MSM Discusses RKI Files--But Falsifies its own (!) 'Reporting'

Sights and wonders from the strange netherworld of our times

Reference is made to this posting in which we began discussing the recently-released internal minutes from the 2020-21 ‘Covid season’, courtesy of Paul Schreyer and the good people over at Multipolar Magazin:

FOIA'ed 'RKI Files' from Germany Show the Fake 'Pandemic'

Since the story broke last week, even German legacy media is now discussing it, albeit with the expectable ‘twist’: not only do they label (libel) Paul Schreyer as ‘right-winger’ (whatever that means) but they also edit and moderate whatever pieces they put up. To call this a ‘disgrace’ is doing a disfavour to the English language, to say nothing about the content-related instances.

Today, I’ll bring you a follow-up piece by Paul Schreyer; translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.

---

RKI Files: ZDF and Der Spiegel Falsify Their Reporting Ex Post

The RKI Files that Multipolar has obtained via a FOIA request have been the topic of all major media since the weekend. The breakthrough came with a factual and solidly researched [state broadcaster] ZDF report, which was subsequently rewritten in a misleading manner, although it is still unclear by whom. A Spiegel article published shortly thereafter was initially worded neutrally, but defamatory false statements [we used to call these lies] were subsequently added without marking them clearly. Meanwhile, [Germany’s biggest tabloid] Bild reports without defamation—and on the front page of its Monday edition.

By Paul Schreyer, Multipolar Magazin, 25 March 2024 [source]

The affair surrounding the minutes of the ‘crisis team’ of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is increasingly becoming a media affair. After Multipolar announced the first details on Monday last week (18 March; see here for my translation) and then fully published the more than 2,500 pages of documents on Wednesday [20 March; my translation is the article linked on top], various media with a small to medium reach initially reported, including Tichys Einblick, the magazine Cicero, the Epoch Times [German edition], Telepolis, and the Nordkurier. Mainstream media was silent.

That changed on Saturday evening (23 March) with a report by [state broadcaster] ZDF that caused a stir, written by the Berlin correspondent Britta Spiekermann. She has been the author of TV reports for the ZDF political magazine ‘Berlin’ direct for many years. Her factually worded article compiled several revelations based on her own research into the documents. Georg Restle, editorial director of [the other German state broadcaster] ARD Monitor, distributed the text and commented:

Anyone who ignores the RKI’s Corona protocols is not doing their job properly. There is still a lot of self-critical work to be done. Also and especially for media.

Shortly afterwards, on Sunday afternoon, however, the widely read ZDF report was rewritten by their editorial team. The following key sentence was removed:

It remains unclear on what scientific basis the upgrade is made.

The unknown editor [sic] added a few sentences that were not previously included:

However, the passage in the protocols suggests that the RKI carried out the risk assessment itself and, based on this, classified the risk as ‘high’. It was only the publication of the risk assessment that depended on the approval of the unnamed person.

Neither change is mentioned in the corresponding editorial note below the article.

ZDF’s Interpretation is Unsubstantiated and Implausible

The subsequently added interpretation that the protocols ‘suggest’ that the RKI ‘did the risk assessment itself’ is unsubstantiated and implausible. Multipolar had already stated clearly in the report to which ZDF referred:

If, as the minutes note, 'a new risk assessment was prepared' on the weekend of 14-15 March—and this is said to have happened within the RKI—then there should of course also be documents about this at the RKI: the risk assessment itself as well as all communication and advice related to this. But this is not the case. The Raue law firm, which represents the RKI in the proceedings brought by Multipolar, even flatly denies it in a letter dated September 2023 to the Berlin Administrative Court on behalf of its client:

Following the completion of this review, it remains the case that there are no further documents addressing the change in risk assessment from 'moderate' to 'high' on 17 March 2020…The defendant cannot release information that is not available.'

The conclusion from all this: the claim that the RKI made the risk upgrade—and thus the basis for lockdown and state of emergency—on the basis of scientific advice is no longer tenable. This change occurred abruptly, without either a documented discussion or consultation process, at the direction of an unnamed actor.

The distortions in the ZDF report date from Sunday [24 March 2024] afternoon at 2:37 p.m. Strikingly, only the article rewritten in this way was picked up—but then very quickly—by two of the German mainstream media outlets with the highest reach: Der Spiegel at 5:30 p.m. and t-online at 6:26 p.m. [talk about ‘coordination’, or ‘conspiracy’ to commit gaslighting…]

From Der Spiegel:

According to ZDF ‘Heute’, however, the passage suggests that the ‘RKI carried out the risk assessment itself and, based on this, classified the risk as “high”.’ Only the publication of the risk assessment depended on the release of the unnamed person.’

From t-online:

However, the minutes of March 16 suggest that the RKI carried out the risk assessment itself—only the publication of the risk assessment depended on the release of the unnamed person.

Neither was in Britta Spiekermann’s original article and, as explained above, both assertions are unsubstantiated and implausible. However, due to the wide reach of both media, this distortion has an influence on further media reporting.

Der Spiegel Also Doctored its Report

Der Spiegel article, published on Sunday afternoon, was originally written by Henning Jauernig, and it, too, was subsequently edited. The originally neutral passage read:

The online magazine Multipolar, which had sued for the release of the files, published the documents.

This is what it said later after a secret revision:

The right-wing online magazine Multipolar, which had sued for the release of the files, published the documents.

It is unknown who of Der Spiegel’s editorial team ordered the addition of the attribute ‘right-wing’. The change was furthermore not identified. The review itself is factually incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. This passage was furthermore subsequently added by an unknown hand:

Multipolar publisher is, among others, the author Paul Schreyer, who has published books with conspiracy stories about the 9/11 attacks and has called for more understanding of Russian politics.

Both additions can be found in the introductory paragraph of the article. In the t-online report, a similar assessment (‘the blog that is close to the corona denier milieu’) was already found in the introductory paragraph from the outset, so it did not have to be clumsily added later. Many media outlets have now copied such classifications from Spiegel & Co. in their articles on the protocols [that is so true; talk about plagiarism, eh]

Other media, on the other hand, do without such assessments and limit themselves to reporting the facts and questions about the protocols, such as the Neue Zürcher Zeitung or the Bild newspaper, which put the topic on page 1 on Monday:

Header: ‘Secret Covid Files Released’

But what happened at ZDF on Sunday afternoon? Who gave the instructions to rewrite the article in a misleading way—with the described effects on the reporting of other media? Spiekermann does not want to comment on the background when asked by Multipolar.

There is a lack of transparency—this much seems [what an understatement] to be clear—not only at the RKI but also in numerous legacy media outlets whose editors-in-chiefs now have to show their colours: do you support clarification and processing—or do you sabotage it with covert tricks and manipulation?

---

Bottom Lines

Kudos to Paul Schreyer—what an accomplishment; in better days, that’s something worthy a Pulitzer Prize, and Sey Hersh may be the one apt comparison.

Look at what German legacy media is doing instead. What a disgrace.

‘Presstitutes’, former assistant US Treasury Secretary (fort the Reagan administration) Paul Craig Roberts calls legacy media ‘journos’. What an apt description.

As regards public policy and our future: if we don’t hold those spineless journo critters and politicians to account, ‘The Matrix’ is what’s in store for us.

Change my mind.