Cologne
puts Germany’s ‘lying press’ on defensive
News
media’s timidity gives rise to attacks on a shift to the left.
By MATTHEW
KARNITSCHNIG 1/20/16, 5:30 AM CET
BERLIN — Germany’s
police and politicians have faced increasing anger in the wake of the
New Year’s sex attack spree in Cologne, but much of the public’s
ire has been directed at a group more comfortable asking questions
than answering them: the news media.
After largely
ignoring the story for several days after the attacks, much of the
national media appeared reluctant to explore possible links between
the attacks and the recent influx of refugees. Some commentators went
so far as to suggest it was unlikely asylum seekers were even
involved.
“In all
likelihood, the people behind this have been here for a long time,”
left-leaning daily Süddeutsche Zeitung declared in its lead
editorial a week after the attacks.
In other words, just
as with the terror attacks in Paris, the culprits in Cologne were
most likely homegrown “foreigners.” The real problem, the paper
concluded, was likely “failed integration” — German society’s
failure to assimilate foreigners.
Just hours after the
article appeared, a police report on the assaults surfaced, revealing
that many of the suspects were, in fact, refugees.
The German media’s
timidity on the Cologne sex assault coverage has presented right-wing
agitators with a useful “told you so” moment.
A
majority of Germans still trust the media, but more than 40 percent
described the reporting on refugees as “one-sided.”
More thoughtful
observers see a problem deeper than political bias behind the
coverage of Cologne and the broader refugee crisis: a press corps
that has shifted from dispassionate observer to political actor.
Instead of just reporting and analyzing events, some influential
journalists, especially those who work for the public broadcasting
networks, consider it their professional duty to serve as a
counterweight to the populist rhetoric fueling the country’s
right-wing revival, critics say.
“Cologne has
helped blow the top off,” said Roland Tichy, a veteran German
editor who now runs an eponymous opinion site of conservative
commentary.
Rise of the Right
The rapid rise of
the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party amid the refugee
crisis — recent polls predict the party would win about 10 percent
of the vote — has unnerved many liberals in and outside the media.
A core aspect of the
AfD’s message is that Germany’s public debate is controlled by
the politically correct strictures determined by the country’s
media elite.
That view has
resonated with many citizens who feel their voices aren’t being
heard. A decision by local state broadcasters on Tuesday not to
include the AfD in upcoming live studio debates ahead of March
regional elections will only harden the belief that authorities are
trying to suppress the party.
Even before Cologne,
many Germans worried the media weren’t telling them everything. In
a poll conducted by the respected Allensbach institute in December,
53 percent of respondents said they didn’t believe the media
presented an accurate picture of the refugees’ qualifications for
employment or other details.
A majority of
Germans still trust the media, but more than 40 percent described the
reporting on refugees as “one-sided.”
“There’s
suspicion that they believe they don’t have to report on such
assaults, especially involving migrants and foreigners, for fear of
unsettling the public” — Hans-Peter Friedrich.
The most virulent
strain of that distrust can be seen on Germany’s streets, during
the regular marches by the anti-foreigner Pegida group. Even before
the recent wave of refugees began arriving, right-wing marchers
revived a slur popular during the Nazi-era – Lügenpresse, or lying
press. A number of journalists have even been assaulted at the
rallies.
While Germany’s
printed press offers a multitude of opinions and views, the public
broadcasting sector, once similarly diverse, has veered left in
recent years, critics say.
“The public
stations have evolved into Social Democratic/Green mainstream
broadcasters,” Tichy said. “There’s no denying it.”
Hans-Peter
Friedrich, a former interior minister under Angela Merkel, accused
the public broadcasters of operating a “cartel of silence.”
“There’s
suspicion that they believe they don’t have to report on such
assaults, especially involving migrants and foreigners, for fear of
unsettling the public,” he said.
The cautious
approach to news, what one commentator recently called “nanny
journalism,” is a vestige of the effort to reprogram Germans after
World War II from Nazi sympathizers into peace-loving democrats.
Public radio and
later television served as important instruments for civic education
during the post-war era, a mission the broadcasters never abandoned.
The public stations’
formal, sober news presentation might recall a bygone television era,
but most Germans swear by the no-frills approach to news.
Germany’s public
broadcasting, a juggernaut that includes two national television
channels, known as ARD and ZDF, regional affiliates as well as
national and local radio, dominates political coverage in the
country.
As in the U.K. and
many other European countries, the operations are financed through a
compulsory fee levied on households.
A handful of
commercial broadcasters also have news divisions, but most Germans
continue to rely on public outlets for their information. The private
stations, including N24, a news channel that belongs to Axel Springer
(co-owner of POLITICO Europe), lack the resources of the larger
public operations.
The public
broadcasters vigorously reject claims of manipulation, insisting they
are driven by nothing more than a duty to inform the public.
“It annoys me
because for the ARD there’s not a single instance where this
accusation can be proved,” Thomas Baumann, the station’s
editor-in-chief, said in response to suggestions the broadcaster
withheld information on Cologne and other crimes involving refugees.
“Those
on the verge of collapse as they groan under the weight of the
chancellor’s mindless policies are shown on public television, but
always in the role of the malcontent” — Michael
Hanfeld.
ARD Chairwoman
Karola Wille said last week that while she took the public’s
concerns seriously, the broadcaster’s lofty mission was more
essential than ever.
“The public
broadcasting contract remains and remains intact: to impart values,
promote opinion- and decision-making in society and to ensure the
functioning of democracy,” she said.
Soft coverage
For the
broadcasters’ detractors, Cologne represents the latest example of
months of tendentious coverage. One common complaint is news reports
on the refugees often picture families and women, even though single
young men make up the vast majority of those arriving.
Another is that the
broadcasters downplay or conceal events that might rouse the public’s
emotions. The alleged gang rape of two teenage girls in southwest
Germany on New Year’s Eve by four Syrian refugees was not reported
by any of the main news programs, for example, despite the parallels
to the attacks in Cologne and other cities.
SWR, the regional
public channel, reported on the rapes but was quick to add: “The
nationality of the suspects played an ‘insignificant role’ in the
crime, investigators and prosecutors said.”
Such reporting has
fueled criticism that the broadcasters soft pedal any hint of
criminal behavior among refugees. It also earned them a new moniker:
“Willkommens Broadcaster” — a play on the so-called
“Willkommenskultur,” or culture of welcome that swept Germany in
the early days of the refugee crisis.
The quips are only
partly in jest. Opponents of Angela Merkel’s refugee policies say
the public media demonize anyone who dares speak out against them.
“Those on the
verge of collapse as they groan under the weight of the chancellor’s
mindless policies are shown on public television, but always in the
role of the malcontent,” wrote commentator Michael Hanfeld in a
widely-read column for the Frankfurter Allgemeine daily in November.
‘An uprising of
the decent’
In early August, a
few weeks before Merkel announced her open-door policy, ARD reporter
Anja Reschke delivered feisty prime-time commentary, decrying the
xenophobia that had taken root in some parts of Germany. The time had
come, she said, for an “uprising of the decent.”
The commentary
created a stir. While some viewers saw it as an attempt to muzzle
opponents of a liberal asylum policy, others applauded what they
regarded as a courageous stance.
The two-minute
appearance won Reschke Germany’s “Journalist of the Year”
honor, a decision made by a jury of 80 of her peers. “No other
journalistic contribution this year had so much impact or created as
much furor as this commentary,” the jury concluded.
To those critical of
the German press’s refugee coverage, the award offered further
confirmation of a hidden agenda.
The skepticism
hasn’t gone unnoticed.
After ZDF, Germany’s
second national broadcaster, failed to report on the Cologne attacks
in its primetime news program even after other national media had
picked up on the story, the station’s editor apologized.
“The news was
clear enough,” the editor said in statement posted on the station’s
Facebook page. “It was a failure.”
Meanwhile, Germany’s
newspapers and magazines, which have also come under fire, have
started to show a tougher side to readers. Last week, Focus, a news
weekly, put a naked white woman with black handprints all over her
body on its cover. The headline: “Are we tolerant or blind?” The
depiction sparked an outcry and charges of racism.
Just a few days
after the column suggesting refugees were unlikely to have been
involved in the Cologne assaults, the Süddeutsche Zeitung ran a
controversial front page illustration of its own: a black hand
reaching into a white female figure’s crotch.
The newspaper’s
editor has since apologized.
Authors:
Matthew Karnitschnig
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário