Skip to main content
  1. Blog/

The Filter Request

Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, 03 May 2026. Christian Drosten, Director of Virology at the Charité, speaking with forester and author Peter Wohlleben:

“I do believe that professional quality assurance is very important — in publishing, journalism, film and podcasts.”


What He Is Asking For
#

A “desired filtering effect” — not “suppression through pressure,” but filtering nonetheless. He sees “no other way than to intervene in this manner.” Implementation should come from within the profession itself. Financially supported: sources deemed quality-assured.

YouTube, he says, has quality assurance “completely suspended.”


What He Says at the Same Time
#

On criticism of his COVID policy:

“It is in principle not relevant.”

“A small part of the press tried to attack me as a person.”

Drosten is not neutral on what good journalism is. He has a specific experience of it — and a specific opinion about which reporting counts and which does not.


The Open Question
#

Who sits on the professional body?

He does not say. “Professional quality assurance” requires a profession that agrees on criteria. Whoever sets those criteria decides what counts as quality — and what does not.


What the Profession Has Produced
#

During the pandemic, German media published Drosten’s statements predominantly as dpa wire copy: taken verbatim, without independent context or counter-research. That is the standard practice of German quality journalism.

Criticism of Drosten’s statements came from formats operating outside the professional body: YouTube channels, podcasts, newsletters. Formats that compared sources, cited protocols, named contradictions.

Those are precisely the formats whose quality assurance, according to Drosten, is “completely suspended.”


The Finding
#

Drosten calls for a filter. The standard is to be set by a professional body. He simultaneously declares criticism of his own work “not relevant.”

This produces a circle: whoever controls the filter decides what passes through it. Whoever classifies critics as “not relevant” already has a picture of what the filter should block.

Who quality-assures the quality assurance — that the interview does not answer.


Sources: Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin (03.05.2026); Berliner Zeitung (05.05.2026); Apollo News (04.05.2026).

Related

Three Sentences, Two Courts, No Final Judgment: What the Correctiv Rulings Actually Say

Two months after the Berlin II Regional Court’s ruling against Correctiv, two versions of the same story are circulating. In one, a “painstakingly constructed edifice of lies” is collapsing, prizes must be returned, the democracy rallies were propaganda. In the other, Correctiv has won “a victory for press freedom” and the investigation stands.

ARD After ZDF: When It Rains, It Pours

··618 words·3 mins
Two Weeks, Two Broadcasters, Two Scandals — German Public Broadcasting in Free Fall # The dust had barely settled on the ZDF debacle — an AI-generated fake video in the flagship news programme “heute journal”, complete with a whistleblower hunt — when the ARD followed suit. Not with a technical error, but with a misrepresentation recycled for 15 years.

ZDF and the Whistleblower: When the Messenger Becomes the Enemy

Germany’s public broadcaster demands whistleblower protection – as long as it doesn’t affect their own network There are moments when institutions expose themselves so thoroughly that all you can do as an observer is sit back in disbelief. Germany’s ZDF just delivered one such moment – a double one, at that.