The 12th of November 1990 is an important und terrible date in recent German history. On this day in the Brandenburg town of Eberswalde the Angolan contract worker Amadeu Antonio was beaten and kicked to death by up to 50 skinheads. It was the first racist-motivated murder in re-united Germany. The horror was great. At that time hardly anybody could have imagined that roughly ten years later there would be around one hundred victims of right-wing excesses in Germany, that homes for asylum seekers would burn, foreigners would be hounded to death in the streets and that seemingly normal citizens would applaud these excesses, as happened in 1992 in Rostock-Lichtenhagen.

I would like today to talk about the role of the German press as regards the phenomenon of right wing radicalism. First one thing: from the very beginning, the national liberal press – – like Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, the (left) taz, among the newspapers; DER SPIEGEL, Stern, DIE ZEIT among the weeklies – – have again and again pointed out the dangers of this ominous development, have issued warnings, have reserved space for debates, have given room and opportunity to writers and politicians to voice their opinions in essays and larger contributions. For a long time, however, even these papers lacked continuous reporting – – no doubt, because journalists must always chase the topical news situation, because ever new topics dominate ever more quickly the headlines, and because the thorough, not topicality-orientated research of just one subject is seldom practiced over a continuous number of years – – a deficit that has seldom had such a negative effect as in the treatment of NeoNazism.

“Right wing radicalism ought to be a permanent journalistic topic“, demands, for example, Siegfried Weischenberg, chairman of the German Journalists Association. And he adds:“One cannot expect the media to solve the problem. But the media can contribute to a broad social movement against the right.“But it needs more than moral indignation. There can be no taboos. There must be open discussion why so many citizens in East and West Germany are inclined to sympathize with the notions of the right. In East Germany, where in many places there are hardly any or very few foreigners, there is an irrational element in the hostility against foreigners. Discontent with one’s own situation needs an outlet. On the other hand, in some West German communities with a high foreigner percentage the fears of the remaining Germans must be taken seriously and, if possible, be invalidated through reasoning .

It does not help to equal anybody who protests against unlimited immigration with the violent right-wing mob. As already mentioned , all the big publications have reported about right-wing violence, at least from time to time. What seems important to me, however, is above all to take a closer look at those newspapers that are seldom quoted but much more widely read than the nationwide papers. They are the local papers that report about local matters and that, by subscription, reach many more readers than the national press. Many of these local papers are to a high degree dependent on local advertising, on local politicians such as councilors and mayors. The journalists often see themselves as a kind of intercessor of the region and like to picture their district or town in the best possible light. Thus there is a big temptation to play down or actually conceal right- wing activities like NeoNazi marches, and attacks on foreigners and homes for asylum-seekers, always bearing in mind that this could harm the town or the region. This view is much more widespread in the East, where many communities are fighting for survival and where great hopes are being set on tourism. For what will be the use of the new leisure center that has been built at such great expense, if tourists are deterred by reports of right-wing violence? Therefore, suspiciously often, reports on suspicious incidents in local papers are provided by the local police with the unchecked statement: There is “no evidence“ of a right-wing background.

It has to be stated, however, that many local papers are understaffed, and journalists are under permanent pressure, so there is hardly time for thorough research, and it is seldom possible for journalistic work to extend beyond the day.

But, all the same, whether local or national – – many foreign observers have gained the impression that the media have discovered the topic of right-wing extremism only in the year 2000. Dramatic events were the cause: The (still not solved) bomb attack on Russian Jewish Evacuees in Düsseldorf, the arson attack on the synagogue there, the militarization of the extreme right-wing National Party of Germany (NPD) and the discussion about its ban.

The fact that numerous politicians, up to the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister (“Revolution of the Decent People“), took up this subject, made right-wing radicalism into a Zeitgeist topic.

Hardly any newspaper that did not suddenly dedicate whole pages to the documentation and analysis, hardly an editorial writer who did not comment. Individual papers started “actions against the right“, a climate of loathing and indignation developed. Suddenly the right wing was believed capable of everything, just about everything. The popular press, who for a long time had shown no interest in right-wing violence, appropriated the topic, printed reports about violent NeoNazis on their title page, showed photos of bald-headed thugs - the new monsters. All of a sudden these had replaced serial killers and sex offenders.

“Reporting about right wing extremism would tend ever more towards ‘scandalization’“, Bascha Mika, chief editor of taz, complained about the treatment of right-wing topics during a discussion by the German Journalists’ Association. Chairman Weischenberg, too, suspected that for part of the media it was a question “of economic interests and not humanity and that which is our task to process in connection with German history”. Partly, according to Weischenberg, there would be an “explosive effect”, i.e. reporting about right-wing violence would be as extensive and sensational as about the Concorde crash. After that it would be back to the agenda. In my opinion, only in the stirred up atmosphere of the last months was there possible a media event like Sebnitz, only then could it happen that many papers and TV-channels swallowed a hardly verified report by BILD-Zeitung about a young boy who was said to have been drowned by NeoNazis. The conviction that everything could have happened exactly as BILD had reported was mostly greater than all doubts. And after a hundred dead it was not unfounded.

About three months before the publication by BILD, I myself had the extensive material of the Kantelberg family before me on my desk . A renowned German professor of criminology, Dr. Christian Pfeiffer, who has since become Minister of Justice for Lower Saxony, had handed me the records for scrutiny. My first reaction was: This is the worst crime that has ever been committed by NeoNazis in Germany in recent years. Once again a short summary for better understanding: The parents of a seven-year-old boy, the father Iraqi, the mother German, both chemists in Saxonian Sebnitz, made nearly unbelievable accusations: in 1996, in the local swimming pool, their son Joseph had been tortured, then rendered unconscious and finally drowned like a cat by a group of NeoNazis. Hundreds of people had looked on without intervening. As proof the parents had submitted testimonies of children and grown-ups, allegedly eyewitnesses of the unspeakable deed. On closer scrutiny, however, it emerged how these accounts had been gained: Mrs. Kantelberg, the mother of the boy, had typed them into her computer and had also worded them herself. Apparently, the witnesses had only replied to suggestive questioning. This made me suspicious.

On top of this my suspicion was aroused by the diction of letters and explanations by the parents. Being a journalist, time and again, one receives letters from people who feel themselves to be wrongly treated, wrongly persecuted or discriminated against in some way or other. Sometimes it is very difficult to find out if there is a grain of truth in the matter. Regarding this case, from early on I had been under the impression that the mother suffered from a kind of persecution mania, possibly caused by the traumatically experienced death of the boy. This was supported by the near-impossibility of believing accusations by the parents in a letter to their lawyer which was available to me.

The accusations in it could hardly have been true. First example: “In 1995 we opened a chemist’s shop in Sebnitz. From the beginning the chemist’s shop was mercilessly boycotted by the local chemist and doctors. Numerous snoopers were smuggled in who tried to destroy the liquidity of our shop by manipulation of our computerized stocks.”
Second example: “The charge of prescription fraud brought against our former employee must be regarded as a trigger for the planned murder of our seven-year-old son Joseph.”
Third example: “In connection with Joseph’s murder and the immeasurable corruption, several accessories have been murdered through faked car accidents.”
My conviction was further strengthened by a letter from the lawyer to the Kantelberg parents which quotes amongst other things: “Both of you have become entangled in an absurd fight against the rest of the world.”

Then I phoned the lawyer. He said to me: “For heaven’s sake, keep off this story. It is going to backfire.” Mark you: This was their own lawyer.

The lawyer told me that he had had one of the under-age witnesses in his office. The child did not have anything to say. Then Mrs. Kantelberg had started to scream: “But you have told me!” As a result the child had begun to cry. Nothing had remained from the written statement. Telephone conversations with the mother convinced me, too, that the story did not hold. The woman did not appear credible, she talked rather madly. This also applied to both the grown-up witnesses whom I also contacted. The two men, obviously alcoholics, could not get a rational sentence together when talking to me. One of them seemed heavily drunk.

I realized: One cannot build a case with these witnesses. After I had talked the case over with several colleagues – – two lawyers among them – – we agreed not to publish the story for the time being, but to revert to it, should the prosecutor’s office start new enquiries into this case.

When BILD-Zeitung ran the headline: “NeoNazis drown child”, I was stunned. I was even more irritated by the fact that the public prosecutor’s office had arrested three young people. I simply could not understand it. I implored colleagues at DER SPIEGEL (who were doubtful) not to jump on the bandwagon. I let them have my material and assured them: There is nothing in it. So it was that from the beginning DER SPIEGEL’s reports were very reticent and careful.

What can we learn from this?

In the case of Joseph it has become clear to many journalists: not everything that one can imagine must really have happened. Every case must be thoroughly researched and looked into. When in doubt it is better to put off publication. Right-wing violence is no ordinary news, not to be compared with day-to-day sensations.

It is also very important to differentiate. There is a very big difference, between a juvenile, who only wants to attract attention, painting a swastika on the wall, because he knows that by doing so he is infringing a taboo, and skins intent on violence bullying a foreigner. If both these cases are rewarded with headlines, then there is one headline too many. This is dangerous, because people get used to such headlines and aren't interested anymore. Just this doesn't have to happen in the case of right violence. Each and every journalist has a responsibility.