Nowhere else in Germany are so many media companies concentrated as in Berlin, nowhere else is it harder for newspapers to get attention and subscribers. A struggle for survival, in which publishers are bought and sold again, a struggle to prevail against the competition. In a new case, a dispute has gone so far that it is being fought in court. It’s about business figures, company investments and the greatest asset of a newspaper, journalistic credibility.
On one side stands Holger Friedrich. In 2019, the East German entrepreneur ran down after several changes of ownership Berlin newspaper bought and rebuilt. Opinions differ on how successful he is with it. Friedrich himself said in an SZ interview that the newspaper was economical and that he was able to win customers not least through new business models. What is clear, however, is that the top dog on the Berlin regional newspaper market is the daily mirror is, whose readership is traditionally located in the west of the capital. The newspaper belongs to the large publishing group Georg von Holtzbrinck – in which, among other things, the weekly newspaper The time and the Handelsblatt to appear. She is on the other side of this argument.
Friedrichs published last weekend Berlin newspaper a remarkable piece of research: on several pages of her weekend edition, she prominently devoted herself to the “House of Holtzbrinck”. It is an article about company holdings by the competing publisher. Normally, this topic is not one of the things that local media use to try to lure their readership out from behind the stove. And yet a team of reporters has worked its way deeply into the business models of the Stuttgart publishing group. One of these business models is a company called DvH Ventures, through which publisher Dieter von Holtzbrinck invests in start-ups, for example.
“Berliner Zeitung: Your savior. Or your downfall” – that’s what “Zeit” called the entrepreneur Holger Friedrich, who bought the run-down newspaper in 2019.
(Photo: imago/Reiner Zensen)
At a time when the market for classic media is becoming increasingly difficult, it is not unusual for publishers to also invest in other business models. However, according to the authors of the research, friendly reports about some start-ups also appeared in Holtzbrinck media – a conflict of interest to which the readers of the published texts should have been made aware. Because it is a pillar of independent journalism that the journalistic and economic interests of a publisher are separated. According to research, however, this did not happen in several cases.
The complex publishing structures are rolled out in great detail in the article, which is likely to be of more interest to a narrow target group. But that’s not what the authors are about, according to their own statements. The aim of the research is, writes Tomasz Kurianowicz, editor-in-chief of the Berlin newspaper at the weekend to start a debate about credibility in journalism.
In the industry, however, other reasons are suspected as to why the Berlin newspaper in this attempt to initiate a broad debate, has so far only devoted so intensively to that media house in which daily mirror and time to appear. Because since an article in November in the time was published, there are disputes in court. the time claims to have learned at the time that Friedrichs Berlin newspaper was in pretty bad shape and after a lot of restructuring there was “a climate of fear” in the house. She prepared this and other information from inside the editorial office under the title “Berliner Zeitung: Your Redeemer. Or your downfall” on.
The publicity-shy publisher Dieter von Holtzbrinck owns, among other things, “Tagesspiegel” and “Zeit” – and a few holdings in start-ups.
(Photo: Marijan Murat/picture alliance/dpa)
Friedrich took legal action against several allegations in the article, which he called “publicist vandalism” in the SZ interview. Before the district court of Hamburg, he achieved that the time had to print a reply – among other things about the budget for the weekend edition, which, contrary to reports, had not been reduced. The decision is not yet final because the time take action against it. According to the Hamburger Wochenzeitung, a final decision is not expected until March.
Die Zeit is supposed to print a counterstatement, but resists
The media and communication scientist Stephan Weichert has been researching changes in journalism for a long time and has also dealt with the Berlin newspaper landscape. He describes a market that has been fragmented by historical upheavals, in which “battles over recognition” are being fought and “armed artillery” is sometimes being used against the competition, he says. Also in the lawsuit Friedrich against the time Berlin’s competitive situation played a role: Friedrich’s legal adviser, the media lawyer Christian Schertz, declared in court after his stage victory that The time already in the run-up to reporting on the existing competitive situation daily mirror pointed out, who also belongs to the Holtzbrinck Group. This is probably one of the reasons why his client was angry about the report, which also contained incorrect economic figures.
Was the great Holtzbrinck research a kind of tit for tat? Holger Friedrich refuses to do so when asked by SZ. “What is important for me to say, because of course it was immediately assumed: the report by my colleagues has nothing to do with it time-Article from November to do. Even if the thought is obvious.” However: The research has meanwhile drawn circles.
The “Tagesspiegel” wants to review its transparency guidelines
Various Holtzbrinck media explain that they have dealt with the criticism. From the daily mirror For example, it is said that the editors-in-chief took the report as an opportunity to “review internal processes and transparency guidelines.” However, the regional newspaper also explains: “We are not aware of any case in which there is direct or indirect influence by the shareholders, the publisher or the management on the reporting in the daily mirror There was.” This affects both the type and tenor of the reports as well as the selection of topics. Where there are no transparency references, they “of course want to supplement them and research them even more intensively in the future and make them recognizable”.
Media expert Weichert thinks it’s good that the topic is receiving more attention. If there are positive reports about business models in which a publisher is involved, without the background being disclosed, this is “dishonorable”. He also finds questions of transparency in journalism an “important debate” that should be conducted in more detail.
In the Berlin newspaper, which is now raising a warning finger in the direction of Holtzbrinck, you also have your own experiences. In 2019, Holger Friedrichs Blatt reported on the IPO of a company in which the publisher himself was involved – without making this clear. That is also one of the reasons why the topic was addressed, says editor-in-chief Kurianowicz. One is sensitized and tries to “learn from mistakes”.