Therapists Filed Formal Complaint on Unethical ZEIT Publication
Three of our colleagues filed a formal complaint to Die Zeit on their “False memory” publication in November last year. Although the large German newspaper did not respond, no further publications on the topic have appeared since.
Ellert fully supported the efforts of Ingrid Autenrieth-Novak, Gernot Lauber, and Dr. Dagmar Brunner in writing the complaint. Below is the formal complaint letter. We sincerely thank Ingrid, Gernot, and Dagmar for their dedication—not only on behalf of their colleagues, but also for the patients affected.
We hope this serves as a reminder to keep holding journalists accountable and to correct them whenever they engage in inaccurate or unethical reporting.
Note, the letter has been translated to English using ChatGPT. Read the original letter of complaint here. Kirande has highlighted parts for your convenience.
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are submitting a formal complaint regarding the article “Erinnerst Du dich? Gefangen in Scheinerinnerungen” [“Do You Remember? Trapped in False Memories”] in ZEIT Verbrechen, No. 35, 2025, and ZEIT Online from 14 November 2025. We have identified a number of journalistic and ethical issues in this piece that we believe violate the ethical and moral guidelines of journalism and the Press Code, and that require thorough review.
Ideally, a special format such as ZEIT Verbrechen and ZEIT Online, which originates from the ZEIT publishing group and the parent brand of the weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT, would discuss how therapists and patients can best handle reported memories of traumatic events. One would expect that, like the weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT, they are committed to the ethical and moral standards of journalism, which include truthfulness and accuracy, due diligence, and objectivity (both factual and balanced).
However, this article violates these journalistic principles. It reads more like an undeclared opinion piece than factual reporting and is presented in a sensational manner in both text and images. Even the cover page suggests preconceived notions about therapists, particularly trauma therapists.
One key criticism in the article is the claim that therapists act suggestively to the detriment of patients. Yet here, the journalists themselves are highly suggestive. What empirical evidence supports their claims? How can one know a priori that a reported memory is false? What evidence exists that trauma therapists act inappropriately or suggestively?
“Therapists should neither uncritically accept a client’s first report of unverified abuse as fact nor dismiss it prematurely. However, a strictly neutral stance can lead to a lack of therapeutic honesty and transparency, insufficient promotion of reality testing, and failure to take the necessary step of bearing witness to the client’s victimization. (…) Carefully developing and communicating the reflective belief of the treating therapist regarding the (in)validity of the traumatic experiences can help clients (a) regain an integrated personal narrative and identity, (b) correct cognitive distortions, or (c) both.”
— van der Hart, O., & Nijenhuis, E. R. S. (1999). Bearing witness to uncorroborated trauma: The clinician's development of reflective belief. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.1.37
The crucial point is that there is no reliable empirical evidence that therapists are trained to reflexively believe traumatic memories. Therefore, the claim made by journalists and others that therapists are trained to act uncritically and suggestively has no foundation. In this way, they commit exactly the error they accuse therapists of making.
Do they not bear responsibility for possible negative consequences for patients who have experienced extreme violence and who must fear that they will not be believed or that their memories will be dismissed as false?
Despite many problematic and incorrect statements, we have chosen to focus on only a few particularly critical points. Here, bias, lack of accuracy, lack of objectivity, and failure to exercise due diligence are particularly serious. The article does not focus on individual therapists or patients (which might be a fair critique), but instead makes general statements: (trauma) therapists, institutions, and associations act harmfully, and patients reporting severe violence are portrayed as suggestively influenced, acting, or lying, and are assigned a diagnosis that supposedly does not exist. To support this, only well-known critics of dissociative disorders (F. Urbaniok, S. Niehaus) are cited—who, however, are not specialists in trauma-related disorders. Recognized experts, such as W. Voigt or E. Nijenhuis (who also appear in Liz Wieskerstrauch’s film), are neither mentioned nor consulted.
The diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is referred to by forensic psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok—who is given a prominent place in the article—as “a product of psychiatric imagination.” He claims that in all his years of work as an expert on sexual offenders, he has never encountered a case of DID. The phenomenon that one does not see or recognize what one does not know—or does not want to recognize, because acknowledging it would have consequences—is not only a problem in psychology, but is found worldwide.
It also raises the question of whether knowledge should be based on opinions (Urbaniok, Niehaus in the article) or on scientific standards (outlined below):
The diagnosis of DID has been included since 1980 in the DSM-III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and in 1990 in the ICD-10 of the WHO, and has been further refined in subsequent editions (DSM-V and ICD-11). The chapters of the ICD, for example, are prepared by WHO expert committees with high-level scientific and clinical expertise, undergo review by global professional societies, and are finally authorized by the WHO. Can this be considered sufficiently reliable?
People perceive that their “self” changes over life and across situations. Significant life events particularly make one aware that the “self” before is different from the “self” after. One could also describe the self as a fragile outcome of ongoing actions. Some people have the ability to split their self to live otherwise unlivable lives—for example, because overwhelming life events (emotional neglect, abuse, violence, physical neglect/violence, and/or sexual violence) or external events (e.g., accidents, natural disasters) render them powerless, dependent, and without adequate support. In the simplest division, there is a “self” that lives a normal life and a “self” connected with the unbearable, unintegrated trauma. In its most extreme form, this is Dissociative Identity Disorder (a simplified description; see Nijenhuis, E.R.S., 2018, Die Trauma-Trinität: Ignoranz – Fragilität – Kontrolle, Vol. III).
This division of the self into dissociative parts is hard for many to imagine, often ignored, denied, or rejected, although there is now substantial evidence on structural and functional brain levels and psychophysiological levels proving DID is a genuine disorder. Studies and meta-analyses (see below, selection) demonstrate DID is genuine and refute the so-called “sociocognitive model” (which claims patients are imaginative, acting, or suggestively influenced, as suggested in the article). Again the question arises: should knowledge be drawn from scientific studies, or should it continue to be denied, ignored, and attacked because it contradicts previous assumptions?
Blihar, D. et al. (2021) A meta-analysis of hippocampal and amygdala volumes in patients diagnosed with dissociative identity, European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(5) – meta-analysis providing neuroanatomical evidence for DID as a genuine disorder.
Nijenhuis, E.R.S., & Den Boer, J.A. (2009) Psychobiology of Traumatisation and Trauma-related Structural Dissociation of the Personality, in Dell, P.F. & O’Neill, J.A. (Eds.), Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and beyond, pp. 337–367.
Reinders et al. (2012) Fact or Factitious? A Psychobiological Study of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Identity State, PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39279 – comparing DID patients, control group, and trained actors simulating DID: significant differences in regional cerebral blood flow and autonomic responses, refuting the sociocognitive model and supporting the trauma model.
Vissia, E.M. et al. (2016) Is it trauma- or fantasy-based? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controls, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 134, 111–128.
Nijenhuis, E.R.S., & Reinders, A.A.T.S. (2012) Fantasy proneness in dissociative identity disorder, PLoS ONE 7(6), e39279.
Reinders, A.A.T.S. (2014, March) Neurostructural correlates of trauma and dissociation: A magnetic resonance imaging study in PTSD and DID, in Trauma, dissociation, and attachment in the 21st Century: Fourth Bi-annual International Conference of the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation, Copenhagen.
Furthermore, there is the question of how to handle memories of violence in therapy, particularly when these memories are decades old. Such memories are not “forgotten,” but “post-traumatically avoided.” The “Mnestic Block Syndrome” refers to active, though not consciously reflected, avoidance of traumatic memories (Markowitsch, H.J., & Staniloiu, A., 2025, Dissociative amnesia – A valid construct for repressed memories, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 30, 5–21).
Highly trained therapists are required who are critically aware of their responsibility to believe empathetically while also questioning, and who are capable of guiding these severely affected patients according to therapeutic guidelines toward healing. We are aware that some therapists do not meet these quality standards. The article illustrates that some therapists assume from the outset that traumatic memories reported by persons with dissociative disorders are false, or that dissociative (identity) disorders do not exist.
Nevertheless, one cannot conclude from individual treatment errors that:
The disorder does not exist, and
There are no treatments that meet the proper standards.
“One can no longer rely even on DIE ZEIT and its ‘offshoots’ as quality media – they jump on the same bandwagon and report in the same one-sided and sensationalist way as others before.” — an extremely disappointing conclusion after reading the article.
We expect that you return to balanced, professionally researched reporting and that, as editors-in-chief and publishers, you fulfill your duty to uphold the ethical and moral standards of journalism—especially given that a continuation of the series in ZEIT Verbrechen has been announced.
We kindly request a written response within 14 days regarding your editorial assessment and any intended measures.
We remain available for any questions.
Sincerely,
Ingrid Autenrieth-Novak Gernot Lauber Dr. Dagmar Brunner