A critical editorial team has been breathing down the neck of the country's largest tabloid medium for 17 years - and uncovering distortions and lies. At the start of Bild TV we spoke to the boss of the media magazine "Bildblog".
Does the TV launch of a tabloid medium change public perception? Or is "Bild" sinking into the thicket of program diversity? After all, there are plenty of special interest channels and small stations. According to Statista, there were 489 channels offered for private programs alone last year. Anyone who finds Bild TV in 490th place on their program list from this Sunday should be a real television detective - or work in the Axel Springer building.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to see which path the largest German tabloid brand is now taking with this step. The past few months, in which "Bild Live" has repeatedly been broadcast with online live streams, have already given a foretaste. In the future, there will be an offer on German television that relies on a lot of polarization and riots - and thus possibly reaches questionable target groups. "Bildblog" boss Moritz Tschermak, who detects and documents misconduct by "Bild" with his small editorial team and a large community, speaks in an interview with t-online about the possible dangers of the TV start and a questionable role model from US television .
t-online: On Sunday, "Bild" will start with its own channel on linear television. With what feelings do you look from the "image blog" at this upcoming moment?
Moritz Tschermak: This big vision of a TV project has existed for a long time. But now that it has become clear that "Bild" is also taking place on television, we are looking at this project with greater horror. Because we've been showing for 17 years that "Bild" sometimes doesn't do as much research and sometimes things are left out. In the worst case, even lies are spread.
Which cases of lies have you been able to document in 17 years?
You don't have to go that far back for the really bad cases. In February 2017, for example, the "Bild" editorial team reported on a "sex mob" of refugees who, almost two months earlier, on New Year's Eve, were said to have molested women in Frankfurt am Main. This "sex mob" didn't exist, it was an invention by AfD sympathizers, which "Bild" compliantly distributed without closer examination. Another example: Shortly before Christmas Eve 2014, "Bild" wrote: "Politicians are demanding – Christians should sing Muslim songs in the Christmas service". The excitement was huge, on the Facebook pages of the politicians named in the "Bild" article there was one hate comment after the next. In the end it turned out that the idea didn't come from the politicians at all, but from "Bild" itself. The editors had put the matter in the mouths of the politicians. A politician said he answered the "Bild" request, for example, that he didn't think it was a good idea and if he did, then it should be a kind of barter transaction, meaning: Muslims should also sing Christian songs in the mosque. From this, "Bild" constructed the alleged politician's demand.
But both are a long time ago. Has it gotten better under "Bild" boss Julian Reichelt lately?
No, on the contrary. At the beginning of this month, "Bild" editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt claimed in a text that the Berlin judiciary did not prosecute squatters "for political reasons", "because they are considered 'colorful'", as Reichelt wrote. That is simply a lie, there are numerous, also current, eviction judgments by Berlin courts against squatters. Reichelt knows that too – his "Bild" has reported on many of them.
Now it's on TV. What danger do you see in this for the formation of public opinion?
Reporting on television is about, among other things, constantly telling something. Even in situations where it is not really clear what exactly is going on. But "Bild" is live, the camera is rolling and the pressure is great. This combination of inadequate research and the self-imposed need to show something will lead to problems from my point of view. I think it could end up being quite a mess, which is really dangerous in the worst case.
"Bild" from Vienna: This is what the live broadcast looked like when the editors reported on the attacks in the Austrian capital. (Source: YouTube/BILD/Screenshot)
What exactly is so dangerous about that?
When there are so-called breaking news situations, things get dicey. These are actually the situations that give me the most headaches with Bild TV. So whenever something happens where it should be reported live - and "Bild" usually implements it very quickly, but also questionably. One has to acknowledge with respect that the editorial team always manages to be on site with great speed in exceptional situations. But I remember, for example, reporting on the terrorist attack in Vienna. "Bild" was also quick there, with a four-hour report in the first live broadcast. And in those four hours, just about every rumor that was out there was propagated. I would estimate 95 percent of those rumors later turned out to be false. But you could hear them live on the air on Bild TV. This is extremely dangerous.
And it's something the authorities regularly warn against. In these news situations, it is above all the police who call on social media not to spread rumors or share unchecked pictures and videos.
Apparently nobody is interested in "Bild" in these live broadcasts. Then a moderator told the Vienna report about a hostage situation that he had heard about. But this hostage-taking never happened. A short time later, an expert was called in who told of a shootout in the subway. This shooting never happened. And so there was one rumor after the other throughout the night in these four hours. Almost all of them have been wrong.
And that in a situation in which the need for information and the insecurity of the people is great. Is "Bild" consciously exploiting this momentum?
Whether there is a strategy behind it, I don't want to judge. All I know is that the impact should not be underestimated. Because the pressure that something has to be shown increases with the step into television. You can also let an online live ticker in text form rest for half an hour if there is nothing to report. But you can't stand silently in front of the TV camera for half an hour. This also leads to something going wrong on the visual level. Another example from Vienna: the editors recorded a video that didn't actually take place in Vienna, but in Barcelona. There, the police could be seen chasing several people down the street. When you saw it live, you couldn't help but think: Aha, the police are apparently chasing several assassins or terrorists through the streets. The pictures from Barcelona were of an anti-corona protest - and had absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Vienna.
Is there really a great danger that such mistakes will happen under the pressure of television reporting – especially in the breaking news situation you describe?
I think so. That's actually the big problem. "Bild" editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt repeatedly emphasizes that this is a central focus of this TV station: being there live when something big happens somewhere. This approach will quickly provide the basis for rumors being spread because something needs to be told. But of course it's a problem when something like this happens almost unchecked. It has nothing to do with journalism.
"Image Live": For months, the tabloid medium has been experimenting with different TV formats on its homepage and on YouTube. (Source: YouTube/BILD/Screenshot)
Is spreading rumors the only problem you see, or are you still feeling queasy about the TV launch?
From my point of view, another problem is the behavior of the "Bild" reporters on site. For example, I remember the live reporting after the attack in Halle on the synagogue and a kebab shop there. It happened that a reporter happened to be nearby - I even think it was a colleague from "Sportbild" - and he always reported live on the air what the police were doing right now. In excessive detail, he described the street on which houses are being searched or where the SEK is now approaching and in which direction they are currently moving.
A tutorial for possible accomplices of the assassin, so that they are always up to date with the latest investigations?
Of course, it is not the most likely case that assassins watch "Bild" live at the same time. But I don't think it's a good idea to divulge police actions live on the air. Especially since it wasn't clear at the time whether there were other perpetrators. A small other scene from this Halle coverage is also noteworthy. Then the same reporter had an interview with a local resident who told him that she would like to remain anonymous out of fear. And what does the reporter do? Doesn't show the woman, but moderates her by telling in which practice and on which street she works. He probably didn't do it with bad intentions, but it's still problematic - and it's not impossible that things like this will happen again in the future.
In the last few months and years, "Bild" has clearly shot up against ARD and ZDF. Public service broadcasting has been heavily criticized time and time again. Are you now trying to establish an alternative draft with a television station? Quasi loud and fast, but less balanced and rested?
The fact that public broadcasting has an open flank will not have remained hidden to anyone at "Bild". The weakness of the stations is clearly the speed in such situations and has been for many years. I think you have to give the public broadcasters credit for the fact that tagesschau24, for example, is definitely a channel that can report live, or the offers on the Internet that also belong to the apparatus of public broadcasting. But of course, ARD and ZDF often need a very long time in breaking news situations before they change their program – and “Bild” will legitimately try to take advantage of that. But I'm also torn, because on the one hand there's the need to know quickly what happened. On the other hand, nobody needs a TV program that shows clueless guesswork and spreads rumours.
Why did "Bild" then take ARD and ZDF as the enemy so clearly in order to stay in the language of the tabloid?
Good question. A real campaign against public service broadcasting has been going on for months. There has always been criticism of the broadcasters at "Bild", but now it has become even more massive, and it may also be due to the fact that you will soon be a direct competitor in the TV market. Because it's interesting that even the smallest trifle suddenly ends up on the cover of "Bild" or is kicked out on bild.de. In this intensity and frequency, it looks like a strategic approach from the outside. Anyway, I doubt that happens by accident. There is certainly a certain interest in reproaching future competitors. Although criticism of ARD and ZDF is of course not unjustified per se.
Moritz Tschermak: He is currently in charge of the "BILDblog" editorial team. (Source: Urban Zintel)
In your book "Without Considering Losses – How Images Divide Society with Fear and Hate" , which you wrote together with Mats Schönauer, you also deal extensively with the complex of issues surrounding the AfD. On the one hand, the "Bild" prides itself on not interviewing AfD politicians, but repeatedly plays into the hands of the party and right-wing sentiments. Will this clientele now have their own TV station with Bild TV?
Yes, the AfD is an interesting phenomenon in "Bild" because Julian Reichelt never tires of mentioning how terrible he finds the AfD and its staff. At the same time, the "Bild" reporting has provided a certain breeding ground for right-wing theses of the party for years. Especially when it comes to migration, the "Bild" manages to provide the AfD with templates and to keep their theses open for discussion, always in a direction where it is more about deporting more than fewer people. Or when it comes to wolves: "Bild" would rather shoot him down than create habitats for him, and the AfD also sees it that way. The positions are also very similar for diesel. The same applies to the alleged "gender madness" or the "early sexualization" of school children. I do believe that the editorial team has a large share in the fact that the AfD constantly finds points of contact with the reporting, simply by setting the topic and the direction of the attack.
Not the only problematic proximity that "Bild" is accused of. "Querdenker" and "Reichsbürger" groups recently celebrated the newspaper's reporting on Corona policy.
That's why the hashtag #DankeBild recently became a trend. Whether conspiracy ideologues or AfD state and district associations: everyone cheered when the paper swung around and criticized the corona measures. The "image" was "woke up," it said then. If you believe Reichelt's words, he can't really like it when people like that cheer him and his editorial team. But I do believe that they are also very happy about the clicks and realize that you can win many people over with this form of reporting. Our thesis in the book is therefore that the AfD staff of "Bild" does not fit, but the content of the party does in many respects. It is easy to imagine that a populist comment by Claus Strunz will in future generate a lot of enthusiasm on television among "lateral thinkers" and other conspiracy supporters or AfD voters.
Will Bild TV become the German Fox News, which reports populistically and distorts the truth, especially for a more right-wing target group?
I've already spoken to my co-author Mats Schönauer on the subject, who has been following Fox News very closely over the past few years. It's possible that "Bild" takes it as a model. As far as one-sided reporting is concerned, there are certainly parallels. Both "Bild" and Fox News like to leave things out that don't fit their theories and overemphasize aspects that support their own worldview. In this often badly shortened, tendentious way of reporting, they are very similar. But I have my doubts that Bild TV will gain the same importance in Germany as Fox News in the US.
That's right, it's still not clear how big the range will be for "Bild" to broadcast linearly on television. I'm going to put forward the thesis that this will remain a fairly small special interest channel. So is this TV launch insignificant?
It's possible that all of this doesn't get that great a response when it comes to the numbers. The publisher keeps a low profile and makes rather cryptic statements about the previous number of viewers for individual programs. Kai-Hinrich Renner once reported in the "Berliner Zeitung" about actually relatively meager access numbers, which one can believe because Springer-Verlag took action against the article, but not at the point where the numbers were concerned. The numbers could stand and were really very low. The YouTube numbers are different, there are peaks. Such a Claus Strunz comment then sometimes has high six-digit views. But there are also a lot of videos that are more in the double-digit thousand range, somewhere between 20 and 30,000. It may of course be the case that it will be similar on TV, mainly because it could quickly become tiring.
What do you mean?
With "Bild" everything has to be sensational so that people stay tuned. Little things that are usually not that sensational are then sold as big sensations. At some point the viewers will hopefully notice this - and stop tuning in to read every banal little thing on the treadmill on Bild TV.
What will change in your work for the "Bildblog" as a result of the start on TV?
So on the one hand a lot is changing, on the other hand nothing at all. We have a very committed, large readership that gives us lots of good tips that we can then pursue. We hope for the same with the start on TV and assume that many new information will come through the TV start. But we are a very small team and it has been the case since the company was founded that we can only write down what we can manage in time. We'll try to watch as much of the TV program as possible and see how much we can do. We won't be able to work through everything, I can already say that. In addition to frequently checking Bild.de and reading the e-paper in the "Bild" newspaper from the following day in the evening, we will now spend a little time in front of the telly.
