The Süddeutsche Zeitung is in the headlines: It’s about allegations of plagiarism and the search of employees’ telephone and email data. The deputy editor-in-chief withdrew and the criticism was enormous.
Headlines about the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) are currently reminiscent of a spy crime story. “Süddeutsche Zeitung spies on its own editorial team” was initially the headline in Spiegel. The world suspects a “mole hunt” in the SZ editorial team, the Germany editorial network writes about espionage. Does Süddeutsche use secret service-like methods to check its own workforce? What accusations are being made against the daily newspaper?
In December 2023, the industry portal Medieninsider first reported on SZ deputy editor-in-chief Alexandra Föderl-Schmid and her questionable handling of sources. Three of her articles contained passages of text, some of which she had copied verbatim from other portals. She did not make it transparent that some of her sentences came from the world, the websites of the Federal Agency for Civic Education and the Jewish Museum Berlin.
Föderl-Schmid withdraws from day-to-day SZ business after allegations of plagiarism.
content Editorial conferences leaked
There was initially no major media outrage over Föderl-Schmid. Perhaps this inglorious story could have ended here. But it was only now that it was really picking up speed. Shortly after the publication of Medieninsider, the SZ editor-in-chief commented on the allegations at an internal editorial conference. “Slander” is said to have been mentioned several times. Details from this round were made public – again by media insiders.
For the editor-in-chief and works council of Süddeutsche, a limit was apparently crossed. They decided to take a drastic step and have communication data checked by SZ employees in order to identify the suspected media insider informant.
Criticism for searches for suspected informants
Nothing was found. It was only last week that the employees found out about the incident at a general editorial meeting. This conference also found its way to the public via media insiders. The SZ is now receiving sharp criticism from the industry for searching for the suspected informant.
On the one hand, the paper is accused of double standards – after all, the SZ itself uses informants in its own research – and on the other hand, the process is hardly compatible with basic journalistic principles such as the protection of sources or editorial secrecy. The SZ had repeatedly advocated for the protection of whistleblowers in its own publications, such as the Panama Papers revelations.
The editor-in-chief argues in an official statement that conferences are “a non-public, protected setting” and that what is discussed there is subject to editorial confidentiality.
That is true. Nevertheless, it is nothing new that information from confidential conferences is leaked to the outside world. Something similar happened after, for example NDR-internal conferences in which there are allegations against the NDR-Landesfunkhaus Schleswig-Holstein went.
Breach of trust versus Breach of trust
The question remains which measure destroys more external trust: passing on internal information or checking communication data from your own employees? The SZ editorial committee – a trusting body that can convey the concerns and wishes of employees directly to the editor-in-chief – was not involved in the review process. He still supports the measures.
“Many editors see (…) editorial secrecy and corporate culture threatened by the repeated alleged recording and distribution of entire internal conferences. We believe it is appropriate for the employer to take steps to prevent this,” the committee writes in an official statement . However, it is important that the measures themselves do not pose a threat to editorial confidentiality.
Deputy Editor-in-Chief withdraws for the time being
The works council subsequently dispelled these concerns. The measures went like this: IT was used to check whether audio or video files were sent to Medieninsider’s domain. “Nobody has to fear that their e-mails or other electronic communications, including telephone conversations, will be monitored by anyone at Süddeutscher Verlag,” the works council communicates and refers to a 20-year-old works agreement that sets out the “procedure in the event of breaches of the law or misuse of work equipment ” rule.
It is obvious that this approach is unlikely to be met with approval by the entire SZ workforce. Otherwise the internals would probably not have been leaked to the media.
And finally, the SZ announced that Alexandra Föderl-Schmid was withdrawing from day-to-day operations for the time being. An external commission was commissioned to examine the allegations against the deputy editor-in-chief. In the meantime, there have been allegations that her dissertation is also suspected of plagiarism.
This is not the first time SZ has come under criticism
The Süddeutsche Zeitung has recently come under frequent criticism – also because of its handling of it. In autumn 2023 reported that NDR-Media magazine Zap about the unusual closeness between Page Three department head Karin Steinberger and the convicted double murderer Jens Söring.
Steinberger is said to have helped Söring’s circle of supporters with their media strategy, which led to Söring’s later release. The editor-in-chief initially did not want to comment on this, but later admitted errors in the reporting.