On August 25th the reported Southgerman newspaper about the suspicion that Hubert Aiwanger had written a right-wing extremist leaflet as a student and was known for his right-wing extremist views. The reporting was based on the statements of a large number of people, including several former classmates. Aiwanger initially denied these allegations across the board and then presented his brother Helmut as the author of the leaflet. Afterwards, other people contacted the SZ and other media who also reported that the current head of the Free Voters and Bavarian Economics Minister had been noticed for his right-wing extremist ideas during his high school years.
In a series of interviews, Aiwanger has recently made repeated, sometimes untrue, claims about the reporting of the South German newspaper set up. One of the allegations that has been repeated several times is that the SZ had apparently been planning a campaign against him for a long time in order to “shoot him down”. Most likely this was done together with “political accomplices and contributors”. The SZ had known about the leaflet since 2008 and waited until postal voting began to publish the allegations. That’s wrong.
The SZ first learned of the existence of the leaflet on August 2, 2023, when a former teacher contacted the Bayern editorial team through two intermediaries. The editorial team then contacted him. Because of the seriousness of the allegations and the possible consequences of publication, the editorial team began extensive research. In the following weeks, among other things, she interviewed Hubert Aiwanger’s former classmates and teachers at the high school in Mallersdorf-Pfaffenberg. Several people who were officially involved in the case in the 1987/88 school year told the SZ that one or more anti-Semitic leaflets were found in Hubert Aiwanger’s bag. He was convicted of authoring the leaflet and was therefore sentenced to a fine by the disciplinary committee.
The reporting is by no means based on a single informant, but on the statements of a number of informants with whom the SZ has spoken in detail and who are known to it by name. The SZ has affidavits from informants. The reporting also included statements from people from their school days that exonerate Aiwanger. Because a number of people with whom the SZ spoke feared consequences – either of a service-related or social nature – their names were not published. This protection of informants is essential for the freedom of the press and is derived from Article 5 of the Basic Law.
Except that South German newspaper also have other media, including the Mirror, researched the leaflet. It is unlikely that other media outlets deliberately refrained from publishing the allegations because they did not see enough evidence; the SZ had just completed its research earlier. This was also confirmed by Anna Clauß, Bavaria correspondent and head of the “Opinion and Debate” department at Mirror on Deutschlandfunk: “In short, we simply weren’t ready with the research yet. The SZ was faster, the SZ had the relevant evidence.”
One of the informants thought he remembered that an SZ journalist had called him about Aiwanger in 2008. The Bayern editorial team followed up on the tip out of their own interest. A former colleague who was a candidate for this, however, could not remember any telephone conversation with the informant. There was no reporting in 2008, nor was the SZ – as Aiwanger incorrectly suspects – informed about the leaflet since then. The date of publication in the SZ on August 26th has nothing to do with the start of postal voting in Bavaria. After Aiwanger’s controversial appearance in Erding on June 10, the first informant decided to address the public with the leaflet. The SZ published the research at the time when the findings on the allegations had been researched to the point that they could be published. The relevance and public interest were also given given Hubert Aiwanger’s position and the seriousness of the allegations.
The “Süddeutsche Zeitung” asked Aiwanger three times in writing
In his interviews, Aiwanger accuses the SZ of violating the rules of journalistic reporting of suspicion and duty of care. So, which was supposedly “not allowed”, he was repeatedly confronted with new allegations, each of which seemed “mysterious” to him. He immediately said that he was not the author of the leaflet. But the SZ wasn’t interested in that. According to Aiwanger, even if he had behaved differently, he could not have seriously prevented the SZ from being published. That’s wrong.
The Southgerman newspaper asked Aiwanger three times in writing as part of his research before publication. Before publication, she also made him offers for personal discussions about the matter. As part of its duty of care, the SZ confronted Aiwanger several times with new allegations in the days after the first publication, which is not only permitted, but also required and necessary, and asked him for statements, which he ultimately rejected outright.
Aiwanger only responded in general terms to the first request on August 17th. He had a spokesman reject everything across the board and threaten legal consequences. In a second email on August 20th, the SZ asked for details: whether and why Aiwanger had to answer to the disciplinary committee, whether he wrote and laid out the leaflet, and whether it was found in his school bag. A total of eight questions to which he could have answered in detail. Instead, he had a spokesman write “that Hubert Aiwanger did not produce anything like that, rejects the allegations about his school days over 35 years ago and announces legal action, including claims for damages, against this smear campaign if it is published.”
One day before publication, on August 24th, the SZ sent a third request to Aiwanger. In it he was confronted with statements from classmates that he had rehearsed Hitler speeches and had bragged about having read Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. The SZ also repeated the offer for a personal or telephone conversation. There was no answer to that. There was no mention of the brother as the author. The day after publication, he reported himself as the alleged author Passauer Neue Presse to speak. On that day, Hubert Aiwanger admitted that the leaflet had been found in his pocket and that he had been punished for it. He couldn’t remember whether he distributed it.
If Aiwanger had spoken to the SZ about the allegations against him before publication, this would of course have had an impact on the reporting. His explanations and answers would have been included in the reporting.
Aiwanger claims that “confidence in the school’s protective space has been severely shaken by the teacher’s apparently illegal behavior.” Many parents now feared that any missteps their children made at school could end up in the media years later. This accusation directed at the SZ is also misguided. The Southgerman newspaper Before publishing the leaflet, she weighed up the protection of Aiwanger’s personal rights against the public’s interest in information. The SZ is based on consistent supreme court case law, according to which people who hold a prominent public position must be recognized as having a legitimate public interest in their personal or political career, even well into the past. That is the case with Hubert Aiwanger.
If there is evidence that the Deputy Prime Minister of Bavaria may have represented right-wing extremist views in his youth, this may also be made public and discussed. Aiwanger was repeatedly given the opportunity by the SZ to comment on the allegations and refute them. He left them unused.