The news magazine “Der Spiegel” has sparked a heated debate with its revelation about the Berlin left-wing politician Elif Eralp: about the question of whether the left is still suitable for the office of governing mayor - but also about whether journalists are allowed to publish internal comments from politicians.
In a podcast conversation with Paul Ronzheimer, Christoph Hickmann, head of the “Spiegel” capital office, defends the decision to make the politician’s confidential comments about an interview public. And explains: This is exactly the job of journalists.
The background is an interview with Eralp, who wants to become the governing mayor of Berlin after the Left's election victory. In internal comments authorizing the interview, she expressed security concerns. Accordingly, Elif Eralp wanted to avoid mentioning the name of the terrorist activist Ibrahim Ibrahim - out of fear for her safety.
The internal comments accidentally reached the editorial team. The “Spiegel” decided to report on it. A decision that sparked criticism from the left and green sides because it made the politician's personal concerns public, which were not intended for the public and could allegedly endanger her safety.
For Hickmann, the political significance of the process clearly predominates. In the “Ronzheimer” podcast he said: “That means that a woman who wants to rule in the capital doesn’t dare to even confirm a name when asked by ‘Spiegel’.” This is “an abyss” because “she is afraid of people (...) with whom her party friends associate – and in a friendly manner.”
This is exactly what the journalist sees as a significant public interest. Other politicians would certainly also be afraid, according to the "Spiegel" man: "The crucial difference: Does this fear guide action? (...) Does a politician allow himself or herself to be guided by his or her fear? And at the moment when Eralp can no longer even confirm a name in an interview, she allows herself to be guided by her fear - even before she is mayor." If taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that Eralp, as mayor, would probably not take action against the people she fears - even if they were dangerous.
Hickmann continued: "That's speculation, of course, but that's how you have to think it through when someone in this city has top political responsibility. And that's when we decided: This is a process of such magnitude that we have to make it public."
The editorial team had to weigh up the political implications and the possible consequences for the politician's safety - and did so. Hickmann firmly rejects the accusation that the journalists made this decision lightly: “You don’t have to imagine it as a group of fucked-up, cynical journalists sitting there and saying: ‘Great scoop we have here.’ Rather, it wasn’t easy for us.”
The decision was nevertheless clear within the editorial team. Hickmann explains: “All I can say is that it was unanimous.” The editorial team is convinced that it is their duty to “inform the public about this process” and that this outweighs any security concerns. “As difficult as it was for us, we struggled with it.”
For Hickmann, this is also about a fundamental journalistic task, namely looking behind the public staging of politics. "What is our job as journalists? To keep pulling away the cloak of the production, to look behind it and say: By the way, that's what it really looks like."
Hickmann does not consider the fact that the notes were not originally intended for the public to be an argument against publication. After all, the core of investigative reporting is making information accessible that should actually remain confidential. "We constantly gain access to documents, things and voices, all of which are only intended for internal use. There's no other way to get there."
