The German State Broadcaster ARD Revives the Spirit of the Nazis' 'Reichspressekammer'
44 Pages of ARD 'Language Rules' on Middle East Conflict Coverage Revealed
85 years ago, the “Schriftleitergesetz” came into force. With it, the National Socialists abolished freedom of the press and regulated who was allowed to write for the public in the Third Reich. Nazi ideology became the focus of reporting. An estimated 1,300 journalists lost their jobs. – (German) Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb)
Recently, the independent German news site Nachdenkseiten was leaked a glossary, or rather 44 pages of “language rules,” of the German state broadcaster ARD (‘Working Group of the Public Broadcasting Corporations of the Federal Republic of Germany’) for reporting on Israel and Gaza. It contains calls for its editors to use tendentious, biased language and avoid terms such as “spiral of violence” or “escalation,” which is de facto evidence of journalistic incapacity. ARD is basically telling its employees that they are not journalists providing factual information, but PR staff for a propaganda mouthpiece.
The document entitled “Glossary Reporting Middle East Conflict. For internal use. Status 18.10.2023” is obviously intended to “train” the journalists of the ARD broadcasting stations to report and comment in accordance with these language rules.
On page 3 of this “glossary” one reads under point 2 “How does the Tagesschau do it? (E-mail excerpts, 9.10.2023)” the following:
“(...) after our exchange at the 10:30 a.m. [meeting] today, let’s take another look at the wording in the coverage of the Middle East. As written yesterday, we need to look at this from day to day, for example, whether and how we use the word “war.” Today, there are these notes and requests:
“We continue to speak of “attack/s from Gaza on Israel” or “terror attack/s on Israel”. However, “war against Israel” can also be used.
“What must be avoided at all costs are words like “spiral of violence” – and even “escalation in the Middle East” does not adequately describe the current situation since Saturday. The situation is more complex.
“Please also watch how we use the word “attack” exactly: In this situation, it is “counterattacks by Israel on Gaza.” It is shortened to say or write “attacks on Israel and Gaza”.
“(…) As a reminder of yesterday’s circular, our Language Working Group is once again working intensively on terms and descriptions for Middle East reporting. The team is kindly doing this during and between shifts. So for now, this is a quick overview that XXXX (name anonymized) just sent us. And it helps us a lot already! Please, all of you who are writing or presenting with us, read the examples below. This will help us avoid misunderstandings or mistakes. In addition, when taking over agency texts, please consider carefully whether the formulations of dpa and Co. are correct. Our colleagues don’t always get everything right either….”
I will spare myself a commentary here, as the texts speak for themselves and expose ARD’s journalistic principles for what they are: non-existent.
I just briefly quote excerpts of the “examples below” mentioned in the last paragraph, that “all staff writing or presenting for ARD should be sure to read through”:
“Please avoid the term “Hamas fighters”!
As already determined by the editors-in-chief, we should not write and speak euphemistically of Hamas “fighters,” but of terrorists. Synonyms such as “militant Islamists,” “militant Palestinians,” “terrorist militia,” or the like could be used.“Please avoid the term “spiral of violence”.
The phrase says little and usually misses the realities. In the current case, Hamas attacked Israel by surprise – we should therefore also speak and write of the “Hamas attack on Israel” or the “attack on Israel”.“Action and reaction
With the presumed harsh reaction of the Israeli army, the focus and thus our reporting will shift in the coming days to the Gaza Strip and the suffering of the population there. However, we should not ignore the fact that Hamas started the current conflict*.“Who is attacking what? [sic!]**
In response, the Israeli army flies attacks in the Gaza Strip. In the past, the targets have always been Hamas military facilities. Often many civilians die – Hamas often uses them as human shields. Nevertheless, we should always make it clear that these are usually attacks on military targets.”
*This all too familiar expression can generally be considered the standard narrative of all warmongers in order to ultimately justify their own war plans and put them into practice. Ignoring the prehistory – provoking – exercising the right to “self-defense”, or whatever.
We are already familiar with this in relation to ALL wars, most recently the war in Ukraine.
As is well known, the enemy is always to blame.
**This wording can hardly be surpassed in contempt for human beings. “What” is being attacked (and killed) in any armed conflict is PEOPLE. So it’s fucking “Who”! Not to mention the self-contradictory statements about “the targets” – was it “always” or is it “usually” Hamas military facilities that were attacked? They probably don’t know that themselves, and they don’t give a fuck, because Palestinians - as we heard from Israeli
War Minister Yoav Gallant - are “human animals” anyway.
Such images (and even much more unbearable ones – which you can watch, if you have the stomach for it, in one of Max Igan’s latest video here) as well as the inextricably linked bare figures regarding the dead and injured people in Gaza (and the West Bank) are not reported by the slick ARD correspondents, who are preferably neatly staged outside the hot zone(s).
After all, you must not forget, this is about terrorist attacks on Israel!
It’s not about the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank ordered by the inhuman Israeli regime and cruelly carried out by the IDF since the Hamas attack on October 7.
Reporting honestly and unembellished about what is really happening in Gaza would only be disruptive in spreading the narrative of the “war on terror” and would probably also cause an unpleasant feeling in the guts of one or the other correspondent or the obedient mainstream media consumers brainwashed by too much propaganda.
Back to the “Reichspressekammer”, er… the Federal Press Office and to the so-called “Hauptschriftleiter” and “Schriftleiter”... I mean the editors-in-chief and editors of the ARD – who practically did/do the same job: To toe the totalitarian line and follow “language rules.”
Soon after the government of Adolf Hitler, who had been appointed Reich Chancellor in January 1933, took office, the National Socialists began their policy of “Gleichschaltung” of clubs, associations and institutions. The goal was to bring all of social life under control.
Logically, this also applied to the media.
The Propaganda Ministry under Joseph Goebbels formed the “Reichspressekammer” (Reich Press Chamber), one of many such “Chambers” to control the free exchange of information.
With the “Schriftleitergesetz” (Editors Law), which had already been passed by the cabinet on October 4, 1933, and came into force on January 1, 1934, and which fundamentally changed the work of German journalists, the end of the free press was finally heralded. It was the decisive instrument of National Socialist media control. And it worked perfectly: in no time, all critical reporting had disappeared from the public eye and with it 1,300 dissenting journalists. Those who were not politically compliant were no longer given work in the authorized media.
It also aimed further to control the content of news and editorial pages through directives distributed in daily conferences in Berlin and transmitted via the Nazi Party propaganda offices to regional or local papers. Detailed guidelines stated what stories could or could not be reported and how to report the news.
Just like today, by controlling the radio, press and newsreels, the Nazis managed to manipulate the public in such a way that they accepted any political measures taken by those in power without hesitation, which led to the already limited civil liberties being restricted even further and the last remnants of democracy in Germany being destroyed for good.
After the end of the Nazi regime, the “Reichspressekammer” more or less became today’s “Bundespresseamt” (Federal Press Office) and “Hauptschriftleiter” and “Schriftleiter” became editors-in-chief and editors again.
In addition, public service broadcasting was established in 1950 in order “to enable the German population to form a comprehensive and free opinion with a legal mandate after the negative experiences during the Nazi dictatorship.” The Broadcasting Council, which was also created in 1950, is the supervisory body of the public broadcasters (e.g. ARD) and is the highest authority responsible for program control. However, its composition is often the subject of negative criticism. In some broadcasters, state representatives make up more than 50 percent of the council members, which is seen by many as excessive influence.
An influence that is very similar in its impact on public broadcasting and the free press in general to the effects of the rigorous measures taken by the Nazis on the press in the past. And even if the directives that were devised in daily conferences in the Reich Press Chamber at the time and issued to editorial offices nationwide via the Nazi Party propaganda offices no longer exist in this form, the “command structures” remained more or less intact.
The fact that the public broadcasters and a large part of the mainstream media still (and increasingly again in recent years) follow instructions “from above” - regardless of whether these come from an “AG Sprache”(ARD working group on language), the Federal Press Office, the Ministry of the Interior or the government directly - clearly proves that the news disseminated is not transparent reporting but ultimately propaganda.
Although the new authorities grant certain freedoms in program design, these are nevertheless regulated to such an extent by the appointment of politically correct personalities to the executive positions that there is no danger of losing control over the published content. After all, which state would give up its sovereignty over information so easily?
“When future historians write about the 20th Century, it would not surprise me to find it had been nicknamed The Century of Spin. Today more than ever we see that the battle for the minds of the people revolves around the manner in which events get interpreted, not necessarily the events themselves.” ~Ed Newman
The way ARD reports on the current events in Gaza and the West Bank makes them complicit in the genocide of the Palestinians – at least in the cover-up. Whether the people responsible for this reporting are aware of this, I dare to doubt. If they are indeed aware of it, they are no better than those who commit genocide.
Clearly Schriftleiter isn't simply a chapter of history.
It's resurrections suggests desperation, and of course, is destined to fail. Still, the ironies, the tragedies, the ongoing cruelty of life under these forces.
Something tells me it's all coming down and better days coming. But what a price we pay.
Thanks - excellent and information.