Döpfner: We believe that the journalistic concept, quality and value foundation has the potential to grow beyond Great Britain as a home market - initially into other English-speaking markets: Australia, America, India, wherever English-speaking people live. And then you have to ask yourself: Is the language border still the natural border? Isn't it even conceivable that such a brand could expand to other countries where freedom of expression and the rule of law prevail?
Question: You see an underserved center-right audience in the US right now. What gap do you want to close there?
Döpfner: I would describe the Telegraph's profile as center-right, liberal-conservative. And that is rather underserved in America at the moment. A large part of the media is on the left side of the spectrum, the other on the very right. There is little in between. The political and social center that we want to address can be found in the moderate part of the Democrats as well as in the moderate part of the Republicans. Both parties are drifting a bit to the edges at the moment. We speak to the middle.
Question: You have described artificial intelligence as perhaps the biggest change since the printing press. What remains of journalism as we know it today?
Döpfner: Good stories. I believe that if we do it right, journalism can benefit infinitely from this development and reach a completely different level of quality and relevance. AI can help us focus more on what has always made good journalism: finding out what shouldn't come out, researching news and news. We can partially delegate many other things to artificial intelligence, which can do it faster and better than humans. What is crucial is that AI serves people and not people serve AI, that AI serves journalism and not journalism serves AI.
Question: Is writing a news article still an original journalistic achievement?
Döpfner: Absolutely, although you have to look very closely. Aggregating and reformulating information that is already known is certainly no longer the focus of journalistic work. Large language models do this very well. But researching something that no one knows, being in a place and seeing and describing something that no one has seen and described before, formulating ideas that are new, provocative or inspiring - these remain original journalistic tasks. This also includes writing in a way that makes people laugh, cry, or think. I think this fear that machines will make people superfluous is completely wrong. I predict the opposite: I believe we will experience a renaissance of humanity. Like the longing for personal encounters during the pandemic, this arises from lack. We will experience a new meaning of human qualities, perhaps even a longing for human imperfection. Human intuition, human emotions will receive a much greater appreciation in society than anything that is purely rational, purely quantitative. Artificial intelligence can do this faster and, in many respects, better. The human charisma, the person of the journalist, in modern German: the creator, is moving more to the fore.
Question: How much AI can be in a journalistic text from Axel Springer?
Döpfner: We retain responsibility. We call it the responsibility principle. Humans are responsible for content, style, language and factual accuracy. How much he uses from artificial intelligence or from search engines or human sources is at his discretion. However, he cannot leave it exclusively to artificial intelligence. With a purely AI-generated text or video we would have crossed a line that would at least have to be marked. Within the framework of this principle of responsibility there is great freedom. Not using AI and presenting it as a quality feature leads to a dead end. That would be like telling a nearsighted person that he can no longer wear his glasses. AI is an aid, perhaps like a kind of visual aid. But what good are glasses without eyes?
Question: Minister of State for Media Wolfram Weimer wants to put TikTok's European business in European hands. How do you feel about this?
Döpfner: I expressly support this initiative. Four years ago at the Code Conference in America, I called for TikTok to be either sold to democratic shareholders or banned in any self-respecting democracy. I still don't understand why we don't act here in Europe. The Americans have shown that it can be done. But if a solution is not found soon, we will not be able to do without TikTok as a sales channel. It is the most important distribution channel for young people.
Question: Then “Bild” will also be on TikTok, where the “Tagesschau” is already?
Döpfner: If politicians do not develop any ambition to create framework conditions for TikTok in Europe that correspond to a democracy and a constitutional state, we will also have to be represented on TikTok with all brands. Politics must set the framework in which competition takes place. In the long run, no company can bear this competitive disadvantage.
Question: On September 24th you will present the Axel Springer Award to the tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel. Why him?
Döpfner: Peter Thiel is probably by far the most influential German of our time. The Axel Springer Award honors outstanding entrepreneurial personalities, innovative strength and the courage that goes with it. As the founder of PayPal, through early investments in Facebook and other former start-ups, to the founding of the US data analysis company Palantir, Peter Thiel has shaped and changed more innovation than very few. In addition, he is a particularly courageous spirit of contradiction. We find this particularly exciting at Axel Springer as a place of freedom of expression.
Question: Thiel is repeatedly criticized as an anti-democrat. How do you see him?
Döpfner: I consider him to be one of the most inspiring and interesting thinkers. Some say: “Anti-democrat” – and refer to a single quote from 2009. Others say: He wants to strengthen or save democracy and that is precisely why he discusses things differently than others. That makes us curious.
Question: Which of Thiel's ideas particularly influenced your own thinking?
Döpfner: This permanent discipline, when a majority says and thinks the same thing, to check whether exactly the opposite could be right, is the discipline of thinking that is the basis for new things. And I find it impressive to not only question things rhetorically, but also to let them lead to entrepreneurial action. For example, I believe that without a company like Palantir, democracy around the world would be in a much more vulnerable state. I see Palantir as a protector of democracy, not a threat to democracy.
Question: Thiel publicly supported Donald Trump in 2016. What did he see in Trump back then?
Döpfner: I think not that much. I asked him about it straight away. He basically said: It doesn't matter how good or bad Donald Trump is. It's about challenging an encrusted and dysfunctional government. It needs the disruptor now. I think that was the most important thing that drove him back then.
Question: Protest posters against Thiel's award are said to have been hanging in the elevators at Axel Springer.
Döpfner: I didn't see it...
Question: ... these were pieces of paper in DIN A4 format.
Döpfner: Oh yes, that's right, there was this one anonymous campaign. But to this day we still don't know whether it was really done by Axel Springer colleagues or whether someone outside put it up.
Question: Thiel is very polarizing, but makes comparatively few public appearances. Is the award also an opportunity for you to show a different image of him?
Döpfner: We are not his PR consultants. For us it's about recognizing and encouraging outstanding performance, about dialogue, about expanding the scope of what can be discussed. That's what it's about. And I think it suits our house extremely well. It could perhaps also initiate a discussion about why in Germany we are always so quick to judge things morally before we have explored and understood them. This applies particularly to journalism. Simply more curiosity about reality, more curiosity about what lies behind the obvious. I think this is particularly important with a controversial figure like Thiel. Let us first look at and recognize what he has achieved as an entrepreneur and innovator. And then we ask questions about what other aspects belong to this personality. Maybe one or the other turns out to be completely different than the cliché would have it.
Question: The state elections are coming up in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD is strong there. What do you expect from this election?
Döpfner: I have always made it my principle not to comment on elections afterwards, but certainly not before. What drives me is strengthening the open society based on freedom, the rule of law and the integrity of human rights. The weakening, and in some cases the failure, of the political center in Europe, America and Germany has worried me for many years. What worries me is that this weakness strengthens the political fringes. And I am concerned that the alternatives offered in Germany contradict the values that are important to us and to me in too many areas: when dealing with autocratic regimes in Russia and China and Iran, when dealing with our most important ally America and when dealing with structural anti-Semitism. This fundamentally contradicts my core beliefs. I'm also worried because I think the current recipes for dealing with this phenomenon are unsuitable. The only way to prevent such drift to the political fringes would be to strengthen the competence, credibility and success of the political center. And that doesn't happen.
Question: These recipes include a possible AfD ban procedure and the so-called firewall. What do you think of it?
Döpfner: A ban procedure would have to be decided according to constitutional principles. If you can clearly demonstrate unconstitutionality, then that is possible. If this does not work sufficiently, it is not an effective remedy. Either it happens or it doesn't. The constant threat of this is toxic. When it comes to the firewall, the question is how to interpret it. I think the rejection of AfD participation in government and coalitions with the AfD is correct. However, it would have to apply equally to the socialist left. As a structurally anti-capitalist party, characterized by fantasies of expropriation and largely deeply anti-Semitic, the Left Party is an absolute threat to a centrist democracy. However, I think the accompanying firewall rhetoric is wrong. It offends many voters and creates legends of martyrs. It would be better to define red lines and say: These are our values. If a party credibly commits to these values, it can also be a coalition partner. If she doesn't do that, then not. The task then lies with the party on the margins and not with the parties in the center. But what I have always thought was wrong is excluding a minority government. If you exclude too much, including a government that collects votes from all parties for sensible government and legislative projects, then you have maneuvered yourself into a dead end. I therefore believe that it is wrong to exclude a minority government and that it is right to exclude a coalition with the AfD and the Left.
Question: At the AfD rallies, top candidate Ulrich Siegmund received a lot of applause for his announcement that he would terminate the state broadcasting contract for the MDR. What could the media have done wrong to cause people to dislike them so strongly?
Döpfner: I would like to take this discussion beyond the public broadcasters to our entire industry. I think this is a phenomenon that cannot be blamed solely on public broadcasters. They have just become a symbol of it. We journalists should first and foremost be driven by curiosity: curiosity about reality, finding out what is, then happy to comment provocatively, polemically and passionately, but not to educate. We are not an educational institution. We are also not a world improvement institute. We are not activists. Activism and journalism are complete opposites. A journalist who became a journalist because he wanted to stop climate change or abolish or strengthen capitalism - no matter what the project - has missed the job. He should become a politician, join an NGO or become an activist. We need them too, they are important in society, but not in journalism. As a result of this confusion of roles, journalism has become too predictable and too educational and has sometimes become too distant from readers and viewers. Too many people already have the result before researching and only research what strengthens their thesis. Anything that does not strengthen the thesis is left out. People notice that. They may not be able to prove it rationally right away, but they sense the intent and are upset. There may be a special sensitivity in the East. People have experienced state-affiliated or state-loyal media for too long and have very fine antennae. This may also lead to developments that are exaggerated and generalized - for example if they become phrases such as “lying press” or “system media”. But the basic feeling behind it is not so wrong. Instead of us media people insulting our audience, we should first have a self-critical discussion: What can we do better?
Question: What would that be?
Döpfner: The most important capital of journalism is trust. Trust that we will do everything we can to find out what is happening. If we deepen this trust or, where necessary, regain it, journalism has an incredible opportunity. Because social media and AI cause fundamental uncertainty. If we are trusted to at least do everything,
