Reporter prize for NDR-SZ podcast about Till Lindemann
Stopped by the judiciary, celebrated by the jury

The podcast "Rammstein - Row Zero" has won the prestigious Reporter Award, even though statements made in all episodes were banned by the courts. The jury and makers of the Reporter Award are not bothered by this. But it should, says Felix. W. Zimmermann.

"Because we believe that setting a good example is the best way to achieve better journalism," is the motto of the Reporter:innenpreis - one of the most important awards in German journalism. According to its own description, its purpose is to reward "exemplary" journalistic work every year.

Last week it was that time again. The prizes for the year 2024 were awarded in Berlin. The NDR-SZ podcast "Rammstein - Row Zero" was apparently judged to be particularly exemplary by a group of judges. It won the prize for the best podcast. The podcast tells the "stories of young women who got caught up in the sex recruitment system of a world star". An unquestionably socially relevant topic on the abuse of power in the music industry.

However, a podcast was also recognized as particularly exemplary, which initially had to be completely removed from the internet because Rammstein's copyrights had been massively infringed. This involved the rights to recorded music. This may be disregarded when assessing journalistic performance. But beyond that, Rammstein singer Till Lindemann enforced court prohibition orders not only for one episode, but for every single episode before the Hamburg Regional Court. The court came to the conclusion that Lindemann's personal rights had been violated in all episodes.

Serious allegations

This alone does not necessarily speak against an award. After all, when lawyers go looking for errors, they often find them in trivialities that have little or nothing to do with the core of the research. When asked by LTO, the NDR classified all of the bans in this category. Only "insignificant parts of the podcast" were banned. All women will continue to have their say.

"Insignificant parts"? This can certainly be said of the banned false factual claims in the podcast, according to which Lindemann's court victory is not yet legally binding. And also for the claim that a concertgoer was comforted by Lindemann's manager the evening after an encounter with him. With a little goodwill, the false allegation that Lindemann's law firm, Schertz Bergmann, had threatened to sue Lindemann for all allegations made by women against Lindemann could also be classified as immaterial.

However, the Hamburg Regional Court also banned serious allegations against Lindemann for unlawful suspicion reporting due to insufficient evidence: In episode 1, it banned the suspicion that Lindemann had had sex with a woman without her consent (decision of 01.08.2024, ref. 324 O 306/24). In episode 2, it prohibited the discussion that Lindemann might have performed sexual acts on unconscious women (decision of 24.07.2024, ref. 324 O 307/24). In episode 3, it was suggested that Till Lindemann may have been doped as a GDR swimmer in the past. Without evidence, according to the court (decision of 14.08.2024, ref. 324 O 317/24). And in episode 4, the specific suspicion that Lindemann had sexually assaulted an unconscious woman without her consent was prohibited (decision of 21.08.2024, 324 O 329/24).

Court sees no minimum amount of evidence

Such serious accusations, which - if they were true - could land Lindemann in prison (Section 177 of the Criminal Code: rape, sexual assault), are supposed to be "immaterial" for the podcast? The opposite is probably true. The disgusting sex recruitment system of the rock star Lindemann is probably unique in its well-planned manner and is convincingly denounced by the podcast and the women who appear in it. But the journalistic highlight would be to be able to accuse Lindemann not only of immoral but also criminally relevant behavior. And that is probably exactly why the suspicions appear in the podcast. The NDR even used them to advertise the announcement of episode 4 of the podcast ("The suspicion (...) weighs heavily"). So neither Lindemann nor the NDR considered these to be incidental aspects.

And the court not only objected to the fact that there was insufficient evidence for the suspicions. The decision also revealed inconsistencies in the podcast: In an affidavit, Cynthia A. had expressly spoken of having consented to having sex with Lindemann. Nevertheless, the podcast raises the suspicion that Lindemann had sex with her "without her consent and against her recognizable will", according to the court. It can also be inferred from the decision that the podcast tendentiously reported on the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings.

Of course, court decisions are not sacrosanct. Especially in press law, where the judges' assessments are very important, other instances can easily come to different conclusions. However, according to LTO information, NDR has accepted three of the four interim injunctions as final decisions. This means that it will not continue to fight for the legality of the reporting and has promised not to repeat the specific statements.

Jury members remain silent

How can it be that a podcast full of judicially established violations of personal rights receives the Reporter:innenpreis for exemplary performance? The jury is made up of many renowned journalists. However, not all jury members decide on all categories, but are divided into groups.

Five journalists decided in the "podcast jury": Among them a comedy writer and a business coach, each with a journalistic background of course. They were also successful podcasters in the fields of interviews, health and sex. One juror was previously awarded the podcast prize herself for investigative research.

Question to jury members. Were you aware of the specific content of the bans? If so, why was the prize awarded despite the legal violations? Is the legality of reporting not a sign of quality? The jury members asked by LTO did not want to comment on any of the questions. Two refer to the organizer of the prize, the Reporter:innen-Forum association.

Head of the Reporter Prize has no feeling of interference

Inquiry with the chairman of the association there: Instead of answering the specific questions, Ariel Hauptmeier casts doubt on the legitimacy of the questions. He "unfortunately doesn't understand the question at all" and not "the whole approach of your questions". The head of the Reporter Prize is not bothered by the fact that a podcast was awarded a prize for violating the law, but only has a lack of understanding for the question.

"The fact that reporting is legally challenged is nothing new - why should work be judged differently by juries?" writes Hauptmeier. The idea that court findings on untrue factual allegations and violations of personal rights can also say something about journalistic quality is obviously alien to Hauptmeier. However, even according to the Press Code, journalists must not only respect the truth (section 1), but also observe the protection of personal rights (section 8). And the prize is supposed to be awarded for particularly "exemplary" journalistic work. The kind that should set a precedent. Can this really be affirmed for a podcast with violations of personal rights in every episode?

The association, which actually wants to stand for transparency and freedom of the press, blocks the request. Hauptmeier does not want to publish the "making off" of the podcast to be submitted by the nominees, nor will questions about the responsibility for determining jury members and grouping be answered, just as little as further questions about prize criteria and the level of information of the jury.

However, Hauptmeier does state that the jury was provided with the podcast version "which will continue to be published after extensive legal disputes". The message behind this is obviously that the podcast is worthy of the award even with the passages removed for legal reasons. A questionable argument. After all, the original podcast was online from mid-May 2024 and remained available online for several months until the court injunctions in July and August. The vast majority of listeners will therefore have heard the versions with the personality violations. Justifying the award with the fact that the podcast was ultimately rewritten months later is therefore not convincing.

Award not despite, but because of the legal dispute?

However, a look at the official justification for the award suggests that the podcast was not awarded the prize "despite" the legal disputes, but "because of" them. After praising the sensitivity with which the journalists told the story of the women concerned, it says: "The jury emphasized the courage to stand up to a powerful man like Till Lindemann and to accept a legal dispute for it."

Even the classification of a rock singer in the "powerful man" category raises questions. Of particular interest here, however, is the fact that accepting a legal dispute is described as an act of courage. Media journalist Stefan Niggemeier called this on X a "strange formulation for 'against whom the accused has successfully taken legal action in several cases'".

However, the "Podcast" jury group rather presents the legal disputes as a seal of approval for the reporting, despite the series of defeats in court. Too bad for the other nominated podcasts, which had no legal disputes and therefore could not be rewarded for their courage. For example, the Spiegel podcast production: "NDA - Die Akte Kasia Lenhardt" about allegations of violence against former national soccer player Jérôme Boateng, which was very carefully legally edited without losing any of its impact.

What courage did the podcast makers need?

However, it cannot be said across the board that legal battles can never be described as "courageous". A fictitious example: A freelance journalist uncovers a grievance in a company, which then sends her harassment warnings and demands high legal fees. But the journalist persists, despite the high financial risks, and then wins the dispute over the core of her research in court. This can and should be described as "courageous".

However, the journalists responsible for the podcast, led by Daniel Drepper, head of the NRD-WDR-SZ research cooperation, never had to fear financial consequences. The lawyer's fees and court costs, which will certainly now amount to 20,000 euros, will be borne by NDR and thus by the broadcaster. Drepper and the NDR did not answer an LTO inquiry about the courage required.

Jury member: "Podcast jury did not do its job"

According to LTO information, the justification for the Reporter Prize award for the best podcast was also met with incomprehension by jury members from other categories. One long-standing jury member, who wishes to remain anonymous, told LTO that he was particularly annoyed by the reasons given in the laudation. It focused almost exclusively on factors that lie outside the actual work and "have nothing to do with the quality of the research or the work of a reporter. This irritates me and, as I know from conversations after the award ceremony, other jury members as well".

"The fact that a story generates outrage, that many people feel affected, that a press law firm generates counter-pressure, that Shelby Lynn (editor's note: she got the Rammstein case rolling) cried in the Bundestag, that you report on a star that you think is powerful, none of that says anything about the quality of the research and even less about the quality of the podcast," says the jury member. One has to come to the conclusion that the podcast jury lacks critical distance. It had apparently assessed the effect created rather than the journalistic quality. "It didn't do its job," the jury member continued.

The laudatory speech by Claus Kleber, former presenter of ZDF's heute-journal, for the best investigative text shows that the standard of the Reporter Award is actually a different one. He began with the words: "The year 2024 brought a text that put all others in the shade if you measure the quality of an investigation by its impact." Some in the room thought that the controversial Correctiv investigation into the meeting in Potsdam, which brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets, would now be awarded a prize. But Kleber continued: "We didn't choose him in the end." He said it was a great investigative achievement, but the decisive factor was that the Reporter Award "does not reward an effect, but a text". Kleber presented the Zeit report "Hunger", which documents the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, as the winner. Kleber praised the text for not "chasing after effects", "not pursuing a direction" and not "playing things up".

Self-affirmation instead of self-criticism

The awarding of the Reporter:innenpreis to the NDR-SZ podcast "Rammstein - Row Zero", on the other hand, contradicts the Reporter:innenpreis's own claim to honor "exemplary" work.

It is true that the limits of permissible suspicion-based reporting are not easy to determine and are repeatedly contested in court. The fact that the podcast makers have missed these limits does not mean that they are not good journalists. On the contrary, they are all journalists who are experienced in sensitive research and have already won awards in the past. But to honor them for a work that does not stand up to judicial scrutiny in any of the most serious cases (rape, sexual assault, doping) and then to highlight the legal disputes as courageous is damaging to the reputation of the award and also to journalism. Journalism has and fulfills the important task of ensuring that the law and rules are observed in all areas of society - be it politics, business, culture, justice or the media. To then disregard this requirement for oneself, to place oneself above legal principles, damages credibility.

Instead of critically examining journalistic boundaries, the podcast jury not only ignores court rulings, personal rights and the press code, but also celebrates the award winners for their supposed legal steadfastness - despite all the court defeats.