Observations and questions on my own behalf: How much does the credo of impartial journalism still apply? Some examples
The images are disturbing: Hundreds of refugees break through a police cordon at the Hungarian-Serbian border. A policeman tries to grab a man by his jacket. The man is carrying a child in his arms. He manages to tear himself away and runs off. But he doesn’t get far: a camerawoman from the Hungarian station N1TV brings him down with her outstretched leg.
The video of this scene went around the world. The outrage was big. Occured in 2015.
May 1, 2021 in Weimar, Germany: Despite a ban, opponents of the Corona measures of the government gather in the city and set about breaking through the police cordon. One man succeeds. A handful of policemen try to catch him. He runs away, but doesn’t get far: a man brings him down with his outstretched leg. The man is Sebastian Scholz, managing director of the Thuringia branch of the German Journalists’ Association (DJV).
About the video of this scene so far only articles of social media can be found online, except for the two media mentioned in this article.
Question: What is the difference?
That the first scene takes place in Hungary, the second in Germany? That the outstretched leg brought down a Syrian refugee in Hungary, and a anti-lockdown protestor in Weimar? That the camerawoman Petra László was on site professionally, but the managing director of DJV-Thuringia according to his own information privately? That Petra László worked for a right-wing TV station, and Sebastian Scholz is the managing director of a respected journalists’ association?
Question: Should these difference make a difference?
Petra László was dismissed after her misconduct, then initially sentenced by a court to a suspended sentence of three years, but in the end acquitted. According to the press office of the Thuringia State Police Directorate, a charge of assault by a private individual has been filed against Sebastian Scholz on the basis of the video.
In the video, Sebastian Scholz had justified his intervention by saying that he “didn’t get away fast enough”. On May 21, 2021, the program Frontal21 of ZDF, a German public-service television broadcaster, posts a short video mit Scholz, who now states that he intervened deliberately. And says: “I was firmly convinced that I had acted correctly.”
In a press release dated May 11, 2021, the DJV Thuringia deplores threatening calls and hate mails against Sebastian Scholz and their office. Besides, the board members welcome “his civil courage”. The following day, the local daily Thüringer Allgemeine reports that the Prime Minister of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow (The Left), thanks the DJV managing director because he had shown that Thuringia is not a lawless area.
Any threats against Sebastian Scholz and the DJV Thuringia are of course to be condemned.
Nevertheless, the question is justified: What does his behavior and the reaction of the DJV branch office reveal about their self-image and their attitude towards the principle of journalism to stay objective and present a balanced view?
“A good journalist is one who doesn’t forsake impartiality for any cause, not even a good one.”
Hanns Joachim Friedrichs (renowned German journalist)
Question: Has this decades-old professional ethos been shelved?
How much does independent, impartial journalism still count?
Is “virtue-signalling journalism” the answer?
An example for this kind of journalism was provided by Berlin’s daily “Tagesspiegel” (“Daily Mirror”): after the lockdown critical video action #allesdichtmachen (#closedowneverything) by around 50 actors and actrices, the daily newspaper published a series of articles that associated the artists with the right-wing political camp. Among them, the authors of the articles included the physician Paul Brandenburg, founder of the initiative “1bis19” (named after the first nineteen articles of the Germen constitution). In the following days, the newspaper editors corrected and defused their texts several times. They admitted “errors of craftsmanship”, which included, among other things, that they had not given Mr. Brandenburg the opportunity to comment. In the end they found themselves under such public pressure that they organised a discussion with the physician. During the live stream, the deputy chief editor Anna Sauerbrey also asked Brandenburg for apology.
Till then several established media had jumped on the bandwagon and had taken over the interpretations of the Berlin newspaper. Again and again, the makers of the videos were reproached for having also received “applause from the wrong side”. Hinting at activists against the state Corona measures, especially so called “Querdenker” (“lateral thinkers”), and Germany’s most influential right-wing party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) etc.
Two comments also appeared on the blog of the German Journalists’ Federal Association (DJV) blowing this horn: On April 23, 2021, deputy press spokesman Paul Eschenhagen attested to the actors involved under the title “Nicht mehr ganz dicht…” (“Out of their minds”) that they had “really reached into the warm brown”. Three days later, Mika Beuster, associate member of the Federal Executive Board, followed up with the title “Maximale Erregung, minimale Erkenntnis” (“Maximum excitement, minimum insight”).
Like the videos or not……
Question: Shouldn’t representatives of a journalists’ association first and foremost defend the freedom of expression that the artists have claimed for themselves in this action?
The media-critical video of the actor Jan Josel Lievers, a man who demonstrated enormous civil courage as a civil rights activist in the German Democraic Republic, could inspire (us) media professionals to pause self-critically – and ask whether there might be a grain of truth in his statement.
Question: Or should artists and journalists censor themselves for fear of “applause from the wrong side”?
“The fear of “applause from the wrong side” is not only superfluous. It is a characteristic of totalitarian thinking. Criticism that makes concessions to it cannot be justified by any reference to tactical considerations; it is void”.
Hans Magnus Enzensberger, German poet, author and editor