4 ms·

In Germany, part of the problem is that old media lobbying has successfully prevented a reasonable (text based) internet presence of public broadcasting... Som

by dukoid 6y ago

In Germany, part of the problem is that old media lobbying has successfully prevented a reasonable (text based) internet presence of public broadcasting... Some Google-translated coverage: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndr.de%2Ffernsehen%2Fsendungen%2Fzapp%2Fmedienpolitik%2FDer-letzte-Text-der-ARD%2Cardvsverleger102.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

antibuddy 6y ago
Public broadcasting in Germany is no better than private media. In fact most topics are reported the same and even the opinion is the same. But even ignoring this, it is a big problem that publicly funded media is in direct economic competition with privately funded media. This is exacerbated by the official entertainment mission (Unterhaltungsauftrag[1]) and the usage of advertisement. [1]: https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/Rundfunkstaatsvertrag_RStV.pdf https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rec... in §11
- seesawtron 6y ago
  Why is the public funded media in direct economic competition with private media? Because the public funded media IS directly funded by the taxpayers. I can imagine they have a "popularity" competition in terms of viewership and so on but why economic? Can you elaborate please?
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    Say you read ten articles every morning. With no public option, you read ten private articles. With a public option, you would still read the same number of articles each morning, but every time you read a public article, some private organization loses a tiny bit of revenue. Worse still, imagine you are a paying subscriber to some private newspaper. If the public option has very high quality coverage, you may find that you no longer need your private subscription.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > If the public option has very high quality coverage, you may find that you no longer need your private subscription. Or regardless of the quality of the public option, you may find that you can no longer afford your private subscription. The public option isn't free, after all—just pre-paid with no ability to opt out—and you may not be able to afford two such services. Other cases where public services "compete" with private providers (e.g. toll roads) suffer from the same problem: You don't get to choose between paying for the public option and paying for the private option. You're either paying for just the public option, or for both, even if the private option is all you want or need.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I'm German. Public broadcasting, including ARD/ZDF but also countless of local radio station is without a doubt significantly better in quality than BILD/RTL or other private tabloid media, and it's one of the reasons the country still has by and large a shared reality when it comes to political discussion. I don't think that they also provide entertainment is in any way problematic, because entertainment is part of a cultural offering that should be accessible by everyone. I don't really see the competition issue here, just like the BBC they produce content, which is fine. Has to be said though in quality it doesn't really measure up to the BBC, but you can try to claw Tatort from my dead hands
  - FabHK 6y ago
    Agree wholeheartedly. And I'd like to add that there is by no means a uniform opinion propagated. For example, the ARD (one of the major public broadcasting networks) hosts both the rather left-leaning "Monitor", and the more conservative "Report aus München". However, as you highlighted, they share a common understanding of the world, and therefore Germany doesn't suffer extreme polarisation. (I'd argue that the fringes, as seen with the anti-lockdown demonstrations in Berlin recently, are actually sustained by newfangled social media.) Links (German only, sorry): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(Fernsehmagazin) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(Fernsehmagazin) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_München https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_München
    - deltron3030 6y ago
      >I'd argue that the fringes, as seen with the anti-lockdown demonstrations in Berlin recently, are actually sustained by newfangled social media. My impression was that they were mostly older people (50+), and from their style of clothing I could tell that they were mostly poor people, maybe people who got wrecked by Hartz4 reforms in the 90s and early 2000s, and grew a deep hate on German politics and the mainstream. Fringe social media groups and conspiracy nuts just take advantage of pre-existing hate.
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    "[...] and it's one of the reasons the country still has by and large a shared reality when it comes to political discussion." Shared reality is quite a cynical word and is a reminder just how bad it really is. "I don't think that they also provide entertainment is in any way problematic, because entertainment is part of a cultural offering that should be accessible by everyone. I don't really see the competition issue here, just like the BBC they produce content, which is fine." How is it not unfair if you compete in the exact same market with a publicly funded corporation[1]? "Has to be said though in quality it doesn't really measure up to the BBC, but you can try to claw Tatort from my dead hands " It is basically on par with ntv, Welt and doesn't really measure up to ServusTV. They all share one thing with ARD/ZDF tho and that is advertisement. [1]: Open any site of public funded TV and look for "Unternehmen" (Corporation) also they have a lot of for-profit corporations spun off, so there is no point calling it a public institution when in fact it is not.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Clearly, private sector entertainment is unable to compete with public broadcasting.
  - account42 6y ago
    Pretty hard to compete with being able to force everyone into being your customer.
- account42 6y ago
  I agree that publich broadcasting in Germany is very much biased. Saying that they are better than tabloids (which other commenters here are) is hardly a high bar. Besides wasting money on useless entertainment, German public broadcasters also prey on the vulnerable by promoting gambling. They even just prime time just before the evening news for this. But worse than the content is the funding method. Instead of being funded from taxes the public broadcasters collect a separate non-means-tested fee that is still somehow mandatory. That might have made some sense when you could opt out of that fee by not owning a TV but that option is no longer available.
- aktenlage 6y ago
  I don't see the direct economic competition as a problem. Informing the population is fundamental to living in a democratic society. Providing a non-profit oriented basis makes as much sense as funding libraries (which compete with publishers) and schools (compete with private schools). I know it's not perfect, but it definitely is not a "big problem".

by dukoid 6y ago

antibuddy 6y ago

Public broadcasting in Germany is no better than private media. In fact most topics are reported the same and even the opinion is the same. But even ignoring this, it is a big problem that publicly funded media is in direct economic competition with privately funded media. This is exacerbated by the official entertainment mission (Unterhaltungsauftrag[1]) and the usage of advertisement. [1]: https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/Rundfunkstaatsvertrag_RStV.pdf https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rec... in §11

seesawtron 6y ago
Why is the public funded media in direct economic competition with private media? Because the public funded media IS directly funded by the taxpayers. I can imagine they have a "popularity" competition in terms of viewership and so on but why economic? Can you elaborate please?
- marcusverus 6y ago
  Say you read ten articles every morning. With no public option, you read ten private articles. With a public option, you would still read the same number of articles each morning, but every time you read a public article, some private organization loses a tiny bit of revenue. Worse still, imagine you are a paying subscriber to some private newspaper. If the public option has very high quality coverage, you may find that you no longer need your private subscription.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > If the public option has very high quality coverage, you may find that you no longer need your private subscription. Or regardless of the quality of the public option, you may find that you can no longer afford your private subscription. The public option isn't free, after all—just pre-paid with no ability to opt out—and you may not be able to afford two such services. Other cases where public services "compete" with private providers (e.g. toll roads) suffer from the same problem: You don't get to choose between paying for the public option and paying for the private option. You're either paying for just the public option, or for both, even if the private option is all you want or need.
Barrin92 6y ago
I'm German. Public broadcasting, including ARD/ZDF but also countless of local radio station is without a doubt significantly better in quality than BILD/RTL or other private tabloid media, and it's one of the reasons the country still has by and large a shared reality when it comes to political discussion. I don't think that they also provide entertainment is in any way problematic, because entertainment is part of a cultural offering that should be accessible by everyone. I don't really see the competition issue here, just like the BBC they produce content, which is fine. Has to be said though in quality it doesn't really measure up to the BBC, but you can try to claw Tatort from my dead hands
- FabHK 6y ago
  Agree wholeheartedly. And I'd like to add that there is by no means a uniform opinion propagated. For example, the ARD (one of the major public broadcasting networks) hosts both the rather left-leaning "Monitor", and the more conservative "Report aus München". However, as you highlighted, they share a common understanding of the world, and therefore Germany doesn't suffer extreme polarisation. (I'd argue that the fringes, as seen with the anti-lockdown demonstrations in Berlin recently, are actually sustained by newfangled social media.) Links (German only, sorry): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(Fernsehmagazin) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(Fernsehmagazin) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_München https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_München
  - deltron3030 6y ago
    >I'd argue that the fringes, as seen with the anti-lockdown demonstrations in Berlin recently, are actually sustained by newfangled social media. My impression was that they were mostly older people (50+), and from their style of clothing I could tell that they were mostly poor people, maybe people who got wrecked by Hartz4 reforms in the 90s and early 2000s, and grew a deep hate on German politics and the mainstream. Fringe social media groups and conspiracy nuts just take advantage of pre-existing hate.
- antibuddy 6y ago
  "[...] and it's one of the reasons the country still has by and large a shared reality when it comes to political discussion." Shared reality is quite a cynical word and is a reminder just how bad it really is. "I don't think that they also provide entertainment is in any way problematic, because entertainment is part of a cultural offering that should be accessible by everyone. I don't really see the competition issue here, just like the BBC they produce content, which is fine." How is it not unfair if you compete in the exact same market with a publicly funded corporation[1]? "Has to be said though in quality it doesn't really measure up to the BBC, but you can try to claw Tatort from my dead hands " It is basically on par with ntv, Welt and doesn't really measure up to ServusTV. They all share one thing with ARD/ZDF tho and that is advertisement. [1]: Open any site of public funded TV and look for "Unternehmen" (Corporation) also they have a lot of for-profit corporations spun off, so there is no point calling it a public institution when in fact it is not.
Spooky23 6y ago
Clearly, private sector entertainment is unable to compete with public broadcasting.
- account42 6y ago
  Pretty hard to compete with being able to force everyone into being your customer.
account42 6y ago
I agree that publich broadcasting in Germany is very much biased. Saying that they are better than tabloids (which other commenters here are) is hardly a high bar. Besides wasting money on useless entertainment, German public broadcasters also prey on the vulnerable by promoting gambling. They even just prime time just before the evening news for this. But worse than the content is the funding method. Instead of being funded from taxes the public broadcasters collect a separate non-means-tested fee that is still somehow mandatory. That might have made some sense when you could opt out of that fee by not owning a TV but that option is no longer available.
aktenlage 6y ago
I don't see the direct economic competition as a problem. Informing the population is fundamental to living in a democratic society. Providing a non-profit oriented basis makes as much sense as funding libraries (which compete with publishers) and schools (compete with private schools). I know it's not perfect, but it definitely is not a "big problem".