Media column: None of the public broadcasters responsible in the Gelbhaar affair had to leave

From today onwards, the four columnists Annekatrin Mücke, Alexander Teske, Ole Skambraks and Peter Welchering will write here weekly and alternately about controversial topics concerning public broadcasting.

The history of RBB is rich in misconduct. But the Gelbhaar affair stands out: A nonexistent key witness and fabricated allegations against a leading Green Party politician – this is in line with Stern's Hitler diaries and Der Spiegel's Relotius scandal .

With crucial differences: Unlike public broadcasters, the private magazines thoroughly addressed their failures and drew conclusions. Those responsible were dismissed, and the investigation reports were published.

The situation is quite different at RBB. Firstly, none of those responsible have had to leave so far. Neither the head of the evening news program, who approved the report, nor the three editors involved. And not even the legal advisor. She not only approved the report from December 31, 2024, but also the entire subsequent conversation in the studio, which meant it had to be recorded twice. On the contrary: One of the people primarily responsible was even promoted – before the investigations into the affair were even completed.

Keep annual salary

David Biesinger resigned from his position as editor-in-chief. However, he not only retained his annual salary of €160,000, but also took over as acting head of the Program Resources Department. RBB reports that Biesinger had already asked then-program director Jan Schulte-Kellinghaus three years ago if he could have the position. LinkedIn members were encouraged to congratulate Biesinger on his promotion.

Although program director Katrin Günther has also officially resigned, she will continue in her position until September, after which she will likely remain with the station.

Secondly, the investigation report remains secret. This concerns public broadcasting. The investigation report was commissioned from the consulting firm Deloitte and NDR journalist Stephan Wels and comprises 96 pages. Deloitte charged €65,000 and Wels €12,000 for the report – so the report cost a total of €77,000 in license fee revenue. However, only members of the Broadcasting Council are allowed to read it – in a private room. They must hand over their cell phones and are not allowed to take notes. Only a six-page summary of the report was published.

RBB explains that "personal rights" and "data protection reasons" would speak against the entire publication. This raises questions: The six-page summary consistently refers to Person A, Person B, and so on. Why can't this be done for the entire 96 pages? Which personal rights are alleged to be violated?

Maybe just an April Fool's joke

Could the real reason be something else? Could it be that a letter from a law firm is tacked onto the 96 pages? A law firm that represents former editor-in-chief Biesinger? As I heard from four people who were allowed to enter the secret reading room, this is the same law firm that has already successfully represented other high-ranking former employees, such as Patricia Schlesinger, Christoph Singelnstein, and Claudia Nothelle, against RBB.

Is the RBB afraid of another legal defeat ? Director-General Ulrike Demmer publicly stated: "Here at the RBB, we have more than enough experience with time-consuming and costly court replays. What we did was right and in the best interest of the RBB." Why is this statement misleading?

David Biesinger symbolizes the failure in the "Causa," as the Gelbhaar case is known internally. When asked in Radio Eins' media magazine whether he wanted to take responsibility, Biesinger spoke of "symbolic politics" and a "pro forma number." He had always interpreted his role as editor-in-chief as giving his employees maximum freedom and therefore not interfering. Yet the RBB job advertisement for the position of editor-in-chief on April 1, 2024, already stated: "Your area of ​​responsibility includes... content responsibility for first-class, independent, balanced news journalism and investigative background reporting..." Perhaps just an April Fool's joke after all.

Although RBB's failure began on December 14, 2024, with inaccurate reporting, and the editor-in-chief was informed about the investigation several times, Biesinger didn't fully engage with the "case" until the report was broadcast. The Deloitte analysis states: "Despite the significance of such a MeToo case, the editor-in-chief only received rudimentary information about the investigation and the creation of the report. He did not engage with the content himself—for example, with the quality of the statements."

How credible can a fresh start at a broadcaster be when one of the key players is promoted instead of taking on responsibility? Instead, employees are now offered mandatory training? A long-time editor commented: "I'm now being treated like an ignorant intern because others made serious technical errors."

Consequences look different

It remains unclear why the editor-in-chief did not involve the experienced researchers from RBB24, but instead left this internal party intrigue to his colleagues in state politics. It also remains unclear why Biesinger, given the driving force behind the "case," felt no interference. The editor in charge had already made a major blunder: On ARD's "Morgenmagazin," she had interviewed the owners of a company at length, calling them model entrepreneurs. She had simply "forgotten" to mention that she held shares in this company. Nevertheless, this editor later reported for RBB from the ARD studio in Warsaw and from the ARD studio in the capital. The consequences are different.

After the scandal became public, editor-in-chief Biesinger visited the victim of the smear campaign, Stefan Gelbhaar, and apologized. Gelbhaar declined, saying it first needed to be clarified whether structural flaws at RBB were responsible for the failure. It appears that RBB has no real interest in addressing these structural problems.

After the disaster surrounding the ousted director Patricia Schlesinger, many RBB employees viewed Katrin Vernau's brief tenure as a temporary high, a kind of thaw. Since former government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer took over, some employees say things are "worse than during Schlesinger's time." And that's saying something.