When Martin Gak, an Argentine-Jewish journalist who spent nearly a decade within the corridors of Deutsche Welle (DW), wanted to discuss Israeli government policy, he claims he had to do it in whispers.
“What kind of madness is it that, as a Jew, you need to go into the dark corners of the corridor to criticise Israeli policy?” Gak recalled in an exclusive talk with TRT World in November.
He alleged he was told in “no uncertain terms” that because DW is a German organisation, criticism of Israel is strictly off-limits, effectively equated with anti-Semitism.
Gak is not alone. Germany’s publicly funded international broadcaster is facing an escalating wave of scrutiny.
A combination of leaked documents, landmark court rulings, and whistleblowers paints a troubling picture of an institution accused of systemic editorial bias, a “culture of fear”, and deep-seated double standards.
Cost of dissent
The internal climate at DW reportedly hardened significantly during Israel’s Gaza genocide.
According to current and former employees, staff members who questioned the broadcaster’s staunchly pro-Israel editorial line were threatened with “professional consequences”, which Gak noted was understood by all to mean immediate dismissal.
These threats were not theoretical. In 2021, DW launched a high-profile investigation into its Arabic service over historic social media posts, resulting in the sacking of several journalists.
Among them was Palestinian-Jordanian reporter Farah Maraqa.
However, the broadcaster’s disciplinary actions suffered a major legal setback in 2022 when a Berlin labour court ruled that Maraqa’s dismissal was unlawful and ordered her reinstatement.
For critics, the case exposed a harsh institutional bias against Arab and Palestinian voices.
The broadcaster’s internal mandates later became public when editorial style guides and code of conduct documents were leaked.
The papers revealed that journalists were explicitly forbidden from using terms like “apartheid” or “colonialism” in relation to Israel, vocabulary routinely deployed by international human rights organisations and legal experts.
Furthermore, staff were required to champion Israel’s “right to exist” not just in their professional output but in their private lives.
