Julius Erasmus: The newspapers of Medienhaus Aachen GmbH and their understanding of unbiased press reporting (Published on 12/10/2022)
I. Dürener Zeitung’s selective reporting on Julius Erasmus and the correspondence with the editorial director
The selective reporting of Dürener Zeitung in connection with Julius Erasmus has already been repeatedly discussed on this blog. For decades unreflectively following the theses spread about him, they recently made a U-turn and now try to portray Julius Erasmus as a war-traumatized egomaniac who “should be evaluated differently than has been done so far” (translated from German language) (cf. the article by Sarah Berners “Das ist Geschichtsverfälschung“ [“This is a falsification of history”, behind Paywall]).
This was apparently derived from a single source, which the “representative of the district of Düren for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration” (“Beauftragter des Kreises Düren für die Betreuung der Kriegsgräberstätten Vossenack und Hürtgen als Orten einer demokratischen Erinnerungs- und Gedenkkultur”), Frank Möller, declared to have found in the City and District Archives of Düren and in which Julius Erasmus is said to have recovered considerably fewer fallen soldiers than is commonly claimed. The article and its shortcomings have already been described in detail here, reference is made to this for brevity.
Amongst others, I had contacted the head of the local editorial office of Dürener Zeitung, Volker Uerlings, and, pointing out the obvious deficits of the article in question, reminded him of the obligations of the newspaper for which he is responsible from the German Press Code to truthfully inform the public, to conduct careful research and to correct false allegations. A fact-oriented and well-founded answer to this was not received from him at that time, but instead strange theories, according to which he saw himself “pushed to a publication” and meant to have to defend himself against an alleged “attempt of political influence”. Mr Uerlings had left unanswered at that time the questions about the balance of the reporting of Dürener Zeitung and whether, in his opinion, this reporting style corresponds to the tasks of the press in a democratic state system.
II. Contacting the editor-in-chief of Aachener Nachrichten and its local editions
In order to obtain an answer to these questions, which are considered of unchanged importance here, about the role of Dürener Zeitung, its publisher Medienhaus Aachen GmbH, and their self-perception with regard to the role assigned to the press in the German state system, I contacted Thomas Thelen in March 2022, who, as the editor in chief of Aachener Nachrichten, is also responsible for its 17 local editions, including Dürener Zeitung.
1. Request to the editor in chief
In my letter I pointed out, among other things, the dubiousness of the theses set up in the above-mentioned article in Dürener Zeitung of 28/01/2021 and noted with reference to the journalistic standards from the German Press Code that these were still not corrected.
Finally, I asked him to answer the following questions, which Mr Uerlings had previously declined to answer (translation from German language):
„(1) The story of Julius Erasmus should undoubtedly be a matter of public interest in your region. Do the Medienhaus Aachen GmbH newspapers not see it as their duty to inform the public about such matters in a balanced and complete manner?
(2) Most recently, on 14/11/2020, Aachener Zeitung repeated the theses about Julius Erasmus that have been spread for decades (article „Ich konnte sie nicht da liegen sehen“ [“I couldn’t see them lying there”]). So far, no reliable basis can be found for a number of these theses even after several years of research. Would the German Press Code, in particular the obligations stipulated there to truthfully inform the public (cipher 1.), to careful research (cipher 2.) and to correct false news or allegations (cipher 3.), not also demand that the public be informed of this and that the person and activities of Mr Erasmus be presented in accordance with the provable facts?
(3) The independence and impartiality of the press are fundamental prerequisites of a free pluralistic society; they are – according to the German Federal Constitutional Court in its constant case law – ‘essential for a free democratic order’ [freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung]. In view of the immense scope of the power of opinion concentrated at Medienhaus Aachen GmbH, the balance of the reporting for which it is responsible is naturally all the more important. Are you of the opinion that the type of reporting described above still fulfills the tasks assigned to a press organ in a free democratic order [freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung]?”
2. Reply by means of lawyer’s letter
At the beginning of April 2022, I received a letter from a lawyer whom Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft had commissioned to respond to my inquiry. The person in question was Georg Wallraf, the former chief legal counsel of the Handelsblatt publishing group, who has been working as a lawyer since 2010, after leaving the group. Apparently unwilling or unable to deal with the content of said questions, the office of the editor in chief of Aachener Nachrichten preferred to have this done by a lawyer and pay for it. In any case, this shirking of responsibility by the next responsible person also seamlessly fits into the image that the protagonists of the newspapers in question had given up to that point.
The lawyer’s letter itself reveals in an exemplary manner the mechanisms that Aachener Nachrichten and its local offshoots apparently uniformly follow: Without regard to facts, they concoct theses that they consider to serve their own position while continuously pointing the finger at others as to the responsibility for their own actions, namely the aforementioned deficits in reporting. The letter is worth reading in its entirety; here, the commentary is limited to a few core statements.
a) Suggestion for the article from 28/01/2021 by the “local historian” Frank Möller
At the beginning of the letter, it is first propagated for all publications of Medienhaus Aachen GmbH, acting as publisher, how allegedly strictly they see themselves committed to legal and ethical principles, in particular the German Press Code, while also taking seriously objections to their reporting (letter of 04/04/2022, p. 1, cipher 1.). Accordingly, the article in Dürener Zeitung of 28/01/2021 is said to have been motivated by an “interested reader”, namely the “local historian Frank Möller”, “who questioned the previous view of Julius Erasmus”. In the opinion of the local editorial office, this had been “a new contribution to the discussion about the legend Erasmus”, which had been considered worthy of publication (ibid., p. 2, cipher 2.). They indicated to have also published a reply to the article by representatives of the “Route Liberation” [sic] on 05/02/2021, “which the local historian Möller had revealed to the editors as a source” (ibid., all citations translated from German language).
Apart from the conspicuously repetitive designation of Mr Möller as a “local historian” – in said article of 28/01/2021 the author had referred to him, on an unknown basis, as the holder of a “university degree in history, German studies and media sciences”, of which Mr Möller himself mentions nothing on his own website, at least as far as can be seen here –, the fact that Dürener Zeitung apparently consulted sources in accordance with his ideas is particularly astonishing here.
Again the question be permitted: Is it really independent and unbiased press work, if the – according to statement of Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft – initiator of the article of 28/01/2021 indicates to the editorship who is to be asked for comments on the questionable theses set up therein and the editorship eagerly follows these wishes?
b) Alleged obstacles to an exchange with me
Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft further claims that the editorial office had also been “open” with regard to me, but that I had “already wanted to predetermine the nature of a discussion contact” (ibid., p. 2, cipher 3., translation from German language). In fact, in the course of correspondence with Ms Berners, the author of the article in question, I had asked for a personal discussion of the matter instead of the telephone call she had suggested, for which I offered to travel to either Düren or Aachen at her choice. She had refused a personal meeting, saying that “in view of the Corona pandemic” she wanted “to limit even official contacts to the very essential”. What is problematic about the request for a personal meeting remains unclear.
The next assertions in the letter from Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft are purely fictitious (ibid., translated from German language):
“In addition, the editorial office gave you the opportunity to publish a letter to the editor, which you did not respond to. In contrast to the local historian Möller, you were also not prepared to disclose your research results and sources, so that the editorial office was deprived of the opportunity to subject your objections to the previous reporting to their own review as part of their duty of care.”
Neither was I ever offered the publication of a letter to the editor, nor did I refuse the disclosure of research results and sources. On the contrary – as already described on this blog (see there e.g. the ciphers II.2. and 5.) – the protagonists at Dürener Zeitung, namely Ms Berners and Mr Uerlings, were repeatedly offered provable facts from my research about Julius Erasmus, but they had never shown a real interest. Notwithstanding, the factual inadequacies of said article and the related sources have been described in detail on this blog, they have thus even been discussed publicly. In this respect the editorial office was by no means withheld the possibility of examining the objections at the mentioned article, they rather still firmly close their eyes to the reasons which are even public knowledge. Presumably for a good reason, since the provable facts do not support the new history of Julius Erasmus as a “war-traumatized egomaniac”, as they obviously try to sell it to the public now.
They rather try to divert from the responsibility for their fact-adverse reporting and their respective correction obligation and to instead push this on a third, by claiming not to be able to follow this responsibility, because someone else – in this case I – has allegedly withheld necessary information. In this manner, they apparently mean to be able to divert from the circumstance that their obligation to careful investigation already existed for the article of 28/01/2021, while the selective data of the so-called “local historian” Möller was nevertheless taken over obviously unchecked. The result – as already described in detail elsewhere – is a grotesque article that could be described as a prime example of ideologically motivated wage writing that elevates itself to the status of journalism in boundless self-conceit, apparently without even the slightest idea of what journalistic work means and how it differs from crude propaganda. The fact that those in charge apparently still lack the necessary backbone to correct the article in accordance with their own obligations under the German Press Code, which Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft emphasized in its introduction, fits in only too well with the deplorable picture conveyed.
c) Questioning the “freedom of editorial work”?
Towards the end of the letter from Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft, further strange accusations are made. It is claimed, for example, that my person was “decisively concerned with exerting independent influence on the type and scope of reporting”, which “at any rate tends to call into question the freedom of editorial work” (ibid., p. 2, ciphers 3. and 4., translated from German language) – obviously another attempt to distract from the deficits of their own reporting and the still open correction by pointing the finger at others.
The following paragraph in the letter from Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft is very revealing in this respect (ibid., p. 2, cipher 4., translation from German language):
“As a constitutional lawyer, you should be aware that the press is constitutionally free to decide for itself what, to what extent and how it reports. The reporting on the ‘legend’ of Julius Erasmus and the publication of an opposing viewpoint has served an interest in information and triggered a public discussion on the ‘legend’ Erasmus. This has fulfilled the task of a regional newspaper that primarily reports on current events when it comes to historical topics. The continuation of the so stimulated public discussion up to individual ramifications of a historical topic must be reserved for interested circles, to which also you with your internet website quite obviously belong.”
Translated into plain language, this remarkable approach of Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft can probably be summarized as follows:
It is at our discretion to report on the point of view “contrary” to the “legend” of Julius Erasmus taken by the “local historian” Möller and to not correct this reporting even if it proves to be one-sided and inaccurate, because this (inaccurate) representation serves – in our opinion – a public information interest if it produces results we consider useful. It is likewise at our discretion to not report on other points of view taken “contrary” to the “legend” of Julius Erasmus even if they are based on provable facts, because this (accurate) presentation does not serve – in our view – any public information interest if it (possibly) does not produce results we consider useful; in this case it is merely a matter of “individual ramifications of a historical topic”, the discussion of which is then reserved for the “interested circles”. As a consequence, what seems to be decisive in the reporting of Aachener Nachrichten and its local editions is not the contextual correctness of what is reported, but the reported itself, even if it is contextually wrong, depending on whether a premise serving the own ideological “mission” can be derived from it.
In short: To all appearances, it is desired to transform the image of Julius Erasmus in the public into that of a war-traumatized egomaniac, even if the provable facts in their entirety do not support this. There is no interest in a truthful and fact-oriented portrayal of Julius Erasmus. Instead, the purposeful attempt is made to shape the public’s view of him, to manipulate knowledge about him, and to steer the behavior of the readership in a desired direction. The technical term for this is propaganda.
By the way: How does this approach actually relate to the commitment of Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft to law and ethics, in particular to the German Press Code, which was propagated at the beginning of their letter?
III. Assessment
The letter from Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft is an impressive document of contemporary history that reveals the mindset of those responsible there and the mechanisms they use with perhaps unintended clarity. The fact that the above-mentioned questions, which were the main focus of the entire correspondence with the head of the editorial office of Dürener Zeitung and the editor-in-chief of Aachener Nachrichten from the very beginning, have still not been answered speaks for itself.
In contrast to those in charge at Aachener Verlagsgesellschaft, however, it should not be difficult for the inclined readership of this article to answer in particular the question
“Are you of the opinion that the type of reporting described above still fulfills the tasks assigned to a press organ in the free democratic order?”
for themselves.
(Head picture: Robin at the military cemetery in Vossenack,
August 2022)
If you wish to support my work, you can do so here. Many thanks!