2023-04-19 18:26:04
Benjamin von Stuckrad-Barre’s new novel is out today. According to all rumours, it should be a text that deals with the allegations of abuse against Julian Reichelt and the brutal work structures at Springer.
Nobody knows how the public will react to the novel. However, if you look at the preliminary reports, you can assume that the text will have a wide reach and will change the way Mathias Döpfner and Julian Reichelt are viewed.
Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer, is counted. The man, who sees himself as a fine spirit and is described by friends and acquaintances as conflict-averse and almost shy, sees his career in danger and his further advancement at Springer in the USA. Left-liberal circles in particular use the publication of his private SMS by Die Zeit to settle accounts with the head of Axel Springer, with his tough course at Bild und Welt, his right-wing thought cosmos, which has deeply shaped the Springer media.
Many scores are now being settled, open scores that Julian Reichelt and Mathias Döpfner, as protagonists in a relentless German media circus, helped to bring about. After all, hardly any other medium has perfected the principle of mudslinging and “putting it against the wall” as much as Bild und Welt. Reichelt and Döpfner are likely to be concerned about the content and reception of the novel and the consequences.
One could say: irony of history. One might think: protagonists are rightly being pilloried, who were never above shaming others, ending their political careers, making private matters public and conducting campaigns against opponents and enemies. Biblical proportions seem to be indicative when fate strikes back and the phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” shows its full effect.
The settlement with Döpfner and Reichelt follows an almost orchestrated logic. The large and devastating dossier about Mathias Döpfner was published in Die Zeit last Thursday. The podcast “Boys Club – Power & Abuse at Axel Springer” was published on Tuesday, in which women who report incidents of abuse in the Springer company have their say. The exclusive Spotify podcast was produced by Jan Böhmermann.
Benjamin von Stuckard-Barre’s roman à clef “Still awake?” is now being published, the publication of which is being extensively promoted with statements by celebrities such as Jasna Fritzi Bauer, Caren Miosga, Lena Meyer-Landrut, Kurt Krömer, Verena Altenberger, Jan Delay and Carolin Kebekus . So Stuckrad-Barre should definitely attract attention.
Before the novel gets into the hands of the Germans and the anti-Springer faction pounces on the symbolic figures of patriarchal journalism, it is worth taking a few steps back and thinking about some media-ethical questions and the background to the process. Here are nine aspects of the Reichelt-Döpfner-Stuckrad-Barre-Böhmermann case that should be discussed.
1.) The person Benjamin von Stuckrad-Barre
Benjamin von Stuckrad-Barre is a Springer offspring himself. He wrote for Die Welt for a long time, was considered the company’s resident and star author, and for a long time took no offense at the radical orientation of the Springer press (working at Axel Springer from 2008 to 2018). If he now writes a MeToo novel and settles accounts with his old foster father Mathias Döpfner, who, so the assumption goes, at some point relied more heavily on the radicalized Reichelt (and not the moderate Stuckrad-Barre): How authentic is Stuckrad-Barre’s turn to Feminism? Or is it not more about the reckoning of a disappointed person who now wants to use his internal knowledge of Springer to attract success, attention, money and power?
It is known in the media bubble that women who were in contact with Julian Reichelt later sought proximity to Stuckrad-Barre. They are said to have served him as informants for the novel. Stuckrad-Barre is said to have an unconventional approach to women. So how strongly is the novel influenced by revenge motifs? And is the “revenge” motive the right motive for reckoning with the Springer system? And is a novel, a fictional treatment of reality, the right way to judge people’s existence? How do we deal with this socially when reality and fiction are becoming increasingly blurred?
2.) The Reichelt-Döpfner connection
Julian Reichelt is a controversial journalist, he always was. Anyone who observes the Reichelt case closely will notice that Mathias Döpfner held on to the person for a long time. During the Reichelt affair in 2021, Döpfner told his employees that the Reichelt affair was an intrigue. Döpfner agreed with Reichelt’s interpretation of the situation and supported his foster son.
It was only when a billion-dollar deal with Politico and American investors threatened to fall through that Döpfner threw Bild editor-in-chief Reichelt out of the group. A compliance check could not determine Reichelt’s guilt, it was said at the time. An affair concealed by Reichelt had permanently destroyed trust and was the reason for the expulsion. Is that correct? Will we ever know the real reasons?
3.) The tabloidization of journalism
Die Zeit published Mathias Döpfner’s private messages on Thursday. For some, reporting was an educational step, for others it was crossing borders. Many criticized the fact that the context of Döpfner’s SMS messages was not made clear in the Zeit text. In order to remain fair, should one also make the connections between the message exchanges public? Marc Felix Serrao wrote: “The meaning of a statement, especially in private communication, only becomes apparent in the context.”
To what extent is Die Zeit better than Bild when it makes private messages public – methods that are more commonly attributed to tabloid journalism? Julian Reichelt was explicitly criticized for the fact that the Bild newspaper published private messages from a child whose siblings were killed. Both cases are not comparable. And yet: Isn’t it exactly the kind of scandalous journalism that serious media observers are concerned about? What boundaries do we draw? Does this require a new media ethic?
4.) Privacy
What happens to the protected space, to privacy, when every WhatsApp, SMS and Telegram message threatens to become public? Where will it be, the protected space? Are we now threatening to drift into a paranoid society? Do we have to have our emails and text messages automatically deleted after 24 hours to protect our privacy? Will there be no more archives?
5.) Jan Böhmermann
Jan Böhmermann is an influential entertainer who has criticized the Springer media’s destructive practices for years. In his programs about the Springer media, which he once compared satirically with the methods of the RAF, he tries to humorously break the aggressive varieties of the picture and the world, formerly personified by Julian Reichelt and still by Ulf Poschardt.
In doing so, he uses methods similar to those of the image itself: de-contextualization, exaggeration, exaggeration, alienation. The goal: to beat right-wing apologists at their own game. The truth is often overstretched and distorted, with the belief that it is serving a good cause. Is that the right strategy in terms of media ethics? Can you denounce people if it supposedly serves a good cause?
6.) Social Media
The tabloidization of journalism is apparently being driven forward by the media crisis and falling print runs. Journalism needs to be even more gimmicky and scandalous. Personalized journalism (against Baerbock, against Döpfner, against Böhmermann, against Nuhr) works better than factual, background and factual reporting.
Media representatives, both left and right, are increasingly using mechanisms of transgression, exaggeration and personal slander to gain attention on the one hand and further their personal ideological agenda on the other. The gimmicky variety of social media, which is based on exaggeration, seems to be spreading more and more in serious journalism in order to be able to keep up with the shrill discourse on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. After Corona and the beginning of the Ukraine war, the subscriptions of the major media brands are declining. Is tabloidization the price of media digitization? Who is willing to discuss media ethics so that the discourse remains protected and does not tip over into archaic states? And why do even the public broadcasters participate in the shrill journalism, although they live on license fees?
7.) MeToo
In the case of MeToo reporting, the basic rule “in case of doubt for the accused” is overturned. Is that in order? Where are the boundaries between enlightenment and denunciation? How do journalists deal with their power and the duty to strike a balance between the public interest in information and personal rights? It was an achievement of modern civilization to stop public denunciation.
8.) The Springer system
The society around us is changing faster than the regulations, laws and ethics that are available to us. The Reichelt-Döpfner-Stuckrad-Barre-Böhmermann case could trigger a discussion of what serious, ethically based journalism that unites and does not divide could look like. If you look at the statements of the new editor-in-chief Marion Horn, as she now understands the DNA of Bild, doubts arise as to whether anything will change in the Bild-Zeitung system. She writes: “Our first principle is standing up for liberty. This also means that ‘Bild’ is free to report as ‘Bild’ sees fit.”
Does that mean that only Springer is free to report in a way that suits Bild? Also to divide and denounce and tell untruths in the name of freedom? Who is moderating the discussion of how to deal with the growing power of Asian cultures as Western supremacy threatens to wane? The American investors KKR at Springer rely on journalism that wants to discuss the world’s problems in a cultivated form. This also explains the case of Reichelt, Reichelt did not fit into the demands of this new culture of discussion. How does the Bild newspaper manage to transform itself into a modern, tolerant media brand that draws lessons from the past?
9.) Polarization
Society is becoming more and more divided, also in Germany. What are the effects of the media, including their protagonists, when they are highly motivated to defend freedom and democracy while doing the opposite? How can the media reduce this division instead of promoting it with moralizing overtones? How does Germany’s media ethics get an update? Do we need a round table to discuss media-ethical challenges in journalism?
Do you have feedback? Write us! briefe@berliner-zeitung.de
Recommendations from the ticket shop:
#men #problem