Talk:Axel Springer SE

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2016

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sponsored by CIA

I can't find hard evidence that the Alex Springer SE was allegedly founded with the help of the CIA. Additionally, the CIA was founded in 1947, a year after Alex Springer started his publishing house. Thus "In an interview with The Nation, two former CIA officers testified that shortly after founding the company, Axel Springer received 7 million dollars from the CIA to support American geopolitical interests with his publishing house" is already factually incorrect. The TAZ source is an admittedly left-wing news paper, which I wouldn't trust with foreign politics/historical reporting, especially when it's done in a side section two years after the start of a war (Iraq) that Germany's left was heavily in opposition to. Axel Springer is reviled by Germany' left, and rightly so in many regards, so there might be some bias at play here.

This paper questions the allegations: "At least until 1955 the British carefully observed Springer’s ac-tions in the print market – his new foundings like the daily “Hamburger Abendblatt” or thetabloid “Bild” as well as the development of the publishing house’s editorial stance. Thoughthey did not applaud each step he undertook, they did approve of his general line. His sup-port of Konrad Adenauer was as appreciated as was his promotion of democracy, freedomand christian principles. It never occurred to them that he might further German principlesonly, but to the contrary they pointed out how well his attitudes matched British ones.56The positive evaluation was also shared by American authorities. American approval wasso obvious that again and again rumors were spread about a CIA-financing of the Axel SpringerVerlag at least in its early years.57 There is no confirmed evidence that such a financing everdid take place" (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/ghi_12/www.ghi-dc.org/conpotweb/westernpapers/kruip.pdf , page 27)

I think it's a pretty explosive claim that likes to be circulated on conspiracy-minded websites, but there's no evidence that it happened. Saying "well how else should they have gotten the money" is not evidence. That being said, the publishing house does seem to be very pro-American in its news reporting (which plenty of other newspapers are as well by the way, without being financed by the American government). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.131.112 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

First, the article does not propose that there is "hard evidence". For many allegations about the CIA and other intelligence agencies, there is no "hard evidence" due to the nature of their work. In many cases, there exists only whistleblowers and circumstantial evidence. As such, I made sure to attribute all allegations to the sources that make them. In this case, the sources are reputable newspapers and journalists who verified the identities of the whistleblowers. Hence, the allegations can be included on the page as long as they are properly attributed.

Secondly, the TAZ merely cited The Nation, a reputable American magazine. As far as I know, there is no bias of The Nation towards the Axel Springer SE. The TAZ itself is a reputable German newspaper. The TAZ being pro-environment and more socially progressive than some other newspapers has no effect on their reliability. They have received numerous journalistic awards and are not a tabloid, and them citing The Nation has no effect on the allegations published by The Nation.

Thirdly, the CIA being founded a year after Axel Springer SE does not preclude them from giving money to Springer in the 1950s. The original wording ("shortly after") may have indeed been too imprecise, so I will give the specific time frame in the edit (1950s).

Finally, the paper you linked is related to the first point I addressed. It is indeed hard to come by "hard evidence" when dealing with the work of intelligence agencies. However, whistleblowers have made those allegations, which have been published by reputable newspapers. As such, it is fine to include them on this page so long as it is made clear where those allegations come from. The main sources being quoted here are reputable newspapers and academic publications, hence the allegations can be included with proper attribution.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Browser plugin lawsuits

I wonder if there should be something about all the frivolous lawsuits Axel Springer has filed against browser plugin publishers.

• Court hands adblock startup Eyeo victory against Axel Springer
• German supreme court rejects ad-block challenge
• eyeo wins landmark copyright court decision; protects digital rights and sets important legal precedent for who ‘owns’ HTML

GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have problems with the "attacks" section

The section in its entirety reads, "In the 1960s and 1970s, the company was targeted by a number of left-wing groups during the public opposition. It was denounced by German-American writer Reinhard Lettau in an incendiary speech at the Freie Universität Berlin; in 1968 their Berlin headquarters was blockaded by students; in 1972 the Red Army Faction claimed responsibility for six bombs placed in the Hamburg building (only three exploded and 17 people were injured) and in 1975 a bomb exploded in their Paris office, the "6th of March Group" (connected to the Red Army Faction) claimed responsibility.

The only source is www.baader-meinhof.com which can't be regarded as an RS. (Also the link to a specific page there doesn't work anymore.) Any relevant historical events that can be properly sourced should, instead, go into the relevant decade in the history section (which indeed already mentions some of this material). Novellasyes (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Novellasyes (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)