2023-07-12 21:03:51
HomeBerlinHolger Friedrich: Which standards should apply in journalism?
The Basic Law protects the freedom of the press. However, this special position is repeatedly abused. An invitation to debate.
Holger Friedrich
Holger Friedrich is the publisher of the Berliner Zeitung.Volkmar Otto
Some time ago, the former Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt contacted me. He offered me internal documents from the Springer publishing house in order to launch his interests via the Berliner Zeitung. The editors-in-chief of the Berliner Zeitung examined the material and decided against publication. The legal department of the Berlin publishing house informed the Springer publishing house about this process.
Some media then claimed that as the publisher of the Berliner Zeitung I had violated the protection of informants. However, courts in Hamburg and Berlin have confirmed that our actions were legally compliant. The justifications of the Berlin district court hardly allow any other conclusions. The FAZ quotes the district court of Berlin and reports that Reichelt “saw his general personality rights being violated by Holger Friedrich’s actions and his statements”. The FAZ: “The Berlin district court denies this. The publisher of the ‘Berliner Zeitung’ accepted the statement that Reichelt was disseminating ‘internal information from the Springer house’ to be absolutely true. And it states that Reichelt is not entitled to protection of sources and informants.”
An orderly German court thus confirms that neither I nor the Berliner Zeitung violated the protection of sources.
Ad | Scroll to read more
The reasoning of the court highlights the fact that journalists, with their extensive interpretation of their professional privileges, have come into conflict with the consistently evolving standards in business dealings and in civil society.
In this case, too, we see the result of a long-delayed discussion about ethical and professional standards in journalism, the symptoms of which are regularly lamented, but the causes of which are largely ignored.
In this case, it is ignored that “informants” interacting with journalists have a minimum duty of care in order not to put their counterpart in situations that require explanation. It means not only explicitly agreeing on confidentiality, but also, for example, using communication channels that also offer confidentiality. In addition, it must be checked regularly whether the information provided is not being transmitted for manipulative purposes or for the purpose of abusing power. The Berliner Zeitung did all that.
Particularly important: Even where source protection does not apply, there are professional standards according to which internals or information from third parties may not be used without consent. As the Berlin Regional Court has unequivocally stated, these also apply to journalists. To disregard this means not only breaking personal rights, but also competition law and other legal norms. Everyone has to accept the principles of the rule of law, including sectors that are granted privileged positions in certain areas for good reason.
In companies that are subject to sovereign regulators such as the stock exchange supervisory authority, all internal and external communication is secured in order to prevent misuse and to be able to provide evidence in the event of misuse. A reminder of the collusion uncovered in 2011 by bank employees of international financial institutions to fraudulently manipulate the Libor reference interest rate. In order to circumvent the algorithms, which were mostly trained in English, the agreements between the employees were made in French. A so-called circumvention. The damage to the taxpayer as well as to confidence in the banking system was enormous. Trust could only be regained and the banking system stabilized after these grievances had been cleared up, which in this case meant that the transparency requirements were expanded and that, in addition to professional suitability, the suitability of character for bank managers was enforced. The standards in the regulated financial industry are the gold standard in order not to undermine the structural trust in business transactions.
This raises the question: Which standards should apply to the media and their employees? What are generally valid reference points to prevent misuse at best preventively? Is self-restraint by the media possible or even necessary?
After evaluating the overall situation, taking into account the types and channels of information and the fact that Mr. Reichelt had approached the Berliner Zeitung with company-internal information without being asked, I and the employees of the Berliner Verlag dealing with the matter had to assume manipulative motivation. At the same time, Mr. Reichelt, as an experienced journalist, had to know that the media use he intended to use this internal information would require a prior confrontation with the Axel Springer SE concerned. The content of the information revealed the source.
We came to the conclusion that this was not about reporting in the public interest, but about Mr. Reichelt’s attempt to instrumentalize the Berliner Zeitung for his economic advantage. In our opinion, this violated personal rights on the one hand and professional standards on the other. In order not to become part of this presumably abusive procedure, we informed the legal department of the Axel Springer publishing house about the situation, as is standard in all industries in this case, and prevented further use of the data. Two courts have now confirmed that we were right in our assessment.
The Press Council made a different decision – although it was informed of the decision and the reasoning of the Berlin Regional Court in good time before a decision was made. In my view, the non-appreciation of the arguments of a German court damaged the credibility of the press council. Without considering case law, the Press Council issued a “reprimand” against me. The procedure before the Press Council was also defective in several respects: There were no complaints against me as the publisher. The complaints were directed against the Berliner Zeitung. In a comparable case, there had previously been a different decision (B1-263/02) when a journalist referred to the fact that confidentiality had not been agreed. I personally was never heard. Revision is not possible. We will subject the Press Council’s actions to a legal review. It must be in the interest of the Press Council that no impression of arbitrariness and compliance is created here. In its analysis of the verdict, the FAZ refers to the fact that the Berlin judges describe the work of the “self-regulatory body” of the press as “legally non-binding anyway”. The FAZ writes: “This is an effective hit that, if it persists, goes to the foundations of the press.”
Such conflicts will intensify in the future. Today, civil society meets the media on an equal footing. This also includes sharp discourses, right up to legal disputes. The media would be well advised to behave more constructively than before in these conflicts.
It seems to me that the most important question is whether and how journalists responsibly fulfill their exposed role, which is protected by the Basic Law. This is the only way to structurally reduce the dangers of abuse of power or conflicts of interest. This would also be a service to all those journalists who are passionate about their job and do it to the best of their ability. That would be worth discussing.
#standards #apply #journalism