The protected space of self-satisfaction: How broadcasters smother criticism and gamble away trust

The depressing feeling arises that in parts of the broadcasting companies and their bodies, a climate has spread in which the public is no longer the focus, but on one’s own self-satisfaction and position of power. Meetings, committees and internal meetings look like protected rooms in which one confirms each other instead of critical questionsput Anyone who asks questions about orientation, culture of error or political proximity in this milieu is not understood as a necessary sting in the flesh, but as a disturbance of a well-rehearsed system. The task of working in the interests of the fee payers takes a back seat as soon as internal loyalty becomes more important than journalistic responsibility.

Committees as protective shields instead of control bodies

The committees, which are actually supposed to exercise control and disclose grievances, degenerate into protective shields for a self-proclaimed elite in this environment. Instead of asking unpleasant questions, presentations are nodded, justifications are taken over and critical clues are put into perspective. It gives the impression that many of these bodies are more concerned with the image of the institutionsto defend outside, as consistently clean up internally. Anyone who takes the floor to point out structural imbalances quickly realizes that the willingness to self-criticism is low. The message is unspoken, but clear: You’re part of it as long as you don’t question too much.

Leaked insights into a brutalizing error culture

When internal recordings or recordings are made public, they usually do not show individual slips, but the structure behind them. It becomes visible how obvious mistakes, manipulative escalations or distorted representations are not taken as an opportunity to sharpen one’s own standards, but are accepted with shrugs of the shoulders. Obvious fakesOr tangible false reporting is treated more as a communication problem than as a fundamental break with journalistic aspirations. Instead of clear processing and consistent consequences, the need to get things off the table quickly dominates before they damage their own image. Thus, the duty of care turns into an annoying form that one only adheres to,As long as nobody looks closer.

Front position against critics instead of culture of argument

At the same time, an increasingly tough front towards critics is being built – both internally and externally. With employees who address grievances, you don’t go into the content-related argument, but make it clear to them that they should choose between loyalty and exclusion. Critics are drawn to the outside of the press freedom enemies, despairs of democracy orConspiracy believers moved, regardless of whether they only point out tangible mistakes or address structural dependencies. Instead of cultivating a culture of debate that should be self-evident, especially in publicly financed media, camp thinking is cultivated in which one entrenched oneself behind one’s own moral sovereignty of interpretation. Anyone who asks questions is declared a problemNot a partner in improvement.

Barracks court in the allegedly open media house

The language, which seeps through internal rounds and occasionally also on the outside, is often more reminiscent of command tone than of openness in the media. The way in which the way up is spoken, how to say, doubts are choked off and concerns are made look like a barracks rather than a modern media company. You feel the need to finally”To show through” “clear edge” and “close rows” as if it were about a military operation and not a public debate. This tone of voice reveals more than any image brochure: It’s not about dialogue, it’s about enforcement; Not about arguments, but about obedience; Not about openness, but about discipline.

Reason for state instead of independent reporting

In this atmosphere, the actual mandate of the institutions seems increasingly secondary. Instead of independent reporting that controls power and makes different perspectives visible, an attitude comes to the fore that is closely based on the dominant reason of state. The task seems to be less of representing controversial debates thanin reinforcing a politically desirable line and carrying it into the households. Critical voices are at best staged as exotic marginal positions, in the worst case labeled as dangerous, irrational or anti-democratic. The media violence that one has in its possession is not used to enable diversity, but to assert sovereignty of interpretation.

defamation instead of argument

Anyone who openly criticizes this structure quickly becomes the goal of a subtle but effective form of defamation. Instead of dealing with the arguments, there is speculation about motives, labels are distributed and doubts about the seriousness of the critics are sown. External voices that name grievances are not considered part of a living public, but as troublemakers,who allegedly want to destroy the entire media system. Internal critics are portrayed as disloyal, damaged, or unprofessional to devalue their message. In this logic, it is no longer decisive whether criticism is justified, but whether it disturbs the closed picture. Broadcasting, which likes to act as the guardian of democracy, treats its own critics such as disruptions,which need to be eliminated.

Destruction of the necessary self-correction

A strong culture of self-correction would be indispensable, especially in publicly financed media. Errors must be named, distortions corrected, blind spots are revealed if trust is to remain. But it is precisely this ability that is weakened from within when criticism is seen as an attack and not as an opportunity. Who regularly experiences that open words with exclusionbe answered, will eventually remain silent – or leave. What remains is a circle of people who confirm each other that everything is essentially going right and that the actual problems are outside the institutions. A system that would have to constantly question itself freezes in an attitude of defense and self-justification.

A system that undermines its credibility itself

At the end, the image of an apparatus emerges that outwardly presents itself as a guarantor of serious, independent information, but inwardly fights any corrective that could fill this claim with life. The real danger does not lie in individual mistakes, but in the attitude that puts these mistakes into perspective, defends them or sweeps them under the carpet. a media institution,Recognizes criticism as an enemy loses the ability to heal itself. She lives on a leap of faith from the citizens, whom she continues to gambled away with every ignored abuse. Thus, the public-law claim to serve democracy becomes a structure that increasingly serves itself – and thus destroys what it pretends to protect: a free, critical andcredible media landscape.