Journalism in democratic societies is not limited to delivering news. Breaking the silence, holding powerful institutions accountable, and demonstrating responsibility on behalf of the public are indispensable duties, especially when human rights and democracy are at stake. Tilo Jung’s journalism exemplifies this function by bringing a critical perspective to the safe spaces and routine questions of mainstream media. At press conferences, technical details and aesthetic discussions often take centrestage; Jung, however, uses his questions to test the democratic accountability of institutions and prestigious organisations.Jung and his journalismBorn in 1985, Tilo Jung is an independent journalist, podcaster, and the founder of the political interview programme ‘Jung & Naiv’. After leaving traditional media institutions, he created his own platform, hosting politicians, journalists, and thinkers. His guests have included figures such as Peer Steinbrück, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald. Jung’s journalistic practice stands out particularly for questioning the comfort zones of conventional media briefings. While many programmes rely on routine, superficial questions to relay information, Jung uses his inquiries to expose institutional inconsistencies and test democratic responsibility.Unlike traditional media approaches that rarely challenge the positions of state officials or major institutions during press conferences, Jung actively draws the audience into the discussion. Through his YouTube channel and podcast, he broadcasts his questions directly to the public, compelling political actors and institutions to be accountable, vividly demonstrating the democratic function of independent journalism.In his podcast Aufwachen!, which he hosted from 2015 to 2020 and then from 2022 to 2024, Jung conducted long-form, in-depth political analyses, transforming seemingly simple questions into instruments of democratic accountability. In this sense, Jung emerges not only as a journalist who asks questions, but also as a media critic who challenges conventional broadcasting norms.The question at BerlinaleAt the opening press conference of the Berlin International Film Festival in February 2026, Jung posed a question that broke the silence of the European cultural sphere:“While Berlinale has expressed clear solidarity with the war in Ukraine and the protests in Iran in the past, why does it not demonstrate similar clarity when it comes to Palestine? Considering that the festival is supported by German public funds, and that the German government strongly supports Israel in the context of Gaza, how does the jury assess this ‘selective human rights’ approach?”Luckily Reuters recorded my question and the answers by Berlinale jury president Wim Wenders and jury member Ewa Puszczyńska to it https://t.co/VOBXf8xzSN (starting around 11:10 min) #Berlinale2026— Tilo Jung (@TiloJung) February 12, 2026This question reflected a direct, accountability-driven approach rarely seen in conventional press settings. Jung challenged not only the jury but the festival itself to take a position. In essence, his question asked: Can art be politicised, or is politics applied selectively? Through the examples of Ukraine, Iran, and Palestine, he exposed what he viewed as a double standard within Europe’s claim to universality.Jung continued to question the political responsibility of artists.I asked actor Neil Patrick Harris about political art at #Berlinale today. He didn’t want to engage and said: “I’m always interested in doing things that are apolitical”. pic.twitter.com/9yBn3fTCn4— Tilo Jung (@TiloJung) February 13, 2026He asked American actor Neil Patrick Harris how his films might respond to the rise of fascism in Europe and the United States. Harris preferred to describe himself as “apolitical” and shifted the topic. Following Jung’s questions about Palestine, journalists’ right to ask questions was significantly restricted in subsequent sessions; only two questions were permitted, and the moderator posed their own. Jung criticised these limitations, drawing attention to press freedom and once again emphasising the importance of questioning the democratic responsibility of cultural institutions.The democratic impact of journalism and chain reactionsJury president Wim Wenders argued that art should not function as a direct political actor. Polish producer Ewa Puszczyńska stated that artists are not obliged to take a position in every crisis.In response, Turkish director Emin Alper, who participated in the festival with his film, countered:“It is impossible to completely separate art and politics. In Palestine, in Iran, and in our own country, politics is a matter of life itself. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate art from life or from politics.”Jung’s question made the debate visible and ignited an international chain of reactions extending beyond the jury.After the jury’s statements, the discussion did not remain at the level of theoretical disagreement. Booker Prize–winning author Arundhati Roy withdrew her participation from Berlinale, stating that she could not be complicit in the silence surrounding Gaza. Jung’s question thus compelled not only the jury but also an internationally renowned writer to take a position, creating a ripple effect that carried the debate far beyond the confines of the press conference.Tilo Jung’s journalism stands as a vivid example of democratic responsibility in action. His question did not remain isolated; other journalists followed with inquiries framed in a similar spirit. The political consistency of cultural institutions became open to scrutiny. The claim that art is entirely apolitical is unconvincing—especially in large cultural organisations funded by public resources. If cultural policy is already an extension of politics, then refraining from taking a position is itself a political stance. What unfolded at Berlinale was a moment of reckoning for Europe’s cultural sphere with its own claim to universality.If human rights are truly universal, their application must be universal as well. Otherwise, solidarity ceases to be a principle and becomes a preference. And we know very well that preferences are always political.Yasemin Giritli İnceoğlu is a communication scholar.