DHe Norddeutsche Rundfunk has finished reviewing the films produced for the station by journalist Hubert Seipel. The Report by the former “Spiegel” editor-in-chief Steffen Klusmann, who was responsible for this states that no Russian money flowed into Seipel's productions made for NDR. But there was “misconduct on the part of the freelance author”. Seipel should have told NDR that he received money from a Russian oligarch. At NDR and ARD there was no evidence that “those involved in the production knew about the Russian payments or even benefited financially from them.” The accusation that Seipel had the portrait “I Putin” “approved” by the Kremlin before it was broadcast was also not confirmed. The NDR did not ignore warnings because there was no “concrete and reliable warning”.
600,000 euros from the oligarch
In November 2023, research by the “Cyprus Confidential” project revealed that Seipel received 600,000 euros in 2018 from the Russian oligarch and Putin confidant Alexei Mordashov through a shell company. The money was intended to serve as “sponsorship” for a book project. The book was published by Hoffmann and Campe, who have since taken the work out of circulation but are not commenting further on the matter. Hubert Seipel has now admitted that this “sponsorship” existed and that he also received one in 2013, with a six-figure sum.
He did not receive any money from Russia for his films, says Seipel when asked by the FAZ. When he last contacted ARD in February 2022, shortly before the start of the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine, to offer an interview with Putin, he had not received it before Kremlin contacted. “There was also no fee in the 'prospect' or 'a production contract'. There was no sponsorship for films or interviews,” says Seipel.
Who was Klusmann talking to?
This corresponds to the findings that Steffen Klusmann and NDR legal counsel Michael Kühn gained: There was no direct flow of money from Russia and no one knew about Seipel's oligarch deal. Klusmann found this out in discussions with more than 40 people involved. Klusmann did not want to reveal who exactly he was talking to. Editorial responsibility at NDR during the period in which Seipel was producing – the Putin portrait in 2012, the Putin interview in 2014 after Russia invaded Crimea – was Patricia Schlesinger, who was later terminated without notice as RBB director; The producer was Ulrich Lenze with the NDR subsidiary Cinecentrum.
Even if no money flowed directly, suspicion could have been raised at NDR. As Klusmann says, Seipel's fees were above average, he always registered his projects directly with the bosses, and during his film work it was noticeable that the Kremlin reimbursed him for material costs: helicopter flights, accommodation, meals. The author and producer would actually have to justify themselves to the commissioning broadcaster.
“Bribery through proximity”
Seipel, according to NDR, was “accessible to bribery through proximity”. Because of exclusive access to Putin, he lost the necessary distance. No breaches of duty have been found among NDR employees, but one has to admit that Seipel has been “courted too much over the years and not critically questioned enough”. The NDR sees no reason to take legal action against the production company; it does not consider it promising to take action against the author Seipel.
The journalist's financial construction was a little more sophisticated than the NDR could have proven direct bribery. The “sponsorship” from Russia could be seen as a financial framework agreement for Seipel’s overall work in films and books in which he spread Putin’s narrative.
The former Moscow correspondent of Deutschlandradio, Gesine Dornblüth, who asked NDR for journalistic expertise on Seipel, comes to a clear conclusion: “In his films and interviews,” Seipel “adopted positions of Putin and the Russian power elite without being critical of them question – even though the information for a critical classification was available before the release of the respective film. These films became “particularly sensitive” because “the Kremlin used them extensively for self-reflection.” Seipel “allowed himself to be abused or used”.
#NDR #presents #test #report #Hubert #Seipel