This is a non-story launched originally by Cicero, a center-right magazine incapable of basic reading comprehension. That higher-quality publications just regurgitate it instead of actually doing their journalistic duty is appalling.
Can you elaborate on where this article goes wrong other than citing a 'center-right magazine'? I did look a bit deeper into the shenanigans around the 'atomausstieg' and think is a good thing that the 'higher-quality publications' (?) are picking up on this.
Short: look at the message, not at the messenger. Doing the latter is often a sign of a lack of arguments against the former.
It's clever phrasing. You may generally assume they the boss won't see every piece of paper, Cicero suggests that it's true in this case. It's a fairly safe suggestion, because what single person sees all the paper?
The most relevant minister immediately went public and stated that he had a paper trail showing that he had seen everything relevant. I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest that if Cicero didn't know about that paper trail, its knowledge of what happened was... limited.
Replying to myself: I translated badly there. "Process" is much better than "see". And the minister replied to say that everything was read, evaluated and processed properly, and the paper trail to prove it is in proper shape.
Cicero suggested that something was suppressed, leaving the user to make an incorrect conclusion. The shadiness of that suggestion remains, even with the proper translation.
reply