On January 3, 2026, a key connection of Berlin’s power supply caught fire on a cable bridge over the Teltow Canal, causing a power outage in the southwest of the city amid wintry temperatures. Up to 45,000 households and thousands of businesses were affected. Investigators suspect a politically motivated arson attack on critical infrastructure, perpetrated by the far-left. The Federal Prosecutor General has since classified the act as a terrorist attack. However, media coverage has largely focused on the power outage and its consequences, with little mention of the perpetrators or the motives behind the attack.
A harmless label distracts attention from the perpetrator
Many media outlets initially focus on the term “power outage,” making the event appear as if it were a technical malfunction. This term draws attention to repair plans and technical problems, even though the cause was a terrorist attack.
Even official crisis communication speaks of a “disruption.” The word fits the logic of a malfunction, but it obscures the core issue: Someone attacked critical infrastructure. Those who adopt this terminology also set the tone. Many reports focus on emergency shelters, hotel costs, heated rooms, diesel for generators, and cell broadcast warnings. This is important, but it doesn’t replace a debate about the perpetrators. The question “Who did this – and why?” is conspicuously often relegated to a side note.
Why is the response so subdued, even though the situation is so serious?
Many readers are now forming a sensitive interpretation: Newsrooms are hesitant to use the word “terror” because it suggests a possible connection to left-wing extremism. This suspicion stems from the contrast between official classifications and media headlines.
Meanwhile, foreign media often use more direct terms like “far-left attack” or “terror probe,” placing the perpetrator category more quickly in the spotlight. Euronews, Sky News, and CBS clearly describe the incident as an extremist-motivated attack on the network, and Reuters quotes the political warning about “left-wing terrorism.”
When speculation overshadows the act
But instead of discussing perpetrator structures and security strategies, part of the debate in Germany quickly shifted to a Russia theory. CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter even publicly linked it to right-wing extremist groups, while the Berlin police rejected this, reportedly calling it “fake news.”
Nevertheless, this evasion has an effect: those who shift the debate to “Putin” avoid discussing left-wing extremist strategies, target selection, and the logic behind the attack. This further diminishes the focus on the perpetrators, even though it is precisely this question that defines the political core of the issue.
The Grid Operator as a Scapegoat
Meanwhile, some reports are also focusing on the protection of the facilities, and the tone quickly shifts toward operator responsibility. The argument is that power line routes are publicly known, creating vulnerabilities. Stromnetz Berlin does indeed provide grid data as open data, and the state of Berlin also maintains corresponding datasets.
However, pointing to transparency is no substitute for analyzing the perpetrators. In practice, this focus even acts as a diversionary tactic: Instead of discussing perpetrators, motives, and structures, the grid operator is suddenly thrust into the spotlight, as if it bears partial responsibility because power line routes and grid data are publicly available. This linguistically shifts the blame, and the terrorist attack loses its impact. Following the attack, associations like the BDEW (German Association of Energy and Water Industries) are calling for a reassessment of disclosure obligations, and international trade publications are also addressing this conflict. Nevertheless, the debate remains convenient because it focuses on rules, transparency, and responsibilities instead of consistently addressing the perpetrators and their motives.
Precise language is a safety factor
When the media uses “power outage” as the primary label, they unintentionally downplay the political violence in people’s minds. Therefore, this trivialization doesn’t seem neutral to many, but rather like a cultural divide: In the case of left-wing extremist acts, it’s more readily labeled a “disturbance,” while other groups are more quickly labeled “terrorism.”
This raises an uncomfortable question: Is the issue being downplayed in Germany also because suspicions point to the left? When an act is described as a “power outage” instead of a terrorist attack, the motive remains invisible. And without a motive, political responsibility remains abstract. (KOB)