If journalists fear freedom of expression: Why isn't Ronzheimer allowed to talk to everyone?

A journalist isn't allowed to talk to just anyone. There are boundaries. Red lines. Unspoken rules that must be followed. Anyone who makes the mistake of breaking the invisible barriers of the ever-narrowing corridor of opinion will feel the consequences of the rule-breaking. These days, everyone should be aware that there are people with whom one is not allowed to speak. People who shouldn't be heard, who sow hatred and reap hate speech. This applies especially to people associated with the right-wing spectrum.

The days when journalists could conduct interviews without hesitation are long gone. Many assume it must be the media companies' fault. But that's not the case. It's the fault of the readers who write "freedom of expression" in their Instagram bios and cancel their newspaper subscriptions as soon as an interview appears that is perceived as overstepping boundaries. But it's also the fault of us media representatives.

Why take the hard way when there's an easy way?

A significant portion of journalists have adapted to these circumstances. Boundaries and boundaries that previously didn't exist in this form are now only crossed to a limited extent out of fear of shitstorms and dismissals. True to the motto: Why take the hard way when there's an easy way?

Or – a new strategy for circumventing the anger of the politically motivated fans – they wait until another media outlet has spoken to the unwelcome, but relevant, condemned. The accusation of guilt by association, which journalists are increasingly confronted with, now bounces off them. Bild colleague Paul Ronzheimer used precisely this strategy with his most recent interviewee. In his new podcast episode, "AfD and Musk: How it really began – with Naomi Seibt," Ronzheimer speaks with the AfD supporter from Münster.

Seibt, who already gave a detailed interview to the Berliner Zeitung in January, explains in a nearly hour-long conversation her relationship with Musk and her close ties to the AfD. Now that the hype surrounding her, the so-called Musk whisperer, has cooled down in Germany, Ronzheimer wants to understand "what makes the woman who presents herself as a staunchly right-wing populist on the internet tick."

But before the conversation begins, the Bild deputy emphasizes in the introduction: "Naomi Seibt is 24 years old, an influencer who became known for her videos for the AfD and in particular for her connection to Musk, which even the Wall Street Journal reported on." It is the last five words that have a bitter aftertaste.

They wait until the wall of silence is broken

I had a two-hour conversation with Seibt, which was published as an interview. The BBC subsequently contacted me and asked for a connection to Naomi Seibt. Weeks later, the article Paul Ronzheimer mentioned appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The wall of silence was broken. From that point on, one could always point to foreign media if the Seibt interview was interpreted as support for right-wing populists.

At the Berliner Zeitung, things are different. There's no need for justification, and there's no need to point to colleagues from other media outlets to legitimize the choice of interviewee. What would be more necessary is to ask the following questions: Who sets these strange, invisible lines? Why is a journalist "guilty" of allowing people who represent controversial, possibly bizarre positions to speak? And why do we journalists submit ourselves to this coercion? This is unworthy of our profession.