# Podcast Legal Battle Over Journalistic Duty and Fact-Checking Podcaster Ben Berndt challenges media authorities over requirements to correct guest misinformation. - **Source:** [taz](https://taz.de) - **Published:** 2026-11-12 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/3467f46a-7efe-4c1c-9783-0237d354b889 ## The Core Legal Dispute Podcaster Ben Berndt has filed a lawsuit against the Landesmedienanstalt NRW at the Cologne Administrative Court. The conflict centers on whether podcasters must actively correct false statements made by interview guests. Berndt argues his show is casual conversation, while regulators classify it as a journalistically edited telemedia offering under state law. ## Origin of the Conflict In May, Berndt hosted AfD politician Björn Höcke for a four-hour interview, which garnered 6.8 million views on YouTube. Regulators later issued a warning, claiming Berndt violated journalistic due diligence by failing to challenge Höcke’s false claims regarding the SA. The authority noted that Berndt had sufficient time to provide necessary context. ## Regulatory Stance and Action The Landesmedienanstalt NRW concluded its review in September, formally identifying a breach of duty but opting against sanctions. They argued that public discourse eventually provided the missing context. Despite the lack of penalties, Berndt is suing to overturn the finding of a duty violation, fearing it sets a restrictive legal precedent. ## Media State Treaty Framework The case relies on the 2020 Media State Treaty, which mandates journalistic due diligence for telemedia, including podcasts. Section 19 requires truthfulness and respect for personal rights, while Section 109 empowers regional media authorities to enforce these rules. Berndt’s legal team contends this oversight unfairly discriminates against podcasters compared to traditional newspaper journalists. ## The Question of Correction Current legal standards generally require journalists to correct their own factual errors. However, there is no established precedent forcing journalists to correct or distance themselves from third-party statements made during interviews. The Landesmedienanstalt is attempting to enforce a stricter standard, potentially redefining the responsibilities of all digital content creators in Germany. ## Defense of Press Freedom Berndt’s lawyer, Nikolaus Steinhöfel, argues that imposing a duty to comment on or correct guest statements infringes upon press freedom. He maintains that no general obligation exists to challenge interviewees. The defense suggests that the regulatory oversight mechanism itself is an unconstitutional burden on independent digital media producers operating in the public sphere. ## Statistical Context of Oversight Since November 2020, the NRW media authority has issued only 38 warning letters regarding journalistic due diligence, leading to just two formal proceedings. The rarity of these actions suggests this case is a significant test for regulatory reach. It remains unclear how many previous cases involved the specific issue of guest misinformation. ## Broader Industry Implications This legal battle holds fundamental importance for the future of digital journalism. If the court upholds the regulator's view, it could mandate a new, rigorous standard for fact-checking in conversational media formats. Podcasters and digital creators across the country are watching closely to see if their editorial autonomy will be legally restricted. ## Sources covering this story - https://taz.de/Podcast-ungeskriptet/!6229353/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._