Luhmann’s Media Theory: The Specifics 

“Cancel culture results from the media’s thirst for norm violations” Your insights on this topic are excellent. People all across the political spectrum need to understand how discussion is made toxic by fake news and highly polarised messaging

Hey carefree wandering, just thought I'd let you know I'm sourcing you in my master's dissertation; i argue modern Australian universities are failing to address student's crises of confidence - need a good lit review of media theory before I start on profilicity, so grateful you've outlined this canon for us students

The Luhmann videos have been terrific. Thank you.

I agree with Luhmann's theory in all but one minor area and that being the idea that it was "unlikely" for people to expect there to be continuous supply of information that was "newsworthy." After all, news is just an advanced form of gossip, and at all times there would be gossip regardless of how "gossip worthy" that gossip is. Sure, gossip that is more sensational would take precedent at any given time, but in times where not much is going on people will simply gossip about old events OR gossip about anything regardless of how "normal" or "common" that thing is. Gossip can range from the sensational: extra marital affairs, illegal activity, to the very normal; what so-and-so wore that day, who saw who shopping at what store, ect. I'm surprised Luhmann didnt pick up on this, or maybe he just didnt think that those entering the news business, in the beginning, would notice this. I guess that remains ambiguous because of the 2nd and higher order operations one has to preform here. Also, MORE LUHMANN content please!!!!! he is quickly becoming one of my favorite theorists.

This Luhmann's series has been absolutely fantastic. I've enjoyed Postman, Baudrillard, Postman, Chomsky, and McLuhan -- but I had never ever heard of Luhmann before and I find his model as fascinating as it is even-handed. Moeller, what do you think of this suggestion: 'Generally speaking, media exists to authenticate (ie authorize) and/or certain forms of thought and behavior. This is unfolds from the very acting of reading: 'think this for just a moment'; to the more immersive approaches of indoctrinating dogma and propaganda: 'believe this indefinitely.'' I'd love to hear your take on this--it's a summation I've been kicking around for sometime from my own media theory research. Similarly, and apologies if this is too reductive, but I'd love your take on this: I had a knee-jerk reaction of seeing Luhmann as a kind of synthesis between Baudrillard and Chomsky: where one accepts the media environment largely as such (Baudrillard) and the media environment as a realm of influence (Chomsky). Thank you kindly for your time, and thanks again for these wonderful videos. Best! Eliott

thank you for keeping me sane

This functioning of the mass media as formulated by Luhmann has an interesting correlation to the function of phantasy in the psychiatry of Freud and Lacaan, as a supplement without which the individual couldn't function.

Last video in the series? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! The conclusions here were great, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts about these in depth. For instance, having more of this awareness now, how do you recommend we change our own thinking and actions in response? Are we now forever caught in this multiverse of fake realities? Is there any point trying to escape or is that even possible or desirable? How much is it worth even thinking about truth if we can't ever get to it or agree on what's factual? Do we just accept that all information we try to share with each other is in some way propagandistic? Can we use that to our advantage (as a society) to shape something less toxic and manipulative? I have considered these things for years, but still find myself struggling to come up with good answers... I just do my best to separate from it, but I have a hard time knowing that it causes so much unneeded suffering and want to somehow change that, if even possible! Thank you for keeping us intellectually honest, at least to the extent we can be. Fascinating material as usual

Awesome talk, it takes a lot (imo) to get the points of luhmann's media theory across. A couple of years back I've attempted to read one of his books, but was defeated eventually - after your video, I've catched a glimpse of what his theory is about

Thank you so much for introducing me to this theorist and writer. My favorite definition of news is by Gregory Bateson, "News is a difference that makes a difference." 👁️

Surprisingly controversial in a way I have not previously detected in this channel. Fascinating. Can’t wait for more on this. Thanks.

Such an amazing analysis and presentation of this prescient work! I'm really loving this series! I do wonder, however, how many of these people who are captivated by the belief that media is truth can ever wake up. When I have tried to share such facts with them in the past, they ask where I'm getting my information and mock me for ever suggesting RU-vid or the internet. To them, the news is real, and the internet is the disinformation cesspool. I'd love to hear your thoughts about mass formation, as described recently by Mattais Desmett. It seems that people's illogical beliefs go beyond just the media, but then take over many other parts of one's thinking and develop all kinds of other psychosis

Thank you for this video series

Conclusion 2 at 22:45 seems quite profound and suggestive. I would like to hear further exploration of this. Thanks for another thought provoking video.

absolutely wonderfull and newsworthy !

I really liked all three Luhmann videos but this one is a real hit. I consider myself quite an educated person but have never heard of Luhmann before stumbling upon these videos - and I've read quite a bit about social theorists like Weber or Parsons. Thanks a lot for these videos, Luhmann's approach is really thought-provoking.

Recently, there seems to have been a trend in corporate mass media of juxtaposing the conspiracy lit genre against the news genre, in order to enhance the perceived credibility of news. Did Luhmann, or alternatively, would you have anything to say regarding that?

Truly excellent content, thank you.

fascinating and motivating, thank you (also, great sense of humor)

With so much false information being peddled by independent individuals, governments, and media corporations because of the conflict in Palestine, this series is really timely.

MOOOAARRRRR

5:00 Excellent!!!!

Excellent. Thank you. "In the beginning was the word. And, the word was a lie." -- Sri Baba Ganoush

I am your biggest fan. All Information and entertainment are merely a means to an end: Infotainment, made by this channel.

Brilliant.

I'm just curious if you might be able to discuss a few things related to the way politicized media is treating the brazen attacks going on in Israel currently, how they behaved and how things were presented when discussing Ukraine, how people are being censored and are afraid, how references to the activities of Germany during WWII are being brought up and used while the more obvious comparisons are being silenced, and how identity politics are playing a role and how certain factions or groups are finding their comfortable stations and usual positions exposed or divisions appearing with people. Many have decried what is openly appearing over the media as a "litmus test" and an apocalypse in revealing hypocrisy and double standards and the work of dehumanizing an ethnic population. There is a lot currently happening which generally seems to bring up a lot of points of your work and writing. I don't know if you're currently in a position to openly and freely discuss these matters through your videos on this channel, but if you do, much thanks in advance and it would be greatly appreciated, and would likely help a lot of people and students. One of the downsides to making any content focused on the subject is that it would attract the attention of political and governmental propagandists who are currently scouring the internet in a campaign of harassment and brainwashing to curb public opinions about things that are disturbing the majority of normal people, and there is also a campaign to try to put people in a state of denial and calling the reports of atrocities "fake" while they continue to be perpetrated, indefinitely, with no real end in sight as to how much of a free pass a government may get through having a powerful lobby and media control. There are a lot of decent, moral, ethical, conscientious, and sensitive people who appreciate what you discuss and are benefited by having their minds stimulated by difficult or often unspoken truths brought under a keen light, so I hope you'll more directly confront this topic while it is timely and currently underway, just as you faced other very aggressive and militant online campaigners with great observations and ideas stated frankly and demonstrated with examples. You may be lightly interested in a video by CJ Werleman on the topic of CNN benefitting from coverage on wars, and also a video by The Rational National which shows the difference in a how an American spokesperson presented themselves regarding Ukraine and the comparison to how they dealt with the situation happening currently with another population. What leads people to one stance or another, including choosing silence, sometimes from fear, other times due to apathy, would also make for an interesting area for discussion. I'd also like to know more about any historical examples that may be similar as to how things that were horrific were spun to make them less disturbing when presented, or otherwise covered up entirely.

this is great

Great channel! Learned lots. 1st request: profile analysis of Adam Curtis's recent body of work. (Hypernormalisation - Bitter Lake - Can't get u out of my head) 2nd request: Update on Communication Strategies regarding Ukraine Tragedy. Would be interesting. Thx for the good work! Greetings from Ireland

очень интересно!

At 14:48: advertising has another, almost religious feature. According to Luhmann, it resembles ancient divination practices: It only shows you the surface of things, but mystically promises depth... I suspect that Luhmann did not try hard to be understood, despite his prolific (albeit self-referential) writings. Was he using this very principle, giving us a little surface and getting us to buy the next book? Perhaps our host does it much better than Luhmann! He is not reductionist, he is not pretentiously and mystically claiming infallibility ... but he has for sure kept me coming for more (meanwhile, paying attention to even little subtle details like his "wall" sign in Chinese characters :-)

I have just read your book on Daoism and hope you give a series on Daoist philosophy.

Hi Prof. Moeller, thank you for your series on Luhmann. Just started Luhmann Explained and I am getting quite a lot from it. I'm interested on Luhmann's sociology of science, are there any good English or Spanish primers on that part of his work?

I couldn't help but see myself noticing the flowers next to you shake every time you gestured. Every time it happened I had to try and reorientate my focus to seeing myself listening to you and understanding what you were saying... needless to say the flowers were a bit of genius stage play with this video to further illustrate your point.

From which Luhmann's book(s) is this presentation derived? I'd appreciate a reading recommendation.

Reflexivity!

I have a question but have no idea how to reach prof. Moeller. My question is about the proposed ontological basis of the media theory according to Luhmann. Second order observation is due to a human watching another human's observation. He stated that, in this century of mass media, we learn second order observation as children. I suppose similarly to the way a child learned to see the world right-side up even though at the very beginning they saw it upside down due to the laws of Optics. Therefore, when I watch a journalist telling me their story, my central nervous system transforms this event so I can observe the journalist's observation in my head even though I have not witnessed the event; I am using my imagination, I guess. From the perspective of the neurons buzzing in my head, how is that any different from a prehistoric human listening to a story teller singing it?

Do you know where I can publish my nearly-finished opus, "Chick Tracts as a Social System?"

how bout a video on neil postman?

Media is interesting but vielleicht could you tell us something about “Kunst der Gesellschaft”?

Nice plant

I'm a communication and media theory professor from the Philippines. I've been watching your videos about media theories for months now. By any chance, are also going to feature other marxist media theorist like Dallas Smythe and H. Holzer? Also, I would also like to know if you're interested about Maoist thoughts about culture and media? Thank you, sir.

The more I watch carefree wandering the more I want to watch. By the way which band is playing during the closing score?

It would be helpful to contrast media theory with religion. I'm unsure that media is novel, given religion.

Hey hans, can you maybe make a video about manly p hall or alan watts?

media is the media (is the media)

been sayin this to ma mom since I was 4

No upcoming (sequel episode) on Gaza war, wokism, mainstream media, social media coverage?

aber jah the mosaic nature of modernity has its equivalent in Luhmann (cf. McLuhan)

2:16 me watching carefree wandering for entertainment purposes 👁️👄👁️

23:30

I guess I like Luhmann's theory of media but it doesn't explain a lot of the political bias that the Manufacturing Consent model does...

No wonder despite there being so much media I continually find myself bored. Takes time to make things that are actually interesting and not some soundbite.

Media is a moral fool😊 23:18

Stop watching news and social media. You’ll see the world differently. And have a lot more feee time.

Meh, this is conspiratorial. We need some examples showing clear intent otherwise this is just conjecture.