Stupid Watergate, One Last Time. Sigh.

Faced with affidavits from participants, Correctiv backpedals virtually completely. What remains are a tattered gov't, stupid MSM, and loads of gaslit people

Once more, dear readers, we must address this shitshow. Background, incl. tons of links may be obtained here (have ‘fun’ going down that rabbit-hole):

Stupid Watergate: Olaf Scholz 'Met Repeatedly' with Correctiv in the Run-Up to the 'Scandal'

Translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.

---

Correctiv Admits to Faking Most of its ‘Story’

As reported by Marc Bartl in alt-media outlet kress.de on 15 Feb. 2024, Correctiv was faced with no less than affidavits and threats-to-sue by seven (!) participants of that November meeting in Potsdam.

In an interview with Hannah Schmitz for the KNA Media Service, Correctiv's deputy editor-in-chief Anette Dowideit also addresses the critical voices on the research, says how it affects the non-profit research centre's donation volume—and would like to see more self-confidence from media when dealing with the AfD [whatever that means].

KNA-Mediendienst: Mrs Dowideit, are the champagne corks popping every day at Correctiv now?

Anette Dowideit: No, not at all. In the beginning, we watched in amazement at what was happening. It was good that we as Correctiv received so much attention and that a democratic protest got underway. But we all feel the need to take a deep breath now.

KNA-Mediendienst: But you haven't had time to do that yet?

Anette Dowideit: Not yet. It's been more than four weeks since our research was published. Since then, the entire editorial team has been in a state of emergency. Even the editors who are not part of the investigative team have been contributing daily to our news ticker, for example. We have not yet returned to normality. But it has also brought us closer together as an editorial team and created a great sense of community…

KNA-Mediendienst: Your research was incredibly effective. Correctiv was in the [state broadcaster ARD’s nightly primetime news show] ‘Tagesschau’ almost every day at the beginning, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and the AfD apparently lost a few percentage points in polls. Why did the publication make such an impact?

Anette Dowideit: We don't know whether the AfD really lost points in the polls because of our research. The same applies to the demonstrations: People had a need and we provided a final push. That's important for us to emphasise.

KNA-Mediendienst: Aren't you talking down your contribution now?

Anette Dowideit: I recently read a survey by the Rheingold Institute in Cologne, which found that many demonstrators had already felt powerless in the face of multiple crises. According to the study, they asked themselves what they could do to change the political process. Our research gave them an impetus to do something, to feel able to act again. So the attitude [orig. Haltung, which is very different from ‘civic virtue’] was already there. We were lucky that we came at the right time with our story…

KNA-Mediendienst: Has the research also had an impact on Correctiv's donations?

Anette Dowideit: We know that there is currently a high influx of individuals who are making one-off or permanent donations. However, we don't yet have an exact figure. We are a small team and are still sifting through the data. But even before the publication, we had already noticed an increase in individual donors. Concerns about democracy had obviously already been on the minds of many people.

KNA-Mediendienst: Opponents accuse Correctiv of being state-funded. What do you say to that?

Anette Dowideit: We counter this time and again: Our investigative research is only funded by individual donors and institutional sponsors. Parts of the Correctiv media centre that focus on media education, such as our youth editorial team, are partly funded by the state. This is sometimes mixed up on purpose.

KNA-Mediendienst: There are also critical voices about the research: on the one hand, the objection that AfD members meeting with right-wing extremists is nothing new. What do you say to that?

Anette Dowideit: It was indeed known that meetings of the so-called Düsseldorf Forum were taking place. But we never knew exactly what was discussed there [does the constitutional right to freedom of association mean something?]. Until our publication, the content of these meetings had therefore never been linked to the high-ranking AfD politicians present there with such clarity [keep this in mind]. And in Potsdam there were AfD politicians right up to the top of the federal government, and these politicians said: We support plans from the radical right-wing movement to expel people. That was new [wait a second: the federal gov’t is run by the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP]. The AfD's federal leadership had previously always distanced itself from the Identitarian movement, and the AfD only ever officially refers to ‘remigration’ in relation to people who are obliged to leave the country.

KNA-Mediendienst: A second point of criticism is that no Correctiv reporter was present at the meeting. In your research, you only refer to what you were told. Is that sufficient?

Anette Dowideit: It is true that our reporter was not in the room himself. However, we confronted the participants of the meeting, whom we quote in the text, with the content before publication—no one denied it in principle. This strongly suggests that the information is correct. Beyond that, we cannot say anything about our sources. Protecting our sources is the most important thing for us as investigative journalists. We're also receiving a lot of shitstorms, hostility and threats at the moment [gee, I wonder why].

KNA-Mediendienst: How severe is the hostility?

Anette Dowideit: Some of our reporters have received threatening phone calls. We are talking to the security authorities about this. However, according to the authorities, there is no immediate threat. They are keeping a very close eye on it. The AfD is also running defamation campaigns against Correctiv, which are being translated into right-wing populist media such as NIUS by former Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt. They also use social media. However, this comes as little surprise to us [talk about the pot calling the kettle black, eh…], as it is the AfD's usual approach, in which they invest a lot of budget…

KNA-Mediendienst: Are there any legal complaints against Correctiv, for example from participants at the Potsdam meeting?

Anette Dowideit: Contrary to rumours, we didn't have to change anything in the text, except for a single half-sentence. This referred to the fact that Alexander von Bismarck took part in the meeting. We had initially described him as a direct descendant of Otto von Bismarck. The family then got in touch and corrected this [o.k., a small editorial oversight on their part, which I’d argue is irrelevant]. Apart from that, there are two warning letters from participants, one of them from Ulrich Vosgerau, a lawyer and an adjunct associate professor [orig. Privatdozent]. The second letter comes from an entrepreneur who claimed to have donated to the meeting. Both are now going through the legal process. In our view, neither claim has any substance [well, that’s for the court to decide, not the defendant, isn’t it?]. Last week, we also learnt from other media that the AfD MP Gerrit Huy is said to have filed a criminal complaint [number three, if you’re still counting]. We have not yet seen this criminal complaint. On ‘X’, Huy did not deny what she had said at the meeting, but only explained that she had been there as a private individual. In our view, this argument is not tenable [no explanation as to why; I mean, Congresspeople meet donors and other individuals privately all the time—I suppose this is another one of these ‘rules for thee but not for me’ moments, esp. since (as explained in the top-linked piece) Olaf Scholz also met ‘privately’ with a Correctiv editor shortly before publication of the hit piece…]

And Now—Correctiv Denies the Essence of its ‘Story’

KNA-Mediendienst: There are allegedly affidavits from seven participants stating that the meeting was never about the deportation of German citizens or racist criteria. How do you counter this?

Anette Dowideit: We are looking into it, but we are also relaxed about it. As we understand it, neither the meeting nor the topic discussed is being called into question.

Nope. Ms. Dowideit, no-one denies that the meeting or the topic discussed took place. In fact, Mr. Sellner, the keynote speaker, actually wrote a book about the topic—which is still (!) available for pre-order on Amazon (the book will be published on 1 March 2024).

But what at least seven (!) of the participants allege with their affidavits is the essence of the ‘story’ printed by Correctiv.

For additional insights, lets see what some of these seven people say about this, shall we?

Some Participants Also Say Something About This

Here’s what Ulrich Vosgerau wrote on Twitter (machine translation; emphases in the original):

Correctiv is broken! Ms. Dowideit now only says: no one disputes that the Potsdam meeting really took place and that the word ‘remigration’ was used there! And that's probably it for now. There is no more talk of the expatriation of Germans, of selection based on skin color, of expulsion or deportation, and of the expulsion of Germans who are not even of foreign origin, but who simply think differently politically…—That's what they had in mind just made up. And then it should be repeated in the ÖRR [state broadcaster] until it is generally considered ‘true’. That was the plan. So to speak: the real secret plan against Germany.

Here’s what Attorney Christian Brendecke added in response to the above-translated interview with Ms. Dowideit (machine translation; my emphases):

After seven affidavits from the participants: Correctiv is now officially backtracking:

After 7 participants in the Potsdam meeting swore in court that the legend spread by Correctiv that the meeting discussed the expulsion of German citizens or even the expulsion based on racist criteria was false because these statements were not made there at all, the coordinated backpedaling in Correctiv's litigation PR is now beginning: Although the affidavits were presented to Correctiv by the court on Monday and the contents of the affidavits have been known to Correctiv for a long time, Correctiv Vice President Anette Dowideit does not say a word about the accuracy of the affidavits.

When confronted with the affidavits, she deliberately avoids saying that the affidavits are false or that, contrary to the affidavits, these topics were discussed at the meeting. Because she knows full well that this claim would otherwise immediately be warned by participants and challenged in court.

In her retreat, she says much more in a deliberately vague manner: ‘Nobody has fundamentally denied our information…Because as we understand it, it does not call into question either the meeting or the topic discussed.’

In doing so, the deputy head of Correctiv is deliberately lighting a smokescreen in the retreat. When she says that ‘the topic discussed’ is not questioned in her understanding, she avoids telling the reader what she means by ‘the topic discussed’.

Dowideit does not dare, knowing the affidavits, to spread the claim that, according to the Correctiv legend, there was actually talk in Potsdam about expelling German citizens based on racist criteria.

This interview by Dovideit confirms the end of the Correctiv legend.

---

Bottom Lines

There you have it—it’s not merely ‘Stupid Watergate’ but, in effect, a psy-op run by a self-styled ‘investigative’ outlet paid partially by the gov’t.

What else shall we call it? Agit-prop? Propaganda?

Sadly, this entire affair is supremely stupid, but here we are: the best Germany of all time (according to Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck).

Sigh.