Germany’s No 1 living legend is someone we haven’t seen in public for more than 10 years. His name still sells newspapers, though, regardless of whether the headlines are true. Spoiler: they’re not, but that doesn’t stop them from rolling in.
I’m talking about Michael Schumacher, or rather Schumi (pronounced Shoomee), who set records for the most F1 titles and Grand Prix race victories until Lewis Hamilton caught up in 2020.
There has been no real news about Schumacher since 2014, when he was moved out of hospital to his shielded estate overlooking Lake Geneva in Switzerland, after a life-threatening head injury from a skiing accident. At the time, his longtime spokesperson and manager, Sabine Kehm, said he had “made progress in recent weeks and months in line with the severity of his injury, but there is still a long and hard road ahead of him.”
That was the last substantial statement on his health. The Schumi info policy since then has been: no info, except to deny falsehoods. The family have also adopted a zero-tolerance strategy, suing anyone who invades their privacy.
Sometimes, the invasion of privacy accusation can be a bit strained. Many celebrities in Germany and elsewhere gladly use the press or social media to sell their personal lives to the public, creating an image they can monetise. Once reporters find information contradicting this carefully crafted reputation, however, it suddenly becomes a private matter.
In other cases, most notably Schumi’s, the public interest argument doesn’t count. The public may be interested – but as there’s no wrongdoing, no hypocrisy to unveil, no saying one thing and doing another, even his most concerned and devoted fans aren’t entitled to a nano-newsfeed unless the Schumacher family wishes to share it.
And they don’t, because they fear any statement would only fuel the demand for more. Every bit of hearsay about his life, no matter how insignificant or made up, increases the frenzy.
Hence, the number of former companions allegedly allowed to visit Schumacher boils down to two: engineer Ross Brawn and former director of Ferrari Jean Todt. Not an overreaction, considering that hospital staff had been bribed and a reporter even dressed up as a priest to try and see him.
Most German media, for ethical or compliance reasons, accept that they may never get an update.
Others just can’t hold back the ink. Even you Brits, seasoned “Freddie Starr ate my Hamster” media consumers that you are, may be surprised at headlines like: “Christmas miracle! Schumi can walk again”. A glossy mag claimed this in 2015 and was hit for €50,000 (£42K) in damages.
In 2016, a women’s mag called Die Aktuelle ran the headline: “He isn’t among us any more. When will the family finally break their silence?” That cost them €100,000 (£85K) in damages.
In other cases, it was unsuccessfully (and cynically) argued that Michael Schumacher, due to his assumed condition, couldn’t actually be harmed by such violations of his rights – so why pay compensation?
The most recent bogus front page was in 2023, from Die Aktuelle again: “Michael Schumacher. Welt-Sensation! THE FIRST INTERVIEW!” And the caption inside said: “In an interview, he answers questions for the first time since his skiing accident. But was that really our Schumi talking?” Sorry to have to break it to you: it wasn’t.
It also wasn’t Schumi saying: “My life has completely changed”, “There was always the desire to see my kids continue the tradition”, “My daughter turned her hobby into a profession” and “It’s easier with the right family backing you”.
So who was the interview with, if not Schumi? Well, Die Aktuelle asked an AI model to answer as if it were him. They then not only published the “answers”, but also implied that the Schumacher family might have fed the algorithm their preferred responses.
After an outcry the publishers, Funke, apologised, paid €200,000 (£170K) in damages and sacked the editor. A natural consequence, you may think. Munich judges thought otherwise. Last week, they ruled in favour of her Kündigungsschutzklage (wrongful dismissal lawsuit). Their court’s reasoning is compelling: the mag had already published so many tall stories, the judges said, how could the editor have known she was going too far?
Good point, and yet it’s no reason to rejoice that labour law beats trust in the media.
