Opinion: deliberations after article on the anti-Semitic cartoon in the SZ

slightly modified 26/2/2014

So the Süddeutsche (SZ), one of Germany’s most renowned broadsheets, published a caricature that was identical with the depictions of Jews in the Nazi Era.  Burkhard Mohr, the cartoonist who drew up the picture was well experienced.  In spite of having won multiple awards, he was unable to spot, he claims, that his drawing could be deemed anti-Semitic and he apologized.  Neither did the Süddeutsche’s editorial notice early enough what was happening and then still did, somehow, but earlier editions have been already on its way to Berlin, London and elsewhere.  So it is that just in nearby Bavaria late editions had a modified version by Mohr, which he himself still shows on his website.

The timeline of news. Following the publication of my article in the Tablet Magazine in my opinion, one of the most Avantgarde and Zeitgeist journals on Jewish current affairs, there were others.  The New York Algemeiner, a Jewish paper, incidentally published the story even about an hour before me, and had seemingly worked parallel with me on this.  Given that I wrote the story whilst also managing child care (I picked up my daughter took her to classes together with friends, run to a German library to get a copy of the relevant page of the SZ, whilst the kids were being taught, etc… ), I consider it an achievement for the working parent model, that I was almost as fast.  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz,  the two large Israeli papers followed later in the evening, having a natural interest in this,  and nearly 12 hours after that, the Daily Mail published a copy-write of the former with added photos.

UK news media react late. Being based in London, it is interesting to note that the UK news organs were late to react, even though I had pitched the UK Guardian and various departments at that, as early as Sunday afternoon., earlier than anybody else I wrote to.  As usual, I regret to say, The Guardian either thought the story was not interesting or they failed to spot it (given that it went to several desks I don’t believe the former), or the emails they give out to freelancers are no good. Representing the left of center liberal paper of the UK, it was my possibly my false estimation that they were most concerned when it came to anti-Semitic issues and would jump on the story. Perhaps that was no surprise given the muddle the SZ just got themselves in who are themselves left-liberal.  Instead, it was the more conservative Daily Telegraph that announced more interest to me, though in the end, even this did not crystallize, and it was finally just the right of center Daily Mail who broke the story to the UK masses using footage prepared by others.

The incidences of the SZ in Germany between an offensive anti-Jewish caricature on the issue of Israel and another caricature deemed directly anti-Semitic by most observers nine months later, are strange. Some of my Munich-based Jewish friends believe the SZ is rather hostile towards Israel (see http://www.suedwatch.de/blog/?p=12148 for a take on this). Are there connections between seeking the right to criticize Israel and unacceptable sloppiness the way one reports on Jewish affairs (or not at all)?   Critique is always justified, be it against Israel or Facebook, as long as it is relatively balanced within the wider picture of things. But this was beyond critique.  In my personal opinion it may have been an attempt to test new limits of very dark humour: Look, remember the Nazi cartoons about Jewish world domination? Isn’t Zuckerberg behaving just as if it was true, the Jew controls all!  Of of course not, it is just satire or was it propaganda pure?

Perhaps greater human diversity amongst editors and journalists could also help for checks and balances, I wonder, especially in Germany.

 

Addendum 27.2.14

A reader on Tablet commented that he saw but a pirate, and there was no offence.  The messages images send depend on cultural specific contexts. I believe he the person who only saw a pirate.  However given the historical images of Jews during the Nazi era and even today by esp. in some neo-Nazi and some bad Arab press, the message it sends to anyone concerned about anti-Semitism is clear. 

I once worked for a Palestinian / Israeli Jewish conflict transformation organisation.  They also worked with images.  Photos were thrown in between the two groups and individuals had to explain what they saw.  What they saw was different depending who they were.  E.g. when seeing a railway track some Jewish participants said it evoked memories of train transports in the Nazi era. When seeing a beach Palestinians talked of the difficulties of getting to the beach in the area due to check points etc. 

In the case of the cartoon the association is more directive than but a beach or train track.  It is almost identical with Stürmer like cartoons.  But if you are not exposed to the history of racist imagery in the Third Reich and are not Jewish it is probable one can not see it.  In Germany all are exposed to the Third Reich and its legacy, it is always present, and when one works as a cartoonist one can be assumed to be well informed in terms of political Zeitgeist.  That said, a Jewish co-worker would most likely have spotted and felt the association instantly, hence the way I closed my opinion earlier.

A readers complaint. Does British media still lack ethics and morals after Leveson? The Peckford Place Media Disaster.

This week I received a readers complaint regarding facts that circulated everywhere in the media in the UK.  It were the names of the occupants of the house in which an alleged slave holding is said to have occurred.  Later it was suggested, that it may have had also something to do with one of the occupants former political activities.

When we run my update on the latest revelations and names on Thursday (28/11/13) in the German paper Taz, Die Tageszeitung, the German broadsheet newspaper I write for, the main reason was that the  story everybody thought they knew, had changed from merely a trafficked people story to one of people possibly being trapped by a political ideology and the person behind it, and there were also issues coming up, concerning the unresolved death of a woman in 1997, who fell out of a bathroom window subscribed to the supposed political collective.

A reader felt compelled to write and complain, why we published all these names and why with so many question-marks?   More to the point why did we publish names and circumstances that have not been confirmed yet, and were just speculative?  The “readers-letters editor”highlighted the letter and I answered it for the Saturday edition 30/11/13.  In my response I speak of different cultural norms, the fact that the British media was totally full with the names and we had a duty to report, although in the most careful language.  I thanked the reader though for raising the issue and showing that for her the pain threshold had been over stepped.

In honesty, I felt she was quite right, but the facts were totally public in the UK for days.  The same facts would not as easily have come to light in Germany though.  And I felt that the way the UK-press had addressed the story was tasteless and in part immoral too.  You have to consider here that right to privacy and anonymity are principles most Germans will defend at all costs (still paradoxically Germans have their private family names on all their letter boxes and bells in Germany, unlike the anonymous door number system here in Britain).

Papers like The Sun and the Daily Express allegedly had paid for information given to them by neighbours, who had been quiet for months and years about what they knew about the circumstances of these people next-door.  Why did a person who received over 500 letters, as we read, and lived next door, never raise the issue with any external agency, but then willingly gave  much of it or all away to the sensationalist press, allegedly for large sums of  money? And why did the mainstream press including The Guardian,  The Independent, ITV and even the BBC then build upon that data released by the sensationalists amongst our profession?

Why did British media overall not think that it was wrong to publish the alleged name of the 30-year old on Sunday evening, as well as the names of all the other occupants after that?  For sure everybody knew the women were vulnerable and facts were under investigation?

As a matter of fact on Tuesday an e-mail reached me by the Metropolitan Police asking journalists to stop speculating and stating that the revelations interfered with investigations.  Still on the very same day and on the day after that more names and facts came out and unlike the photo of the 30-year old published on Sunday with her face hidden – that publication itself a scandal – the same photo was later shown with her full profile visible, giving away any anonymity she may have preferred to keep.  That is immoral.

As a correspondent I played a role in carrying these facts forward to Germany, but only after they were common knowledge in Britain by all in the UK who read papers, or listen or watch news, and because these facts changed the facts on the grounds.

But it was hardly ethical by the British press to  reveal the possible details of women, who very much were victims and deserve society’s protection.  If the women chose to come out and talk to the media it is a different matter, but some of the facts were revealed using private and confidential letters of clearly failed neighbours (in my judgement), who did not alert supporting agencies when they could and should have done, and chose to cash in on the misfortune of their neighbours for personal gain through the hands of journalists or people who call themselves that.

I can not change the way news is made in the UK, and as a correspondent I act often reactive anyway, and  have the duty to let people in Germany know what is happening here, but I wonder if in deed I could have done it differently, perhaps not naming any of the people in spite of them being given here?  I just wonder though how it would have looked?  Most other German media also gave all the facts away.

But for Britain these are the post-Leveson-Inquiry days.  Rebecca Brooks is still in the Old Bailey being tried.

There is a reason why organisations like the BBC do usually not pay for interviews, and I think that all media should follow suit, unless exceptional circumstances ask for a different approach.  Further there must be a more moral and communal accountability in such cases.

So I must agree with my German reader.  Still I did put a lot of question marks and words like alleged, presumed, not officially confirmed in my report of the  28th of November, making it clear, the information was others guesswork.  But that was what it was at in London at the time, and the papers were full of  it.

Part of me wonders if in deed one must approach the British way of reporting in a different and novel way.  I will think about this in the months to follow. That’s my job.  But what is the job of my UK colleagues?

What is our purpose as journalists? Is it not also to help the world to become better by thinking about the mistakes of others for example?

In my opinion the second biggest headline over the last days has been missed by most of my UK colleagues- not by me:

In my report in the Taz on Monday the 25th I put my fingers clearly on the neighbours, who did not talk and sold their story.  Here was scandalous footage, one that could have altered behaviour by other neighbours to continue to be bystanders and silent witnesses to terrible abuse.  The papers should have been more full with that, than the names and photos of the victims.

Now that the intoxication of the Lambeth story wears of, it would be very much time to think about the cure for the hang-over, and perhaps get off the bottle of sensationalism in the future all together!?

 

TAZ: Zeitungskrise in Großbritannien Der Scheinriese | Newspaper crisis in the UK. The pretend-to-be-giant?

Deutsch: logo der tageszeitung the guardian

Deutsch: logo der tageszeitung the guardian (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An English intro follows behind the German summary. 

In diesen Bericht in der Taz schildere ich die Ambitionen des Guardian Verlags, der online die drittgrößte Zeitung der Welt ist (via guardian.co.uk).  Der Guardian verbuchte trotz massiver Investitionen, manche sagen,wegen ihnen, über Millionen hohe Verluste.  Nun sollen auch noch 100 redaktionelle Mitarbeiter aus der Guardian News & Media Group (GNM) gehen,  der freie Zugang zu Guardian online soll trotzdem nicht abgeschafft werden, im Gegensatz zur ehemalig freien New York Times , die seit 2011eine Paywall hat.  Entweder gewinnt die ganze Welt einen linkszentrierten Nachrichtenverlag, oder alle und vorallen Grossbrittanien verlieren seine seriöseste Pressestimme mit sozial und ökologischen Interessen.  In der zwischenzeit, das steht nicht in meinen Bericht, hat sich Chefredakteur Alan Rusbridge,  damit beschäftigt professionell Klavier zu spielen.   Wer über 400.000 Euro verdient und mit um ihre Zukunft zitternden Journalisten zu tun hat braucht solche Ablenkung.  Rusbridger wurde mir von ehemaligen Guardianjornalisten sowohl als Genie als auch als etwas verdächtig beschrieben.  Mehr im Bericht.

www.taz.de/Zeitungskrise-in-Grossbritannien/!108878/

It was the famous German author Michael  Ende who defined first the word Scheinriese for the German vocabulary in his book Jim Knopf and the Wild 13.  A Scheinriese is a pretend-to-be-giant.  In Ende’s story it is a man who looks like a giant from far way, but as one gets closer to him, he turns out to be of normal stature.     In my report about the Guardian Media Group I look at the tension between it being the third largest online newspaper, and its huge deficit in the last financial year.  The Guardian desires to grow further with expansions in New York and Australia, whilst it aims to rid itself of about 100 editorial staff.  But its free access policy is to remain in place regardless, even though the New York Times has introduced a paywall in 2011.   Either the whole world gets a global left-central news corporation, or all and especially Great Britain lose their most serious voice with an interest in social and ecological affairs. I asked a former editor, the chief-editor of the UK’s main media publication, the Press Gazette (which itself saw its print edition vanish) and we learn from Andrew Miller, chief executive of GMG that all is quite well, well enough for Alan Rusbridger, chief editor of The Guardian, to tell BBC World Service about his achievement of finding enough leisure time to learn to play the  piano very well in the last few years and from scratch at that (see also below article from Guardian )

The article is part of the debates on how news and media move forward in the digital age.

Full version (in German) here www.taz.de/Zeitungskrise-in-Grossbritannien/!108878/