Comment: During the Corona pandemic, the ARD journalist poisoned the unvaccinated, now she speaks out for Dobrindt

Public broadcasting journalists are moving to ministries, and former correspondents are becoming government spokespeople. This speaks against the independence of the media. A commentary.

Career jump: ARD journalist to become spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI). Manfred Behrens/imago

Journalists are increasingly moving from public media to government positions—a process that is not without its problems from a democratic perspective. The latest case: Sarah Frühauf, a longtime correspondent in the ARD capital studio, is now set to become a spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of the Interior ( BMI ).

Frühauf worked for public broadcasting for over a decade – now she is moving directly to a ministry whose work she previously covered as a journalist.

How independent is journalism in Germany?

This development raises fundamental questions: How independent is journalism when its staff is potentially pursuing a political career? How critically can someone report on political actors when they could be their own bosses tomorrow?

A look at other personalities makes it clear: Frühauf is not an isolated case. Stefan Kornelius , former political editor of the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), recently became a spokesman for Chancellor Friedrich Merz . During the coronavirus pandemic, Kornelius, among others, repeatedly advocated for mandatory vaccination and sharply criticized the unvaccinated. This creates the impression that precisely those who argued for the government in times of crisis are the ones who later rise to government positions.

Sarah Frühauf also sparked public debate in November 2021 with a commentary on the "Tagesthemen" program. In light of rising coronavirus infection rates, she said: "Well, thank you very much to all the unvaccinated." She spoke of a lack of social solidarity and put forward the unsubstantiated thesis that higher vaccination rates might have prevented further restrictions.

According to Frühauf, unvaccinated people should also ask themselves what responsibility they bear for the high number of deaths. The comment was pointedly worded – and exemplifies a communication style that often left no room for critical or dissenting views during the pandemic. Instead of open debate, moral attributions dominated in many places.

In retrospect, many things appear in a more nuanced light. Contrary to earlier claims, the mRNA vaccines did not prove to be reliable protection against infection, nor were they free of side effects. The social divide, exacerbated by 2G/3G regulations, professional bans, and public blame games, was real and further fueled by the tone of media communication. To date, there is no comprehensive scientific assessment of the extent to which such measures—especially the restriction of fundamental rights—were actually proportionate and effective.

All this makes the question all the more urgent: How credible is a government that states in black and white in its coalition agreement that it is fighting “hate and incitement” when at the same time it surrounds itself with spokespeople who have themselves contributed to social polarization in the past?

Little hope for a serious investigation into the Corona crisis

The political investigation into the coronavirus pandemic has so far been patchy. Questions about mask deals, vaccination campaigns, vaccine side effects, and contractual terms with pharmaceutical companies remain unanswered. The coalition agreement contains no mention of a systematic investigation into this historic period. The fact that individuals who acted at the time without any discernible distance from the government's position are now supposed to serve as the government's mouthpiece requires explanation.