Talk:Süddeutsche Zeitung

Old talk

@Intangible: Don't you think there's an objective difference between a boulevard magazin and a quality newspaper? And where's the pov in labeling the two biggest german newspapers as "influental"? With the article Frankfurter_Allgemeine you did the same change; maybe you want to discuss this first? Leclerq 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Germans largest daily?

"making SZ the largest daily published in German" is not correct, the largest daily with 3.8 Million copies sold daily is Bild-Zeitung. --213.61.179.82 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the circulation figures in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.58.151 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung's editorial stance

The article currently describes the paper as "liberal". Does this indicate "liberal" in the sense used in Germany, as in supporting the centre-right Free Democratic Party, liberal in the European sense, or liberal in the Anglophone sense of being moderately centrist/centre-left?--Autospark (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO it is liberal in the Anglophone sense and therefore the appropriate word for the context. Update: just reviewed a recent copy .. yes, as I wrote. Steipe (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Subscription daily"

What is the difference between a "subscription daily" and any other kind of daily? This term is not used in the UK or in the US. Luwilt (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WAS SOLL DENN DIESES WOCHENENDE-KOMMENTARSPERRE-THEATER?!?

Perfide Zensur ebenso wie Veröffentlichung erst nach Sichtung bzw. Zensur, wenn einem der Kommentar nicht passt. Außerdem gibts einen Denunzier-Knopf (petzen!), der ja eigentlich wegen der Vorzensur überflüssig ist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.72.216.232 (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversies on coverage of Israeli/Jewish topics

According to [1] there have been several controversies on the paper's coverage of Israeli and/or Jewish topics... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Origins and Backing of Süddeutschen Zeitung

Given the release of the Panama Papers, the connection between Süddeutschen Zeitung and the US Military is going to need to be heavily scrutinized.

Let's examine the facts of this leak to get an idea of why the history of Süddeutschen Zeitung and its connection to the US Military is so important.

The Panama Papers, we are told, were leaked anonymously by a hacker, a year ago, who claimed to want nothing in compensation. This is a suspect motive in today's ego-driven world. And the fact that not one single American official or figure is mentioned seems too coincidental to not be considered.

IF this is a targeted leak, surely it targets everyone but the United States of America. And the lack of American names in the documents, according to what we are told (we do not actually have a copy of these documents, so we cannot know if there are no US names, or if we aren't going to know if there are US names in the papers), makes it clear that if it were a targeted attack, it would have to have been perpetrated by American interests.

This is too important a question to be ignored. The history and connections to the US Military and other American interests must be revealed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.254.63 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016‎

A web portal or

Hallo, what is Sued-café that is mentioned in the article? 176.11.187.226 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first issue

German durch keinen Gewissenszwang geknebelt was translated as nor gagged by constraints of conscience. This sounds like "we won't write in accordance with our consciences", as if one's conscience was a tyrant, felt to be comparable to the "censorship" in the previous clause. Now, I don't speak German, but for what I can make out of my source, Gewissenszwang means "external pressure to act against one's conscience". So it's the lack of freedom of conscience that was viewed as tyrannical here, not the conscience itself. Perhaps this could be nicely rephrased. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Category

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%BCddeutsche_Zeitung&type=revision&diff=1062455355&oldid=1062437365

There is no reason to remove categories based on the content provided in the article and from the source. Even if SZ is a center-left media friendly to the Social Democratic Party, SZ is a clear left-liberal media. (Even if the term "liberalism" in Germany usually means classical liberalism, the category itself is not inappropriate.) --Storm598 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose to add the categories "Social democratic organizations" and "Liberal organizations". First newspapers are no organizations but companies. Secondly. the SZ is independent and even if occasionally seen as leaning towards liberal or social democrat stances, this can not be generalized as viewpoint of the whole paper. Thirdly, liberal in German has a complete different meaning as liberal in eg the US. The German page cites just a "left-liberal" and " a little bit left of center", not more. It is generally daubtful to overcategorize an independent lead media. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I know that the term liberalism in German has a different meaning than liberalism in the United States. However, being different does not necessarily mean excluding social liberalism. In Germany, the concept of liberalism encompasses both center-right and center-left. Frankfutter Allgemeine Zeitung is a right-wing liberal-conservative media, and Süddeutsche Zeitung is a left-wing liberal-progressive (or liberal-socialist) media. (In Europe, liberal socialism usually refers to moderate social democracy.) We should understand that "liberalism" in terms of media orientation and "liberalism" in terms of political party orientation are completely different. --Storm598 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Liberal-socialist is a term completely unknown in Germany and is estimated as a contradiction in itself. The changed category "liberal media" seems ok for me. The category "social democratic media" is still a nogo, since the SZ publishes also oppinion articles supporting the green party and liberal positions.Nillurcheier (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The term "Linksliberalismus" also means social liberalism, but it also means liberal socialism. Karl Popper is a representative figure. Of course, this is not very important to this Talk, so let's move on.--Storm598 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit that it is ambiguous to see SZ as a social democratic media. I will remove the "social democratic media" category!--Storm598 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)