I'll never read those outlets in the future. Nice when people show they have a blackened heart and devoid of a brain.
post
Well that's surprisingly straightforward.
Small outlets should refuse to sell themselves to rich media owners
FYI: Döpfner is a vile billionaire and Trump lover deep in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry who had a major influence on the premature collapse of the last green/socdem German government. The neolibertairian FDP was an (albeit small) party in the government coalition whose plans to crash the government (named D-Day papers) were leaked shortly before it ended a year prematurely.
Döpfner is the head of the Springer publishing house which diseminates the infamous biggest daily boulevard magazine BILD which drove a relentless two year long smear campaign mainly against the Green party and specifically against the economy minister Robert Habeck and his plans to electrify Germany with solar, heatpumps and green hydrogen. The latter was a success nevertheless as Germany had a record production of renewables when the government crashed eventually.
Leaked messages between Döpfner and Julian Reichelt (a sex pest and then chief editor of the BILD) exist in which Döpfner advises him to empower the FDP via his "journalism" to let the Traffic Light Coalition (Greens, Workers red and neolib yellow) crash. In addition multiple investigative reports were published from independent outlets which prove deep ties between the Döpfner/Springer and fossil fuel lobbying organizations like e.g. KKR or the Koch Brothers.
And oh yeah, to perfect the picture: Döpfners son works for Peter Thiel.
Which again goes to strengthen my points:
we need wealth caps. 10 million networth max and then all your income goes to taxes until you drop below
We need independent journalism. With wealth caps, the government will have all the needed resources to fund independent finance institutions which can pay news organisations for independent news
And to stay on topic, I think Habecks stance on Israel changed quite a bit compared to the old quotes on his wikipedia page after he witnessed the violence of settlers and the destruction of Gaza when travelling to the region:
https://audio.podigee-cdn.net/2370267-m-04879eca6e907e8b5ac81a995c901b28.mp3
(only the introduction is held in German the following interview is held in English)
WAS politici not a neutral trustworthy site? As far as I remember,. anyway?
Doesn't matter, I'll never trust it again now
Nice religious discrimination
Not really, no.
Supporting or not supporting a fascist apartheid state wrapped in a star of David flag might seem to be about religion on the surface, but in reality, it's about fascism, war crimes, and disinformation.
Pretending that Israel is accurately representative of all of Jewdom is an antisemitic trope favored by the likes of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owen, and Nick Fuentes and the number one cause of people across the world going down rabbit holes that lead to the most vile bigotry.
"It is my religious belief that we should not kill each other, especially not genocide" or something. Idk.
80-90% of Jews in modern time are Zionists. Zionism is the accurately representative of modern Judaism. Especially religious Judaism where virtually every present day synaguogue is Zionist.
I'm surprised to have to say this but it seriously sounds like you're pushing antisemitism here. Supposing you're right about 90% of global Jewish people being Zionists; waving away 10% of all Jewish people who disagree is incredibly stupid. That's like 1,500,000 human beings. That's almost half the population of my home state.
You're not an antisemite, are you?
You didn't point out what is antisemitic about my comment at all. Are you saying that 10% is the accurate representation but 90% isn't? Do you get to decide what accurately represents the majority of Jewish views instead of Jews themselves?
You're not an antisemite, are you?
No. That's about right for ISRAELI Jews, not Jews worldwide.
People who happen to be Jewish but don't live in Hasbara Central AREN'T a monolith or anywhere near it and pretending so is an antisemitic trope.
This is a complete lie. You are just lying for Zionism now and calling reality antisemitic.
https://tariqacknickulous.substack.com/p/yes-most-jews-are-in-fact-zionists
Nope. You're basing your assessment of WORLDWIDE Jewry on ONE substack post that references ONE poll of AMERICAN Jewry and even THAT lands 7% short of the lower bound of your ass-pull estimate.
Americans are the second most Hasbara-gaslighted people in the world after Israelis themselves, so assuming that all Jews worldwide are zionist in equal proportion to American Jews is lazy and US-centric at best and antisemitic at worst. Especially based on only one poll that says it's less than the lower bound of what you claim.
In case there's any doubt: I despise the Apartheid colonialist political ideology that is zionism as well as the atrocities committed because of it AND bigotry, which is why I object to non-zionist Jews being lumped in with the Genocide enthusiasts.
This article is much more than one American poll. It shows polling and data for Jews worldwide.
You're undermining to pro-Palestine movement by calling everything and everyone who opposes Israel antisemitic.
You didn't even notice thast the original commenter said the word "religion" and never said the word Jew. To deny that a cult which is committing genocide and mass rape to slaughter a red heifer and bring about a third temply is even a religion and then say it's antisemitic. What?
You might need this article instead https://ofpatmos.substack.com/p/fight-jewish-exceptionalism
You’re undermining to pro-Palestine movement by calling everything and everyone who opposes Israel antisemitic.
The comment you wrote this to not only was not "calling everything and everyone who opposes Israel antisemitic" (it says your characterization of Jews might be), but it actually says "I despise the Apartheid colonialist political ideology that is zionism".
You are undermining the pro-Palestine movement by equating zionism with jewishness.
Everyone needs to know the places they get their news from. They also own Business Insider:
Mathias Dopfner, CEO and major shareholder
Mathias Döpfner (born 15 January 1963) is a German businessman, author, art collector, and journalist. He is the CEO of media group Axel Springer SE and, together with Friede Springer, holds 95% of the share in the company.[1] From 2016 to 2022 he was president of the Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers (BDZV).
Döpfner has been described as a "close associate of Netanyahu" and "one of the most prominent and courageous voices in Europe in the longstanding fight against antisemitism and a staunch supporter of the state of Israel."[29]
In July 2025, Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote that Döpfner's name had been linked to the BibiLeaks scandal, where the alleged leak of a classified document from Netanyahu's office to Bild, a newspaper led by Döpfner.[30]
In October 2025, Döpfner was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor along with Israeli-American GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson by Israeli President Isaac Herzog.[31]
In October 2025, Döpfner wrote an op-ed in Politico accusing European aid to Palestine as having funded terrorism, and writing that by restricting aid to Israel, Europe was on the "wrong side of history".[32] In March 2026, he subsequently wrote a Politico op-ed expressing support for Israel and the United States in the 2026 Iran War.[33]
Company Axel Springer SE
As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names what it describes as "solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America" as one of its core principles on its website.[62] This explicit stance has led to criticism from scholars and independent observers regarding the company's reported alignment with American interests.[63][64][65][66][67] Furthermore, an article in Foreign Policy has criticised Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes, implying a longstanding pattern of bias in its publications.[68]
For English readers, here’s what you can avoid:
Business Insider, Politico, The Daily Telegraph, Morning Brew
Everyone needs to know the places they get their news from.
You mean like how you frequently post from an outlet (this one) that refuses to disclose its ownership or funding source and is widely believed to be funded by the Qatari government? Or is it different when it's you?
Edit: Totally mixed up users. Straight-up my bad.
Wait, you're saying wikipedia is funded by qatar? WTF? I think you're taking some serious crazy pills.
Well yes. I was Qatar the whole time, funding Jibril Wales' government mouthpiece.
Obviously I'm talking about Middle East Eye if you want to be a smarmy, obtuse shithead about it while dodging the concern you have no response to.
Edit: Totally mixed up users. Straight-up my bad.
Talk about swarmy, I've never posted middle east eye as far as I know. Go after OP if you have a problem with it.
Oh, sorry. I was mistaking you for pete_link. There's no good explanation for that; just a total brain fart. Sorry, pele. I have to take the L on that; crow eaten. And I do, for what it's worth, appreciate you calling out Axel Springer. The owner is a massive piece of shit, even if e.g. Politico is quite reliable for US politics. I just saw it as severely hypocritcal because, well, I thought you were pete_link. Because I was being a dumbass.
It's all good, we all make mistakes. I appreciate you owning up.
I deserved worse for this, so I appreciate you giving me more dignity than I gave you. You learn pretty quickly on Qatari astroturf farm Wikipedia to accept that, no matter how hard you try, sometimes you're just inevitably going to be the stupid, confidently incorrect fuckface, and you don't stick around long if you can't adapt to that. You cope with it, I think, by fully internalizing that you have to hold yourself accountable in the same way and to the same standards you expect of others because doing otherwise rots your own behavior, your ability to set realistic, useful expectations, and your position to call out others if you think they've been negligent.
So, no belief in political freedom, or freedom from persecution there.
Hey, maybe we could even forbid people who don't support Israel from owning businesses, smash up their businesses, and make those people wear yellow stars on their clothes, so we can identify them better.
"Freedom of speech" was listed as a core value but apparently not if you use that speech to criticize Israel
Politicians get a lot of blame for our current state but I think journalists are just as culpable.
Professional standards (and human morality) exist for a reason.
I think the journalists themselves are stuck in the same place a lot of us. Working for someone they can’t support morally, because they owe money and need a paycheque, and every place they could move to will likely have the same problem.
The issue is with the owners.
Go examine a journalism course curriculum - they are still pumping out good journos that speak truth to power.
The trouble is media ownership is very much captured by the ultrawealthy, and they appoint editors and department heads that further their personal goals to the detriment of journalism.
Like Bezos spiking stories about billionaires or Trump, ever since he took ownership of the Washington Post. Or Murdoch, since daddy gave him a media empire.
The problem is not individual journalists - it's the media ownership landscape.
As soon as we get to the tipping point and collectively realise the only way to get any chance of having a normal world again, is to rid ourselves of this Epstein Class, he will be one of the first to fall. He virtually has no personal security compared to many of the others.
He insists that loyalty to Israel sits at the heart of the company’s identity
That's just propaganda without the paychecks.
When one of the Pillars of Democracy is subverted the result is the breaking down of Democracy, which certainly explains why most of the West has morphed away from Democracy towards Oligarchy and even further towards Fascism.
Dude must be in the epstein files
Here is a radical thought, how about, now just hear me out, and I know this sounds crazy, but it has worked in the past, how about we just report what is happening, without adding needless additional politics to it?
it has worked in the past, how about we just report what is happening
I'm sorry sir but such a thing does not exist, i fear you must have dreamt it.
Döpfner's publications have never reported on what's actually happening before; why should they start now?
This is a ridiculous idea that no serious journalist abides by. Journalism is inherently political and biased. Just choosing WHAT to report on, when and how prominently, it’s already political. And believe it or not, humans aren’t really capable of ignoring their biases when producing any kind of writing. Even if you try very hard, you won’t see where you’re biased, that’s kind of the nature of biases.
What journalists should do is always be upfront about where they are coming from and where they stand. To not hide behind “neutrality” and “objectivity”. That really doesn’t exist and only makes readers misinformed as they believe the biased reporting of a journalist is objective reality.
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here—not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72
HST's solution to the problem was Gonzo Journalism, and honestly, I think that's been the end result of new media's rise to popularity in journalistic circles. Don't hide behind "objectivism". Instead, embrace the biases and acknowledge them, so that your audience knows where you stand.
Ok, then they’ll just limit what they report to the news that reinforces the worldview they want to cultivate. Even objective facts can be manipulative if used properly.
I don’t understand all of the ass kissing of Israel. I keep reading story after story of the IDF and just normal Israelis going out of their way to be cruel. Like throwing rocks at school children. Or destroying hospitals and houses because they can act with impunity. Or arresting 5 year old kids.
I mean WTAF. Why is this something that should be supported? They are acting like bullies and should be treated as such.
The nation-state is an institution of violence control - how israel is acting is how all countries fundementally are.
Mostly they are bullying behind closed doors, or the bullying stays in a pre-kinetic stage because the risk/reward ratios don't yet recommend large scale killing.
With israel's most important ally, the US empire, controlled by enemies of the US who hasten its demise, Iran having made some real steps towards normalising some international relationships and the israeli population in the grip of rampant bloodlust, there will never be a better time for israel to gain some much need strategic depth by seizing gaza, the west bank and southern lebanon. Like germany starting ww1, israel felt the clock ticking and struck before their window closed forever.
As to why the US still supports this, like all succesful mid-tier states in history, israel has become expert in manipulating the internal politics of the empire to its benefit.
Journalists who want to report positively on Israel should serve six months there first.
If they survive, and are somehow brainwashed into still supporting those scum, are beyond help anyway.
all 20 comments