When media become informants: The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution deserves our distrust

Journalists are characterized by qualities that make people unlikable: mistrust, doubt, distance. Necessary prerequisites for controlling governments and keeping an eye on those in power. Without this fundamental skepticism, the media no longer fulfill their duty in a democracy. As the legendary publisher Randolph Hearst once said: "News is what someone doesn't want printed. The rest is advertising." Yet in Germany, significant sections of the press, government agencies, and authorities now take their word for it.

Or how can we explain that hardly any reputable publications even consider the possibility that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution might be wrong in its classification of the AfD as "certainly right-wing extremist"? Much is discussed about Faeser's motives, the timing of the publication, and the consequences for a ban. But the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution itself is spared.

With the rise of the right, decisions made by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution were increasingly rarely questioned. The federal agency and its state branches repeatedly made serious errors. During the first NPD ban proceedings, the domestic intelligence agency infiltrated and recruited so many employees into the party that it was no longer possible to say with certainty what came from right-wing extremists and what from informants. The agency also presented a subterranean image during the NSU murders. The NSU investigative committee revealed that the head of the Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution cycled drunk through the state office by candlelight at night. The acting president of the Saxon Office for the Protection of the Constitution stated in a state parliament hearing two years ago that he had learned about cyberattacks on parliament from a newspaper. The professionalism of the BfV is also evident in the fact that the secret report on the AfD was leaked in its entirety to Der Spiegel. The intelligence agency does not take secrecy very seriously.

Anyone familiar with these conditions and their histories can hardly claim that these institutions are above all suspicion. Their actions and recommendations should be viewed with extreme suspicion by journalists. Most representatives of the fourth estate do the opposite. Instead of critically questioning the work of authorities with such grotesque records, ZDF, for example, wants to "reflect" on its reporting in light of the AfD's brief classification as "confirmed right-wing extremist." Well-known public broadcasters are already demanding that no AfD member be invited on television.

Much can be said about the AfD and its sometimes right-wing extremist, repulsive, and radical members. But unlike leading politicians of all other parties in the Bundestag, from the CDU/CSU and SPD to the Greens and Left Party, the AfD does not demand that political rivals be banned. In the past, the Left Party and the Greens also wanted the abolition of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, for example, Gregor Gysi and Jürgen Trittin. But that was, of course, at a time when they themselves or their parties were still under surveillance by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

The AfD can only be countered politically. If the party were no longer in existence, not only would its voters still be here, but its proposed solutions would also remain intact. Both can only be countered politically. Friedrich Merz has set out to do just that. On Wednesday, the first day of his term in office, he wanted to fulfill his central campaign promise and turn back asylum seekers at the borders. We currently find ourselves in the curious situation that no one knows whether he has kept his promise. But he can't keep the public waiting forever. And either he keeps his word, or the AfD will gain ground again – regardless of how journalists see it.