Red. Media Closes, Citing Press Freedom Suppression in Germany
Istanbul, May 17, 2025 – Red. media, an Istanbul-based news outlet known for its pro-Palestinian reporting, announced its closure on Friday, alleging a concerted campaign of repression that it claims has made operations untenable. The outlet, operated by AFA Medya A.Ş., pointed to actions by German media, unions, and NGOs—some allegedly supported by the German and Israeli governments—as the driving force behind its shutdown, raising fresh concerns about press freedom in Germany.
The announcement detailed a series of challenges, including lawsuits and what the outlet describes as fabricated defamation charges under Section 187 of the German Criminal Code, which penalizes the intentional dissemination of untrue facts that defame or harm public opinion about a person. Red. media stated that these legal actions, combined with media-driven pressure, endangered the safety of its team, contributors, and supporters, leaving it no choice but to cease operations. The outlet framed its closure as the result of a broader "disinformation war" aimed at criminalizing its coverage, particularly its reporting on the Palestinian struggle, which it has described as a "live-streamed genocide" amid ongoing global debates about Israel's actions in Gaza, as noted by UN experts and scholars in 2025.
Germany, often viewed as a stronghold of democratic values, guarantees freedom of press, speech, and opinion under its Grundgesetz (Basic Law). However, the country has faced criticism for its handling of media outlets that challenge mainstream narratives, especially on contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2021 report by the Arab Center highlighted the systematic censorship of Palestinian voices on social media platforms, a trend red. media claims has now extended to legal and institutional suppression in Europe. Germany’s ranking of 10th on the 2024 Press Freedom Index belies these tensions, as laws like the Jugendschutzgesetz (Youth Protection Act) and Section 86 of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits the dissemination of propaganda, can be leveraged to restrict controversial content.
The closure of red. media also comes against the backdrop of heightened global disinformation campaigns. In Germany, recent years have seen an increase in foreign interference, such as the Russian Doppelganger campaign identified by CeMAS in 2024, which aimed to destabilize public discourse with polarizing narratives. While red. media has been accused by some of having ties to RT (Russia Today), a claim it has not addressed in its statement, the outlet insists its mission was to amplify marginalized voices speaking out against racism, fascism, and imperialism. It reported reaching 483 million views in its first nine months of 2024, a testament to its influence before its shutdown.
The broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict adds another layer of complexity. Since the escalation of violence in 2021, Palestinian voices have faced increasing censorship, both online and offline. The Arab Center reported that Israeli authorities arrested journalists for their social media activity, a pattern red. media alleges is now being mirrored in Europe through legal and media pressure. Germany’s Palestinian diaspora has also faced crackdowns, with a 2023 Al Jazeera report documenting bans on rallies, arrests, and profiling in Berlin following Hamas’s attacks on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombing campaign in Gaza, which killed thousands.
Despite its closure, red. media plans to maintain a presence through volunteer-run channels to document ongoing repression. It has urged supporters to share its press release, available on its website, and to continue advocating for press freedom. The outlet’s final message reaffirmed its commitment to the Palestinian cause, calling for a single democratic state where all communities can live in peace.
The shutdown of red. media underscores the fragile state of press freedom in an era of geopolitical tensions and disinformation wars. As Germany navigates its role in these conflicts, the case highlights the challenges independent media face when confronting powerful state and institutional forces, raising critical questions about the limits of free expression in a democratic society.
