The Berlin Insider’s Club: A Night of Secrets and Whispers

On the evening of February 2nd, the exclusive Capital Club in Berlin hosted a birthday reception for Harald Christ, a prominent entrepreneur and politician. The guest list was a who’s who of Berlin’s elite, including politicians, cultural figures, business leaders, and media personalities.

As the guests arrived, Christ addressed them with a request: the conversations held that evening were to remain confidential. This was not merely a request for privacy but a condition for creating an atmosphere where open and honest discussions could take place.

Such events are commonplace in Berlin, albeit rarely as high-profile as Christ’s reception. Journalists regularly attend press breakfasts and similar gatherings, where politicians gossip freely about their colleagues and rivals. The unwritten rule is that the journalists partake but maintain silence. This practice has earned the moniker "unter drei" (among three), referring to the understanding between the journalist, the source, and the silence that binds them.

The journalist enjoys the perks of the gathering while forming their own opinions. One might argue that this amounts to the corruption of the "system press" or, conversely, a necessary aspect of journalistic research. Both perspectives hold some truth.

The Benefits of "Unter Drei"

Proponents of "unter drei" argue that it allows journalists to gain valuable insights into the inner workings of power. Politicians feel more at ease and are more likely to share their true thoughts when they know their words will not be repeated outside the room. This can lead to exclusive stories and a deeper understanding of political dynamics.

Moreover, proponents argue that "unter drei" helps to foster trust between journalists and their sources. By respecting the confidentiality of off-the-record conversations, journalists build relationships that allow them to access information that might otherwise be unavailable.

The Ethical Concerns

Critics of "unter drei" raise concerns about its ethical implications. They argue that it creates a double standard, where off-the-record conversations are privileged over on-the-record statements, which are subject to scrutiny and accountability. This can undermine the credibility of journalism and create a perception that journalists are beholden to their sources.

Additionally, critics argue that "unter drei" can be used to manipulate the media. Savvy politicians may use off-the-record conversations to plant favorable stories or deflect criticism, knowing that their words will not be repeated. This can lead to a distortion of the public discourse.

Conclusion

The practice of "unter drei" is a complex and controversial one. It offers both benefits and ethical challenges. While it can provide valuable insights into the corridors of power, it also raises questions about the integrity of journalism and the public’s right to know.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual journalist to decide whether the benefits of "unter drei" outweigh its ethical concerns. However, it is crucial that journalists approach such conversations with transparency and accountability, ensuring that the public understands the nature of their reporting and the sources of their information.