Julius Erasmus: The selective reporting of the Dürener Zeitung (Published on 04/03/2022)
I. Medienhaus Aachen GmbH and the reporting by its newspapers
Most recently, the article “Das ist Geschichtsverfälschung” (“This is a falsification of history“) in the Dürener Zeitung of 28/01/2021 and the questionable methodology on which it is based were discussed in more detail on this website. Equally revealing is the attitude of the editorial staff of the newspaper to the topic Julius Erasmus as such, as it presents itself after several inquiries in this regard to the head of the local editorial staff in Düren.
A brief introduction for those readers who are not more familiar with the local press landscape:
Press coverage in the Aachen/Düren/Heinsberg region is mainly provided by newspapers published by Medienhaus Aachen GmbH, which operated as Zeitungsverlag Aachen GmbH until 2019. Its core journalistic products are the daily newspapers “Aachener Nachrichten” and “Aachener Zeitung” which are published in 17 local editions in the Aachen city region and in the districts of Düren and Heinsberg. According to critical voices, there are hardly any meaningful differences anymore between the two newspapers. Circulation has been in continuous decline for decades and has halved since 1998. Medienhaus Aachen GmbH boasts that it combines “quality journalism with innovative concepts” on a daily basis, reaching around 300,000 readers daily with its print version and 1 million unique users monthly online by means of its regional subscription newspapers in the Aachen city region and in the districts of Düren and Heinsberg.
Press coverage in the Düren and North Eifel area is mainly carried out by the Dürener Zeitung and the Dürener Nachrichten respectively, the corresponding Düren local editions of the Aachener Nachrichten and Aachener Zeitung. Their reporting is the responsibility of a local editorial office based in Düren.
II. Correspondence with the editorial office of the Dürener Zeitung at the beginning of 2021
1. Immediately after the publication of said article “Das ist Geschichtsverfälschung” (“This is a falsification of history“) on 28/01/2021 I tried to contact the author of the contribution, editor Sarah Maria Berners from the local editorial office in Düren. With reference to my research on Julius Erasmus, which had already been going on for several years at that time, and to the knowledge I had gained in the process, I asked for a balanced presentation and for an orientation towards provable facts, which was missing in her article. She was also asked not to damage the memory of someone who had been dead for many years on the basis of obviously questionable theses. A reply was not received.
2. At the beginning of February 2021, I then contacted the head of the local editorial office in Düren, Volker Uerlings, about the article. In addition to the circumstances already mentioned to the article’s author, it was noted that in the documents of the City and District Archives of Düren there is no evidence for the exact number of dead recovered or buried by Julius Erasmus, but only assertions of some individuals. With reference to the German Press Code, which lays down ethical standards for journalism and obligates the journalist, among other things, to truthfully inform the public (section 1.), to conduct careful research (section 2.) and to correct false news or allegations (section 3.), he was asked to assess whether it would not be appropriate in this case to correct the statements made in the article. I also offered him support with information researched here on the life of Mr Erasmus.
3. In his response, Mr Uerlings indicated that he was happy to “perhaps” return to this offer of support. Ms Berners and he had “planned from the outset to specifically take up the foreseeable counter-speech to Mr Möller’s statements”. This would show that they were striving “as far as possible” to present a “comprehensive picture of this discussion”. They had “purposefully” approached the persons criticized in the article, described by him as “players”, and had conveyed “questions” to them. The answers received to these questions would be the subject of a separate article in the near future (all citations translated from German).
4. This article appeared on 05/02/2021 under the already linguistically oblique title “Keine Glorifizierung in der Hörstelle“ (“No glorification in the listening point”, no online source known), in which now also representatives of the association “Liberation Route NRW” responsible for the criticized Vossenack “listening point”, including the former mayor of the municipality of Hürtgenwald, Axel Buch, were allowed to express their anger on the allegations made in the source article.
5. Repeated attempts to create an interest of Dürener Zeitung, namely Mr Uerlings and Ms Berners, in new findings on Julius Erasmus have so far been unsuccessful.
III. Last correspondence with the editorial office of the Dürener Zeitung in September 2021
1. I last contacted Mr Uerlings in September 2021 and asked him for a statement on several questions for the presentation of my experiences with his editorial office on this website. Among other things, he was asked about the reason why his newspaper gives wide space to the controversy about the so-called “listening point” in Vossenack, but apparently has no interest in new findings about the history of Julius Erasmus. With reference to the reporting of his newspaper about Julius Erasmus in the past, which essentially reproduced the common legend, and the fact that many of these theses could not be confirmed so far, he was also asked whether the newspaper’s obligations from the Press Code would not require him to inform the public accordingly and to present the activities of Julius Erasmus on the basis of the provable facts.
2. In a remarkable answer, Mr Uerlings stated that he understood this request as meaning that the newspaper was to be “pressured to a publication suiting your interests” “contrary to all principles of press law”. They had “rich experiences, how usually political sides tried to build up pressure and react very sensitively here, also against the background of press law”. He said he had to protect his colleagues and himself “from any attempted influence”. Before he or the editor-in-chief in Aachen responded to the questions put to him, he first had to bring himself up to date on the subject. He indicated that while has was “interested in local history” – he was apparently born in Düren –, he had not known the story of Julius Erasmus before it was reported on in the newspaper for which he is responsible. He would look at it “very neutral” and would not allow himself to be “influenced by people who apparently want to give this story a direction”. The classification of a local historical personality such as Julius Erasmus, who was active more than 70 years ago and died 50 years ago, would not require any haste if it was to be “done thoroughly” (all citations translated from German).
3. Finally, I asked him again about the balance of the reporting of the Dürener Zeitung on the subject concerned and whether, in his opinion, this way of reporting was consistent with the tasks of the press in a democratic society, having regard to the opinion power of Medienhaus Aachen GmbH. I did not receive an answer.
IV. Conclusion
After all, one may note that the Dürener Zeitung, on the one hand, devotes itself in detail to antics like the Vossenack “listening point” on Julius Erasmus, in order to propagate, on a questionable basis, the alleged necessity of a “historical re-evaluation” of the person of Julius Erasmus, which is obviously supposed to amount to a reversal of the current understanding. On the other hand, however, there seems to be no interest on their part at all in new information on this subject if it might run counter to the intended new narrative.
Against this background, it seems unintentionally comical when, asked about the independence and balance of the reporting for which he is responsible, Mr Uerlings’ claims that he must defend himself and his colleagues against an alleged “attempt to exert political influence” on the reporting. Is somebody trying here to get rid of questions that are possibly perceived as uncomfortable by accusing the questioner of “misconduct” that he himself is guilty of, commonly known as “projection”? The article “Das ist Geschichtsverfälschung” (“This is a falsification of history“) is in essence a political machination of a more clumsy nature. It is not journalism, but agitation. It does not want to inform the readership in an unbiased and balanced way, but explicitly wants to work towards a change in their evaluation of Julius Erasmus as a historical person. He should now be “evaluated differently than has been done so far”, while the obviously desired view is also provided when it is said that “Erasmus was not a hero, he was a pitiful, battered man with a pronounced ego who craved attention, recognition, and approval – even at the expense of others”. The reasons given for this and the methodology used are – as discussed in more detail in the associated blog post – ridiculously one-sided. This says everything about the “neutrality” claimed by Mr Uerlings and about the alleged “thoroughness” of the Dürener Zeitung in this context.
Already the reaction of the public to the article, as it was expressed e. g. in letters to the editor published on 03/02/ and on 23/02/2021, shows their unchanged great interest in Julius Erasmus. For the Dürener Zeitung, the primary question to be answered should therefore actually be “Who was Julius Erasmus and what is his story?”. This at least if, in accordance with its function as a press organ and in compliance with the German Press Code, it intended to inform the public in a balanced and complete manner about matters of interest to it. The reporting on the skirmish about the Vossenack “listening point” and the statements made by Mr Uerlings in this regard suggest that it their focus is something else. Apparently they try to stir up against one another representatives of obviously opposite viewpoints even further, instead of aiming at calming down the situation and at fostering a dialogue and, above all, without being interested in the slightest in which provable information is actually available on Julius Erasmus. How the Dürener Zeitung wants to present, as the head of its local editorial office claims, a “comprehensive picture of this discussion” on this basis and with the methods applied remains a mystery. One cannot shake off the impression that they have an interest in ensuring that the debate about the war history in the Hürtgen Forest continues to be as hostile as possible and that they are deliberately pouring oil on the fire for this purpose.
To say it with Mr Uerlings’ words: It is high time to give the history of Julius Erasmus “a direction”. However, not the direction of a legend in now different ideological coloring, but finally that of neutral research and of provable facts. It will be interesting to follow the role the Dürener Zeitung and the Medienhaus Aachen GmbH want to play in this.
(Picture: US Military Cemetery Henri-Chapelle/Belgium, October 2018)
If you wish to support my work on Julius Erasmus, you can do so here. Many thanks!