Above all, the possibility of asking such questions anonymously should be abolished!
Even if the way of reporting – if you can even talk about it in the “picture” – does not suit me at all: no!Even though Julian Reichelt has been editor-in-chief since then, the style of the Bildzeitung is again moving more in the direction of attack: the abolition or banning of a newspaper is unconstitutional.
Article 5 (1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states: “Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and film are guaranteed.There is no censorship.”
This sentence of the GG refers to the lawful acquisition and dissemination of information, thus is the protection of the organisational processes in obtaining and disseminating information.According to the current legal opinion, freedom of the press is dependent on the presence of a printed product. The legal position of online media has not yet been finalised.
The content of printed products, radio and television programmes and films is affected by freedom of expression, which is expressed in Art.5 abs. 1 sentence 1 is written down.
When it all u.a. information, the Bild newspaper has often been in a grey area.See, among other things, the book Aufmacher published by G眉nter Wallraff after an undercover activity as “Bild” reporter Hans Esser in the Hannover editorial office, as well as the follow-up volumes ” Witnesses of the Prosecution – The BILD description continues ” and ” Image Disturbance – The image manual up to the image failure“.However, there have never been any reasons which would have justified a ban or even the abolition of the ‘image’ even in the most remote way. Nor does the question arise in that regard.
Banning or abolishing a newspaper only because of the admittedly often debatable coverage and its nature would be a first step on the way to a totalitarian state.