On December 5, 2023, the German Press Council decided that the SZ’s reporting in the Hubert Aiwanger case was not objectionable. The Press Council has now provided the first detailed justification, which we are documenting here.
There was considerable public interest in the published suspicion that Aiwanger had written an anti-Semitic leaflet in his youth. The allegations were in blatant contradiction to Aiwanger’s positions as Economics Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Bavaria. Aiwanger was not yet of legal age at the time the allegations related to him. However, the allegations were so serious that his protection of personality had to take a back seat to the public interest in accordance with Section 8 of the Press Code (Editor’s note: The relevant sections of the press code can be found at the end of the text).
Especially a few weeks before the state elections, it was relevant for the public to find out what serious allegations were being made against Aiwanger. The members of the complaints committee agree: The leaflet that was presented to the editorial team is a precisely formulated, inhumane document and therefore not a “youthful sin”. A politician has to accept being publicly confronted with such a document even after 35 years, especially since Hubert Aiwanger was undisputedly involved with the leaflet – based on the reporting, he himself admitted that he had carried it with him in his school bag.
Contrary to criticism from some complainants, the editorial team did not claim that Aiwanger had written the leaflet. She simply expressed her suspicion that he might have written the leaflet. The headline “Aiwanger is said to have written an anti-Semitic leaflet as a student” already makes it sufficiently clear that this is an assumption and not a fact.
The claim by some complainants that Hubert Aiwanger was not given the opportunity to comment is also false. The editorial team made it clear in the article that they asked Aiwanger about the allegations before publication. She also made it clear to the Press Council that she had given Mr Aiwanger sufficient time to comment. The editorial team also published Aiwanger’s denial in the article. According to Section 13 of the Press Code, there is therefore no prejudgment in the sense of one-sided, unbalanced “campaign reporting”.
At the same time, before publication, the editorial team researched a minimum set of facts that sufficiently substantiated the suspicion they expressed. In the text, she refers to several informants who confirm that Aiwanger was held responsible for the leaflet by the school’s disciplinary committee. In its statement to the Press Council, the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” also made it clear that it had asked various people about the allegations. She also allowed exculpatory voices to have their say. The editorial team has thus fulfilled its duty of care in accordance with Section 2 of the Press Code.
It is also irrelevant to the credibility of the statements quoted that none of the witnesses were named by name in the reporting at issue. The editorial team explained in the article that the informants wanted to remain anonymous at the time of publication, among other things, for fear of legal consequences. According to Section 5 of the Press Code, such agreed confidentiality must also be maintained: “If the informant has made the use of his report dependent on him remaining unrecognizable or safe as a source, this condition must be respected.” The editorial team also did not have to disclose the witnesses’ interests in the interest of protecting informants. The only decisive factor is that the editorial team has sufficiently checked the facts presented by the witnesses.
The members of the Press Council discussed whether the editors’ only gradual disclosure of the facts in successive articles could have violated the duty of care pursuant to Section 2 of the Press Code. However, this approach cannot be criticized from a press ethical point of view because the editorial team had sufficient evidence for the suspicion expressed from the outset.
The statements criticized by some complainants about the book “Mein Kampf” and Hubert Aiwanger’s probable age at the time of the leaflet are also not objectionable. Several people told the Press Council that the editorial team had created the false impression that reading “Mein Kampf” was forbidden. However, the editorial team never gave this impression. On the other hand, it is correct to describe the book itself as forbidden: the creation, sale and acquisition of new publications was prohibited by the Free State of Bavaria at the time the leaflet was published.
The editorial team’s statement that Aiwanger was 17 years old at the time the allegations were made does not violate the duty of care in accordance with Section 2 of the Press Code. Some complainants had accused the editors of saying that he was only 16 years old at the time, as the “deadline” stated in the leaflet showed that the leaflet had been in circulation before January 1, 1988. However, it cannot be concluded from this date that the paper was circulated before this date, especially since these numbers also serve as a code for “Adolf Hitler” and “Heil Hitler” (A = 1st letter; H = 8th letter in the alphabet ) may have been chosen. The editorial team was therefore allowed to rely on the information provided by the informants, who consistently stated that Hubert Aiwanger was 17 years old at the time of the alleged crimes.
The editorial team’s publication of the anti-Semitic leaflet was also of public interest. Some complainants had accused the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” of making the leaflet accessible to a much larger group of people than those to whom it was originally available. However, the Press Council recognizes that the image of the typewriter typeface has an important documentary function, which also played a key role in the later reporting on the typewriter report. It is clear that the editorial team did not adopt the leaflet as their own, but rather clearly distanced themselves from the content.
The Press Council just as clearly rejects the claim of some complainants that the leaflet cannot be described as “anti-Semitic” “because no Jew is mentioned.” The list of prizes offered in the leaflet (“free flight through the chimney of Auschwitz”; “free shot in the neck”, “free amputation of the head with a guillotine”) with the “place of delivery: Auschwitz entertainment district and sub-camp” trivializes and mocks the extermination methods practiced by the National Socialists in the concentration camps their – primarily Jewish – victims. The classification as “anti-Semitic” is therefore a permissible expression of opinion.
On this basis, the responsible complaints committee of the Press Council came to the following conclusion: “Overall, there is no violation of the journalistic principles of the German Press Council”; the complaints dealt with here are unfounded. This decision was made with six votes in favor and one abstention.
The rules of the Press Code at issue when considering the complaints are as follows:
Number 2 – Diligence
Research is an indispensable instrument of journalistic care. Information intended for publication in words, images and graphics must be checked for truthfulness with the care required under the circumstances and reproduced truthfully. Its meaning must not be distorted or falsified through editing, headings or captions. Unconfirmed reports, rumors and assumptions must be identified as such. Symbolic photos must be identified as such or made recognizable.
Number 5 – Professional secrecy
The press maintains professional secrecy, makes use of the right to refuse to testify and does not reveal informants without their express consent. The agreed confidentiality must generally be maintained.
Number 8 – Protection of personality
The press respects people’s private lives and their informational self-determination. But if his behavior is of public interest, it can be discussed in the press. In identifying reporting, the public’s interest in information must outweigh the legitimate interests of those affected; Mere sensationalism does not justify identifying reporting. If anonymization is required, it must be effective. The press guarantees editorial data protection.
Paragraph 13 – Presumption of Innocence
Reporting on investigations, criminal proceedings and other formal proceedings must be free of prejudice. The principle of the presumption of innocence also applies to the press.