The decision-makers in the German publishing industry are surprisingly reluctant to make decisions. At least when it comes to their club boss, who has come under heavy criticism. On Monday afternoon, the Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers (BDZV for short) held a meeting for the second time, at which new allegations against President Mathias Döpfner were made in advance. One might think that after months of waiting and waiting, the publishing industry would still come together in crisis mode. Instead, rather: agenda, as if nothing had happened.
According to SZ information, the top publisher Mathias Döpfner remained a side note on Monday. That the Axel Springer boss, according to research by Financial Times from last week the investigations against the image– Boss Julian Reichelt veiled and procrastinated in his own house that he is said to have even initiated counter-investigations against one of the women who testified against Reichelt and against people who made the abuse of power public: apparently given. The question is: What kind of club is this?
Are modernization issues more important here than freedom of information?
The Presidency has 18 members, including one woman. This quota continues when you let your gaze wander further to all the publishers’ representatives from different federal states who are allowed to take part as delegates at the meeting: three women and 52 men represent the newspaper industry in Germany there. The meeting on Monday was about “media policy issues from the perspective of the newly formed government” and “questions to modernize an even more powerful organization of the BDZV”. The question of whether Mathias Döpfner is still suitable as the face of this association, which claims to represent the interests of publishers at EU level as well, as a representative of “318 media brands with around 2800 digital journalistic offers”, as stated in the self-description that is, was not discussed.
Döpfner is considered an excellent lobbyist, a good networker and businessman. But that should hardly be enough for a top position in an industry whose most important assets are freedom of information, credibility and transparency.
The association had already announced in advance: “The BDZV generally does not comment on the internals of the publishing company”, which in an affair of international importance (in addition to the FT in London had them too New York Times reported), almost sounds like a joke.