The three speakers from the partly right-wing extremist party outdo each other in their criticism: After the ZDF mistake, there is a “meltdown of public broadcasting”, they have “seen the Relotius system at work”, the journalists at the station are “agitprop specialists” and “heralds of the powerful”. With a smug undertone, the AfD wants to convey that public broadcasting has now shown its supposed true face.

When it comes to AI criticism of ZDF, the AfD is on thin ice

This doesn’t work for two reasons:

• On the one hand, because the other speakers from the CDU to the Left criticize ZDF for its mistake and how it deals with it, but defend themselves against general media criticism.
• On the other hand, because the AfD is on thin ice when it comes to dealing with AI videos.

The Green MP Sven Lehmann demonstrates this using an example from Baden-Württemberg. The AfD in Göppingen campaigned in 2024 with an artificially created “Dr. Stefanie Müller” – without labeling. There are similar cases of fictitious AfD fans again and again.

Question from AfD MP backfires

The second case, which both Lehmann and SPD politician Holger Mann address, comes from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. There, AfD member of the state parliament Martin Schmidt recently had a video generated with Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig, which was intended to disdain the SPD politician.

An AfD member of parliament doesn’t want to let this go and asks an interjection during Mann’s speech, which is more of a defense speech: The state parliament member labeled the video as AI-generated, and the SPD man is therefore spreading “fake news” with his criticism.

But that also backfires: SPD politician Mann explains that the video itself was not labeled at all and that the reference to artificial intelligence was hidden in the text of the post. Instead of recognizing a mistake and deleting the video, the AfD is now calling it “satire”.

AfD strategy “hard to beat in terms of hypocrisy”

“What would be the benefit of democracy and our public in the country if you were to apply similar standards when assessing your own media work to those that apply to public broadcasting here,” Mann shoots against the AfD. Their strategy is “hard to beat in terms of hypocrisy.”

The AfD does not have to be measured by journalistic standards like ZDF, and the speakers in the Bundestag do not demand that either. But they make it clear that it is just as dangerous for democracy when parties use artificial intelligence irresponsibly.

It is no coincidence that CDU MP Ottilie Klein looks into the ranks of the AfD when she says: “We see every day that fake or edited media is used to spread false information in order to divide society and defame individuals or groups.”

Spotlight on the AfD methods

Almost all speakers point out that the AfD is hardly interested in the lessons learned from ZDF’s mistake at the moment, but rather has a larger agenda. This is how left-wing MP David Schliesinger analyzes: “The AfD is trying, hidden behind legitimate criticism of individual cases, to cast doubt on the credibility and independence of public broadcasting.”

At this point in the debate it becomes clear: the goal of discrediting public broadcasting will not be achieved. Instead, the discussion in the Bundestag highlights the AfD’s own questionable methods.