7 ms·

That's the law, yes, but when it was written there weren't private TV networks. Therefore, it needs to be updated. I'm not saying there shouldn't be culture per

by cm3 10y ago

That's the law, yes, but when it was written there weren't private TV networks. Therefore, it needs to be updated. I'm not saying there shouldn't be culture per se, but the amount of money spent in the networks is disproportionate to the positive effect it has these days. Say they spent the money on mobile apps and websites, then maybe it would be more contemporary-appropriate. The main issue isn't with the 18 EURO per month, it's how it's used. If they cannot use it appropriately, it should be at least cut back so that it's just 5 EURO per month. One could argue that technologically we could and probably should easily replace most of the programming with something that requires paid-for access keys. That way, one can reduce the mandatory part to a bare minimum while still allowing those who want it to get rest of the content. Then the argument would be that it has to be accessible by everyone, though with that argument you could say analog TV may not be turned off as long as there is still one analog TV set around. I'm glad that Germany doesn't force a church tax or alternative payment to some similar org like Finland or many other nations do. At least one bug that doesn't exist in Germany.

Xylakant 10y ago
> That's the law, yes, but when it was written there weren't private TV networks The version I quoted is from the 2013. Private TV and radio existed by then. It has been reworked and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations. > I'm not saying there shouldn't be culture per se, But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post) > but the amount of money spent in the networks is disproportionate to the positive effect it has these days. [citation needed] A lot of german tv shows and niche content would not be produced if not for the public broadcast. They also produce a lot of stuff I consider waste, but that's my personal opinion, others may like it. I dislike opera and dance theater as well, but meh - it's still state sponsored as are other cultural venues that I do frequent and others may abhor. Funding culture is a wasteful process per se. The alternative is privatization of culture, so that mainly culture survives that either appeals to a large enough part of society or to a private wealthy donor. > One could argue that technologically we could and probably should easily replace most of the programming with something that requires paid-for access keys. That way, one can reduce the mandatory part to a bare minimum while still allowing those who want it to get rest of the content. Then the argument would be that it has to be accessible by everyone, though with that argument you could say analog TV may not be turned off as long as there is still one analog TV set around. This is contrary to the idea. The whole mandate aims at having a broadly and freely accessible canon of news, educational and cultural media that reflects as much of our society as possible.
- cm3 10y ago
  > The version I quoted is from the 2013. Private TV and radio existed by then. It has been reworked Figured as much based on some of the text. > and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations. Yeah, I never understood why someone like RTL would be opposed to ARD or ZDF's online content. the only explanation I got was that they want to limit where the content is available how and see it as a competition, otherwise why would they be the cause for only limited time online availability of publicly funded videos. I wonder how it's handled with BBC's iPlayer and if they also have an expiry date demanded by private media. > But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post) I know, though I don't consider the content cited here culture, and I may be wrong about that, yes. My interpretation of the cultural aspect is to preserve and document the genuine culture of Germany so that it's visible to Germans and foreigners alike. Stuff like game shows or soaps are pretty much the same globally, so there's nothing interesting German-culture-wise in them. In the past cultures used to be very different but with globalization and the massive reach of Hollywood I'd say culture has been homogenized in popular content to more than 95%. Legally speaking, though, you're right.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    > Yeah, I never understood why someone like RTL would be opposed to ARD or ZDF's online content. the only explanation I got was that they want to limit where the content is available how and see it as a competition, otherwise why would they be the cause for only limited time online availability of publicly funded videos. I wonder how it's handled with BBC's iPlayer and if they also have an expiry date demanded by private media. RTL is owned by Bertelsmann, which owns roughly every media company in Germany.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  My problem is that they are competing with private companies. Operas are state-sponsored, because they cannot compete in a free market and would die. But there are plenty of soap operas on private networks, too. We would not lose anything if they would stop producing those. Same with sport events. I think the private networks are right: It is unfair and wasteful to create a state-sponsored entity, which has an ridiculous amount of funding and can therefore out-compete private companies, which would create the same service.

by cm3 10y ago

Xylakant 10y ago

> That's the law, yes, but when it was written there weren't private TV networks The version I quoted is from the 2013. Private TV and radio existed by then. It has been reworked and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations. > I'm not saying there shouldn't be culture per se, But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post) > but the amount of money spent in the networks is disproportionate to the positive effect it has these days. [citation needed] A lot of german tv shows and niche content would not be produced if not for the public broadcast. They also produce a lot of stuff I consider waste, but that's my personal opinion, others may like it. I dislike opera and dance theater as well, but meh - it's still state sponsored as are other cultural venues that I do frequent and others may abhor. Funding culture is a wasteful process per se. The alternative is privatization of culture, so that mainly culture survives that either appeals to a large enough part of society or to a private wealthy donor. > One could argue that technologically we could and probably should easily replace most of the programming with something that requires paid-for access keys. That way, one can reduce the mandatory part to a bare minimum while still allowing those who want it to get rest of the content. Then the argument would be that it has to be accessible by everyone, though with that argument you could say analog TV may not be turned off as long as there is still one analog TV set around. This is contrary to the idea. The whole mandate aims at having a broadly and freely accessible canon of news, educational and cultural media that reflects as much of our society as possible.

cm3 10y ago
> The version I quoted is from the 2013. Private TV and radio existed by then. It has been reworked Figured as much based on some of the text. > and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations. Yeah, I never understood why someone like RTL would be opposed to ARD or ZDF's online content. the only explanation I got was that they want to limit where the content is available how and see it as a competition, otherwise why would they be the cause for only limited time online availability of publicly funded videos. I wonder how it's handled with BBC's iPlayer and if they also have an expiry date demanded by private media. > But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post) I know, though I don't consider the content cited here culture, and I may be wrong about that, yes. My interpretation of the cultural aspect is to preserve and document the genuine culture of Germany so that it's visible to Germans and foreigners alike. Stuff like game shows or soaps are pretty much the same globally, so there's nothing interesting German-culture-wise in them. In the past cultures used to be very different but with globalization and the massive reach of Hollywood I'd say culture has been homogenized in popular content to more than 95%. Legally speaking, though, you're right.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  > Yeah, I never understood why someone like RTL would be opposed to ARD or ZDF's online content. the only explanation I got was that they want to limit where the content is available how and see it as a competition, otherwise why would they be the cause for only limited time online availability of publicly funded videos. I wonder how it's handled with BBC's iPlayer and if they also have an expiry date demanded by private media. RTL is owned by Bertelsmann, which owns roughly every media company in Germany.
allendoerfer 10y ago
My problem is that they are competing with private companies. Operas are state-sponsored, because they cannot compete in a free market and would die. But there are plenty of soap operas on private networks, too. We would not lose anything if they would stop producing those. Same with sport events. I think the private networks are right: It is unfair and wasteful to create a state-sponsored entity, which has an ridiculous amount of funding and can therefore out-compete private companies, which would create the same service.