Yesterday, the German federal state of Saxony-Anhalt held its state election, delivering a historic result. For the first time, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) won a state election, with 43.8 per cent of the vote. Germany’s 16 federal states hold their elections independently of federal elections, although the results are often closely watched for indications of the national political mood.
The AfD’s Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified by the state’s domestic intelligence service as a confirmed right-wing extremist organisation. The party fell short of an absolute majority, however, leaving the formation of the next state government unresolved.
The result has attracted unusual national and international attention. Beyond its political significance, it also brings a difficult communications dilemma into focus: how should established media cover a party with significant electoral support without simply providing another platform for its messaging? And how much does that gatekeeping role still matter when political actors can increasingly reach audiences directly through social platforms? These questions go well beyond Germany.
There is a well-known media dilemma at the heart of the current debate: how much do established media need to cover a political party to fulfil their obligation to inform, and where does reporting end and amplification begin? There are no easy answers, and arguably no single right answer either.
Recent examples show just how difficult this can be. Ahead of the election, ZDF’s children’s news programme “logo!” interviewed the lead candidates from both the CDU and AfD. The decision led to a debate over whether giving this access to a politician representing a party branch classified as confirmed right-wing extremist was appropriate, or whether this was precisely part of public-service media’s obligation to inform and educate. ZDF defended the decision on the latter grounds.
Germany’s leading news magazine Der Spiegel faced a similar discussion after putting AfD candidate Ulrich Siegmund on its cover and describing him as “Germany’s most dangerous man”. The magazine defended the decision based on his political relevance. Siegmund himself, however, called the cover “very good advertising”, shared it with his followers and later signed copies. It is a good example of how even very critical coverage can be repurposed by the person it is about.
I should be clear that personally I see the outcome of the election as deeply concerning. But that doesn’t make the media question any simpler. There is still an important difference between reporting on the AfD because it is politically significant and giving it another platform for its messaging.
But are we actually focusing on the right gatekeepers? HORIZONT, Germany’s leading media and marketing trade publication, has described an emerging “AfD media world”, where politicians can build substantial audiences and communicate directly through social platforms. If established media deny airtime, does the conversation disappear, or does it simply happen elsewhere, with less journalistic scrutiny and context? And where does the responsibility of the platforms themselves start when visibility is shaped by algorithms, moderation policies and engagement?
These discussions also no longer stop at national borders. The platforms are international, and political developments can very quickly become part of an international communications environment.
For comms leaders, exchanging perspectives across markets therefore matters, not because the political situation is the same everywhere, but because much of the communications infrastructure increasingly is.
Political developments can quickly become employer reputation issues, particularly for international companies competing for talent. Many international technology companies in Germany already struggle to find skilled workers. Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch recently warned that German companies depend on exports, international talent, foreign investment and political stability. For companies recruiting internationally, that means paying attention not only to how Germany is perceived, but to the reputation of the particular cities and regions where they operate.
Another important point is the relationship between facts and perceptions. Migration was seen as one of the most urgent problems in Saxony-Anhalt ahead of the election, although the state has a comparatively low proportion of people with a migration history. This does not mean facts do not matter. Quite the opposite actually. But quantitative research can show us what people think without necessarily explaining why they think it. Local, qualitative insight, from customers, media, sales teams or other stakeholders, can help make better sense of the data and should inform how communications teams respond.
This is particularly important because the information environment itself is becoming more international. Platforms, media and narratives cross borders, while perceptions are still very local. Comms teams therefore need to exchange perspectives across markets, while also listening to people on the ground who understand what actually resonates locally and why.
And there is one final point I think is important: organisations cannot always choose to be apolitical. Germany’s Glücksgefühle Festival recently tried to keep politics offstage by dropping Alphaville – a German band whose members have been outspoken in their opposition to the AfD – from its line-up. What followed was public criticism, an apology from the organisers and even more political statements from other performers. Companies do not need to comment on every political development. But they should know what they stand for – and where their red lines are – before they are publicly tested.
With more state elections on the way in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the next few weeks, and similar political developments playing out in France, the UK and elsewhere in Europe, more organisations are likely to find themselves facing these questions, whether they choose to engage with politics or not.
Silke Rossmann is Managing Partner at Tyto. With more than 15 years of communications experience, Silke has carved out a specialism consulting technology companies working in the IT services and infrastructure market.