The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution upgrades the rating, journalists follow: Are the media changing their approach to the AfD?

When Björn Höcke once brandished the national flag on ARD , placed it across his chair, and spoke of his love for his country, he was still an unknown to many viewers. The media also seemed confused. "Confused AfD politician," headlined Die Welt, while n-tv wrote about the "man with the German flag." In October 2015, most people saw Höcke as just a right-wing, rowdy state politician from Thuringia; his party didn't make it into the Bundestag until two years later.

Günther Jauch's talk show sparked a debate about how to deal with the AfD —about whether and how journalists should talk to this party, and whether it should be treated the same way as the CDU , SPD , or Left Party.

Who would have believed at that point that this would still be being discussed in 2025? That the media world would be unsure whether party officials should be invited to talk shows and for interviews? What's particularly astonishing is that a report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, of all things, has caused an uproar in the press. Yet Höcke and his party are now well known, their stance on migration, quotes about "knife-wielding migrants" and "well-tempered cruelties." Major newspapers have conducted extensive research on AfD politicians, networks, and goals. The assessment of an intelligence agency was unnecessary.

AfD: From “suspected case” to “confirmed right-wing extremist” party

Just over a week ago, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution officially classified the entire AfD as "confirmed right-wing extremist." Until then, it had been considered a "suspected case." An 1,100-page report, developed over years, is intended to summarize evidence of the party's anti-constitutional nature. While the document remains under wraps, media outlets took a press release and some published passages as an opportunity to reconsider their reporting. In other words: A largely unknown report from an intelligence agency subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior is shaking journalists' self-image. Yet the media should be skeptical of the state in particular.

The fact that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) is placing the AfD near the level of right-wing extremism is also nothing new. In Thuringia, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD state associations have long been listed as anti-constitutional. Now, the federal party is also being classified by the intelligence agency as a confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor "due to the extremist character of the entire party, which disregards human dignity." The party is defending itself legally; on Thursday, the BfV issued a "commitment to standstill" for the duration of the expedited proceedings – it is not permitted to publicly communicate the classification for the time being. However, the report remains. The legal dispute could drag on for years.

According to Mathias Brodkorb, the upgrade followed a logical line of reasoning . The former SPD state minister from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is an expert on the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, having long followed it critically. The intelligence agency is prohibited from "simply listing a party as a 'suspect case' at will for an unlimited period of time," Brodkorb said. If the suspicion is substantiated, it must be upgraded. If not, that means the end of the surveillance.

Think about it the other way around: Would that be a clean bill of health? A reason for journalists to treat the AfD like other parties? Hardly.

Especially since the decision that the party may be classified as a "suspected case" and subject to intelligence surveillance is not yet legally binding. The Administrative Court in Cologne and the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) of North Rhine-Westphalia have upheld the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's assessment of the AfD. However, the proceedings are still ongoing and are before the Federal Administrative Court. The court is examining an appeal filed by the AfD against non-admission after the Higher Administrative Court denied leave to appeal. The Federal Ministry of the Interior has now burst into this phase of uncertainty by announcing the upgrade. Yet the report had apparently not even been reviewed there.

After Nancy Faeser , the then SPD Interior Minister, announced the upgrade on the last working day of her term in office, some media outlets, journalists, and journalistic unions viewed the report as definitive proof of the AfD's anti-constitutional nature. They demanded consequences for its reporting. Georg Restle, editor-in-chief of the WDR program Monitor, wrote on Platform X: "A decision that must have consequences, including for the public broadcaster. 'Equal treatment' of right-wing extremists violates the program's mandate." Enemies of the constitution should not be given a platform, he argued. "Not in talk shows, not on the 'Tagesschau'."

The German Journalists' Association (DJV) also wants a different approach to the AfD. It calls on "media to adapt their reporting on the AfD accordingly," it said in a statement. Contributions from the party "should not be placed alongside those of democratic parties in political debates without comment," said federal chairman Mika Beuster.

It is no longer enough to simply report objectively and critically.

Journalists need to "readjust their approach to the AfD issue," Beuster told the Berliner Zeitung. "It's no longer enough to simply report objectively and critically. Rather, it's about questioning the goal of reporting on the AfD, even within editorial offices." It shouldn't "just let AfD politicians speak into the microphone and thus set media narratives." Beuster explains: "Scandalizing and emotionalizing may initially promise success in terms of reach in the attention economy – but journalists play a particularly important role in democracy, especially in these times."

The media are already categorizing the AfD's policies, and references to the news agency have been made for years: in reports, interviews, and even editorials in which journalists essentially express their own opinions. Meanwhile, there have been quite different phases in the media's coverage of the AfD. For a while, its politicians were rarely seen on TV, and newspapers generally refrained from interviewing party representatives. They shifted their attention to exposing the AfD's activities.

In recent months, AfD politicians have been seen more frequently on talk shows, such as Maischberger, Miosga, or Lanz, even outside of the election campaign. The idea was to challenge them on their content. Now the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's report could reverse the momentum. This time, it would not be an independent decision, but rather a reaction to the assessment of a government agency.

ZDF: Takes the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s report “very seriously”

There's a natural conflict between the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the media; loyalty to the constitution and freedom of the press clash. This raises the question of what freedom the press grants itself when an intelligence agency undermines it.

In the past, various media outlets have been the focus of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Junge Welt, for example, has been mentioned in its reports for years. In 2023, it was stated that it strives "to establish a socialist-communist social order according to classical Marxist-Leninist principles." The newspaper does not explicitly profess nonviolence. "Rather, it repeatedly provides a public platform for individuals and organizations that advocate politically motivated crimes."

It's not without a certain humor that a conservative politician like Horst Seehofer said he, too, was an enemy of the constitution, if recognizing a "class society" in Germany was enough. Seehofer was Interior Minister at the time. And the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution blamed the newspaper for precisely this diagnosis. Essentially, this is a journalistic reflex: question certainties, not take the state too seriously.