The journalist Harald Martenstein wrote a column about Corona demonstrators and the Jewish star. A little later, the Berlin “Tagesspiegel” deleted the text. The justification is a rejection of journalism.
Harald Martenstein in October 2018 at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
Harald Martenstein was a columnist for the Berlin Tagesspiegel and he is still a columnist for the Hamburger Zeit. A brilliant stylist who likes to deal with topics that other journalists deal with with a certain mental ease or don’t deal with at all because they are too sensitive. With his attitude, Martenstein is mostly next to the paper lines. Although one could not say exactly where. You start reading Martenstein without knowing where you are going. Will you nod or shake your head at the end? In his best columns, he takes you where you least expect it.
On February 6, 2022, Martenstein addressed the phenomenon of the Corona demonstrators, who took to the streets with Jewish stars and the inscription “unvaccinated” against state policy. In the column he comes to the conclusion that the demonstrators wanted to stylize themselves as “total victims”. This is always presumptuous and trivializing and difficult for the survivors of the Holocaust to bear. But the action is not anti-Semitic, writes Martenstein, because the bearers would identify with the persecuted Jews.
The Limits of Thought Work
The day after, the editors-in-chief of the “Tagesspiegel” published a statement distancing themselves. The text was deleted nine days later, and the author has now said goodbye to the readers with a final column. The days were accompanied by outrage, criticism and defences.
The matter might be considered settled, but the newspaper’s statement deserves some attention. After intensive discussion, it is said that the conclusion was reached that the column should not have been published in this way. Although it is part of the newspaper’s self-image to present a broad range of opinions, the prerequisite for this is compliance with editorial standards. Among other things, the following applies: “Not everything that can be said from a legal point of view is appropriate to the tone of the ‘Tagesspiegel’.” And further: “We refrain from provocations for the sake of provocation and avoid gray areas that invite or lead to misunderstandings.”
To what extent Martenstein’s column should have violated the standards is not understandable. But inevitably one gets stuck with the word “grey areas”. The assertion that the demonstrative misappropriation of the Jewish star is not necessarily anti-Semitic represents just such a gray area. The newspaper does not seem to want to invest any more intellectual work in these zones because they are too dangerous.
“It’s mostly stupid if you can say it like that”
The deletion of the column is therefore quite consistent, because Martenstein seems to be most interested in precisely these gray areas, to which curious journalists are naturally drawn. Questioning common thought patterns is part of his core business. Is he so disastrously wrong about the Star of David?
Ralph Lewin, President of the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), said in an interview with the Tamedia newspapers on the question of whether wearing a Jewish star at Corona demonstrations is anti-Semitic: “It’s mostly stupid when you say it like that allowed. We at the SIG do not consider such Holocaust comparisons to be anti-Semitic per se. But when such comparisons become a mass phenomenon, and this is the path we are on, they become highly problematic. Then the Holocaust is also played down.”
The reflex to see the use of the Jewish star at demonstrations as clearly anti-Semitic is immediately there. However, the statements by Martenstein and Lewin stimulate thought. Perhaps the case is not so clear cut; the intention of the wearer and the broader context can play a crucial role.
differentiation not desired
The subject is uncomfortable, all the more so for a non-Jew. Right-wing extremists also take part in corona demonstrations, conspiracy theorists, the Jewish stars are a mockery for Holocaust survivors. One can also ask oneself whether a differentiation such as that made by Martenstein is helpful and necessary: is the use of a Jewish star anti-Semitic or “only” a trivialization of the Holocaust, and what exactly is the difference?
The problem with the reaction of the “Tagesspiegel” is that it is broken off at this point, on principle: because it is potentially complicated, uncomfortable and because in the end the world is not as clear as one would like it to be. The debate is pinched off where the black-and-white media scheme (which is otherwise criticized by serious newspapers) threatens to fail. The opinion of the “Tagesspiegel” also means in controversial cases: Differentiation not desired. The deletion of the post, on the other hand, seems a bit naive in the age of the Internet, which forgets everything and nothing.
The fact that Martenstein’s expression of opinion seems to go beyond the scope of what can be said in a well-known German capital newspaper is not a good sign. But not surprising either.
The German discourse tends to be narrow, and the journalistic need to imitate is pronounced. Many journalists agree – with nuances – in any case: they come from similar milieus and are even more assimilated in their collaboration. And those who disagree seem to shy away from exploring the gray areas of the world in order not to attract attention. The Martenstein case should confirm both groups in their spirit and work.