognize the fictional nature of the stories. There is no doubt that "Winnetou" conveys many, very positive values: Winnetou is about friendship, overcoming borders, international understanding and peace. However, this is also embedded in kitschy, romantic folklore, the heroization of colonialism, the stereotyping of "Indians" and much more.
You have to see this in the context of the time, and you don't have to condemn Karl May or the work because of it, let alone ban it. But it is worth taking a more nuanced view. Especially because it's not about ogres, Na'vi, talking bees, knights, princesses, orcs or hobbits, who are all fictional characters. Karl May's stories are about people who actually exist, and Karl May's stories seem so real that the boundaries between fiction and experience become blurred.
The debate would have been a good opportunity for everyone in Germany to reflect on their own racism and perhaps deal with it more consciously in future. And we could have considered how to address this with children. The cries about alleged bans or restrictions are sheer nonsense. It simply prevents a relaxed discussion of the topic.
But it should not go unmentioned that there are also many factual discussions, that there are also many good journalists and that many have tried to have a constructive discussion. But they are drowned out by the unbelievable shouting.
The decisive factor, however, is that the way "Germany" is conducting this debate is only leading to further polarization and emotionalization. It is not at all suitable for solving the underlying problem.
We must not submit to a radical majority !
However, there is another way of looking at it besides "media failure". Because what has taken place here is a very loud, very violent and very worrying outcry from a radical majority.
We live in a free country. And we live in a country in which minorities, who have long been discriminated against, are claiming more and more rights for themselves. And they are, of course, attacking (age-old) privileges. There seem to be many people here who want to defend these privileges by any means necessary. And you can really say "by any means necessary". Because they will stop at almost nothing: after all, it's not just a made-up shitstorm. It is twisted, exaggerated and distorted, almost to the point of lying. There is defiance, stomping, shouting and grumbling. There is insulting, inciting, defaming and denigrating. And the critics lose all sense of proportion, even going so far as to make Nazi and totalitarian comparisons (book burning or George Orwell). The means and methods are very reminiscent of those used by Donald Trump.
Seen in the light of day, it was probably only a free decision by Ravensburger not to publish a book that has since been recognized as bad. A free decision. It happens thousands of times every day that a publisher decides not to bring a book onto the market. There is no compulsion in Germany to bring something onto the market just because someone wants to. And everyone else (publishers) is free to publish the book. And democracy is certainly not endangered by the fact that another book is not put on the market. There are already twelve hundred million books. Especially when it's folkloristic trivial literature.
And of course everyone in a free country is allowed to express their regrets. But as I said, it didn't stop there. The discussion has developed into an edifice of distortions, distortions and lies. Driven by right-wing populists, unscrupulous journalists and the eternally outdated. And many have allowed themselves to be instrumentalized.
And this seems to be more than just an isolated case. Exactly the same mechanics are also used when it comes to gender, for example. Or with climate change. Or with vaccination. You only have to think about gendering: A gender ban is being discussed here in all seriousness in order to prevent a non-existent gender constraint. The only thing missing with Winnetou would have been the demand to force Ravensburger to bring the book onto the market.
We currently have dangerous tendencies in Germany to suppress diversity and freedom. And this is happening through the widespread defamation of anything that is progressive, left-wing, woke or otherwise suspected of attacking the status quo.
