Criticism of Eralp interview grows after question and answer were removed

What was removed from the authorized version

According to the available information, the interview itself had already prompted criticism. Among other things, there was discussion over whether Der Spiegel was permitted to quote a private note from Eralp and portray Helmut Schmidt as a security risk in connection with Schleyer’s abduction.

Tagesspiegel commentator Schabernack directed this criticism explicitly at the magazine. In his commentary, he asked: „Hätte der Spiegel aus einer privaten Notiz zitieren und ihn als Sicherheitsrisiko anprangern sollen?“ In doing so, he objected both to the use of the private document and to the pointed portrayal of Helmut Schmidt.

Criticism of a private note

The headlines about the interview circulated more widely on social media in recent days. However, given the limited evidence available, it remains unclear how many posts there were, which platforms they used, and what reactions actually came from their respective authors.

The removal of the question and answer about Ibrahim Ibrahim is another part of the controversy. It raises the standards of transparency expected of Der Spiegel’s editorial work, because according to the information available, the authorized interview version is not identical to the version originally published. The magazine’s explanation of the reasons is not included in the verified facts.

The matter is relevant to Berlin’s left because Eralp is treated in the reports as a favorite for mayor and in connection with the SPD and the Left. However, the facts do not establish what specific political position she expressed in the interview or who first publicly criticized the deleted passage.

Political dimension and open questions

The debate follows two separate questions. One concerns the role of private notes and the portrayal of the security risk surrounding Helmut Schmidt. The other concerns the editorial and legal assessment of a question and answer about Ibrahim Ibrahim that are missing from the authorized version.

Further information would be needed for a robust assessment. This includes the full interview text, the exact wording of the deleted question and answer, Der Spiegel’s explanation of the censorship or modification, and confirmation of which private notes Eralp had used and in what form.

Until then, it can be said that the pointed portrayal and use of private records were criticized independently of the question about Ibrahim Ibrahim. It is also clear that, according to Der Spiegel’s statement, the authorized version contains neither the question nor the answer about Ibrahim Ibrahim.