So what is the answer to the question how a German Newspaper became the go-to place for leaks like the Paradise Papers? The article doesn't explain anything. It just states what happened as a list of totally unrelated things.
> Obermayer told me that his source for the Panama Papers, whom he refers to as John Doe, had tried to get the attention of several large international outlets, including a U.S. paper, before he got in touch with him. “The leaker didn’t say, ‘Here’s the biggest leak in history, are you interested?’ ” Obermayer said. The first documents that John Doe offered him were not journalistically compelling, at first glance. But Obermayer recognized that they had come from Mossack Fonseca, which he knew operated in extreme secrecy. “I thought, If somebody has obtained data from inside Mossack Fonseca, this could be really interesting,” he said. Knowing the implications of the firm’s name, Obermayer speculated, may have been why he ended up with the Panama Papers.
He asked a question at a press conference to the effect of "there are a lot of rumours you are corrupt, do you have any comment?" - but his motivation to ask that question wasn't that he expected a good answer. Rather, he was advertising his interest in the story to anyone who had info they'd like to leak. And just like that, he starts getting tips and leaked documents.
Süddeutsche Zeitung is in a similar position. By handling previous leaks well they've advertised several things: (a) They have the knowledge to recognise the importance of such documents, (b) they consider such content within the remit of their paper, (c) they won't bury the story out of fear of the rich and powerful (or on the advice of a risk-averse legal team) and (d) they can do an adequate job of OpSec and source protection.
For a leaker, the choice between Süddeutsche Zeitung and Teen Vogue is obvious.
E.g.: Focus on investigative journalism - << After publishing the Panama Papers, in 2016, Krach declared Der Spiegel’s monopoly on investigative journalism in Germany over. Part of this push, he said, arose from the need to secure the future of the paper. “The only strategy to survive in the long run in this very complicated and economically difficult environment is that we have to differentiate ourselves from others, so that people can find in our newspaper something they cannot find anywhere else,” Krach said.>> And then further arguments: Success with the Panama papers, etc. etc.
Now you at least know why the New Yorker didn't.
Joking aside: Probably because they did a good job with the Panama Papers. So it's a mix of strategic investment in investigate journalism and a bit of luck.
[0]: https://projekte.sueddeutsche.de/paradisepapers/politik/die-... [1]: http://www.tagesschau.de/
EDIT: I just saw, they made more stuff available to the public, yet the concrete pieces on people using the system are paywalled.
because in Germany the coalition bartering takes precedence at the moment (where, like the election of the catholic Pope, every tiny signal is massively amplified to keep the buzz going), and it doesn't exactly help that Trump spews out new nonsense every other day, and the neo-nazis from the AfD can be counted upon to do the same if there is nothing newsworthy at the moment...
And the AfD is actually a major part of the problem - they have shifted the discourse from "ultra rich vs poor" to "everyone against Muslims/refugees" pretty successfully and that's shame enough.
Your analysis is on the point, but I believe that the AfD is more of a symptom and not much of a cause.
https://www.thelocal.de/20170705/german-investigators-pay-5-...
Since they won't do it...
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/paradise-and-panama-papers...
It's not perfect, but it's a place to start.