The "Republik" lets Roger Köppel and Daniel Ryser, the Köppel biographer, discuss. The microphone is running, and the result is a detailed podcast. This is how I imagine the still young medium: different forms, exciting content, controversial debates. A gain for the media landscape.
And now the second level: the article can be commented on by paying readers, who are also publishers at the "Republik". I quickly notice that the vast majority do not share my enthusiasm. For example, they spain rcs data say that "someone like Köppel" should not be given another platform, and what's more, they should not even perceive him as a person. "Can you tell me why I am now confronted with the nauseating Köppel in real life at the "Republik"?", they say, among other things.
As usual, the editorial team is taking part in the reader debate. Will they immediately defend the freedom of journalism? Well, not really. The reactions are in an apologetic tone. One of their journalists writes that he also wondered why Köppel was being given another voice, but "populists lose their sparkle when they are demystified." Aside from the wordy bludgeon, all of this almost sounds like a justification. The only thing missing is the note that this will definitely remain a one-off exception.