I have been a great admirer of Herzog's photography for a few years. I have two (both?) of his photography books and look at them frequently. I saw the exhibition of his photographs at the National Gallery in Ottawa last year. He seems to have lead an modest, exemplary, and admirable life and without seeking it has finally achieved a position of great respect in his field. You will see that I am somewhat biased.
In her article, Lederman questions how his unfortunate remark will affect how the world sees him. Had she not decided to make it public, the world would not know that he made it and I do question the value of her doing so. It seems that no sooner had the expression "so-called Holocaust" left his mouth that he began to apologize for it, continued to do so for the rest of the interview, soon withdrew it, and struggled to make amends. Clearly, I believe, from his other comments, he is not a Holocaust denier nor is he an anti-semite . He is another unfortunate who was much hurt by the war and still struggles to understand it.
I had a German friend a few years ago who insisted that the allies had not won WWII, that Churchill was a villain of the first order, and hated all the English. He was a lovely man who liked me very much (though I am English) as I liked him. I came to understood and discount his attitude because he had survived a very difficult war, and he gave me a view of being a survivor in post-war Germany that never emerges from the accounts of the victors.
This was a difficult exchange for both Herzog and Lederman, and to their credit that they struggled to resolve it. I just wish Lederman had kept it as a private discussion, rather than choosing to bring it to public attention. Perhaps that is too much to expect from a journalist, but I see no purpose served her article except to but a black mark, in a happy stage of his career, on the reputation of an admirable man.
Trevor