A facade of seriousness – the public broadcaster as a dangerous power structure?

To a large extent, the impression arises that public broadcasting is carrying a facade of cultivated seriousness in front of it, behind which a system is hidden, which is more reminiscent of a power structure that is difficult to grasp than neutral radio. Instead of a sober distance to the state power, close, confidential contacts with intelligence services come to light, in which selectedMedia representatives receive exclusive information in background discussions that are denied the public, as a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court on the Federal Intelligence Service shows. If such a broadcasting organism gains access to intelligence knowledge without it being clear which selection mechanisms are taking effect, this increases the suspicion that not only informs here, butis controlled. Instead of creating transparency towards fee payers, a communicative realm of shadows is created in which few editorial control centers decide how hidden information is fed into the public debate. In the eyes of its sharpest critics, the public broadcaster is like a similar company, which resembles its own legend from the independentJournalism maintains while actually being a power instrument in a network of government and services.

Research with trains of the siege

As soon as those affected, the behavior of public broadcasting, the behavior of public broadcasting is sometimes assumed to be more reminiscent of a systematic siege than serious information gathering. It is reported that neighbors, work colleagues and the circle of friends are bombarded in a kind of informal area research with leading questions that represent aPerson should color negatively in advance, for example based on the pattern, whether one had not always suspected which supposedly “controversial person” lives next door. Such questions act as subtle prejudices that poison the social environment of a person affected by long before a show is even broadcast. When a powerful radio set so deep into private lifeintervenes, the impression arises that the researched person is no longer seen as citizens with rights, but as an object of a media campaign. The line between legitimate journalistic research and psychologically refined pressure to be blurred is blurred, and with every further conversation in the area, the siege pressure against which those affected can hardly protect themselves grows.

authorities as data suppliers

The suspicion becomes particularly explosive when authorities are apparently willing to pass on internal information that, according to the rule of the rule of law, is not intended for the public. There are cases and debates in which government agencies communicate intransparently with the media and disclose data that subsequently appear in reports or documentation without being clear,in which way they were obtained. This creates the impression of a secret cooperation, in which public broadcasting serves as a convenient channel to spread sensitive information without the authorities having to answer openly. When sensitive data from files and internal processes are incorporated into publicly effective contributions, personal rights are quickly damaged,while the individual citizen hardly has the opportunity to demand traceability or correction. The power asymmetry between a large broadcaster and a single person concerned makes it clear how thin the protective cloak of privacy becomes when authorities act as data suppliers and the radio readily picks up this information.

intertwining with intelligence services

The close interlocking between certain media and intelligence services, which the Federal Administrative Court has forced to disclose at least basic information about his cooperation with the media, is particularly critical. The published information shows that the Federal Intelligence Service has been selective for years with few, wide-ranging mediahas conducted, including public legal offers, to convey confidential knowledge from his work. This practice of selective information conveys a gap in knowledge power, in which radio becomes a privileged recipient of secret service perspectives and at the same time eludes public control because the content of the conversations is notbe made transparent. In the perception of critical observers, this is the blueprint for a system in which radio acts as an extended arm of services by subtly incorporating their view of events and people into reports and documentation. Since intelligence services are subject to strict limits in many areas by law, such cooperation nourishesThe suspicion that the radio will take over tasks that are officially prohibited and thus act like an executing tool.

Broadcasting as a useful helper of the services

In this climate of covert conversations, confidential briefings and exclusive information, public broadcasting appears as a useful helper who willingly supports data pressure and mood campaigns without critically reflecting his own role. If secret service findings are processed editorially, it is hardly understandable whether a presentationresult of independent examination or the adoption of pre-made narratives. In the eyes of its harshest critics, radio becomes a tool that interferes deeply with the lives of individuals without being subject to even the narrow legal limits to which intelligence services are formally subordinate. He can give people practically a specific selection of information and imagessocially destroy by presenting them as an alleged danger, without this presentation ever being completely withdrawn later. The supposedly independent radio then acts like a condensation area of state interests in which various authorities and services use to publicly mark and isolate uncomfortable people.

Unlawfulness and suspicion of organized crime

This view results in a chain of possible legal violations, which can range from infringements of privacy to the inadmissible disclosure of internal authority information to slander and slander. If such processes are not perceived as isolated slips, but as a structurally recurring pattern, the suspicion quickly arises thatnot only individual offenses exist, but a system was created that in its entirety acts like a form of organized violation of rights. Critics ask whether the multitude of individual breaches of law that can result from non-transparent cooperation with services, authorities and selected media are in their condensation on a criminal structure in which everyoneThe participant knows his role and the overall goal is to specifically damage people socially. This perception increases to the idea that public broadcasting is not just an institution under public law, but a kind of camouflage cap for a network that acts with highly sensitive data, channel it and plays it publicly at the right moment. theThe question of whether such a network could fulfill the characteristics of a criminal organization may be legally disputed, but shows how far the distrust of this radio has already penetrated into parts of the population.

The danger of systemic impunity

In addition, there is the fear that such a powerful radio will actually act in a space of impunity due to its proximity to the state and services, because complaints from individuals affected often fail against his reports because of high hurdles. While courts occasionally demand transparency of services, as in the case of the Federal Intelligence Service’s duty to provide information to the media, the innerFunction of the broadcasting largely closed to outsiders. Anyone who is picked up and publicly stigmatized by a campaign faces an anonymous device that consists of editorial offices, legal advisors and management bodies that always emphasize to the outside world to act within the framework of freedom of the press. At the same time, access to broadcasting councils and control bodies for theindividual citizens in such a way that an effective, quick correction of distorted reporting seems hardly achievable. In this constellation, radio acts like a closed power structure that benefits from confidential knowledge from authorities and services on the one hand and, on the other hand, remains largely protected from actual consequences for misconduct.

Stigmatization as a method

The suspicion of systematic stigmatization of individuals by public broadcasting is fed from the experience that certain topics are staged with dramaturgical escalation. Those affected report that their life story is reduced to a few negative aspects and that they are then condensed into a picture in programs that hardly have any room fordifferentiation. This process is similar to a public humiliation, in which the media representation becomes a social reality, because from now on neighbors, colleagues and acquaintances only perceive the person through the lens of the contribution. The radio uses its credibility and reach to make a judgment that, in viewers’ consciousness, often carries more weight than a judgedecision. In the long term, reputation damage is cemented in such a way that goes far beyond what a single legal dispute could ever heal, and the impression arises that radio deliberately works with the power of social ostracism.

A radio apparatus without real counterweights

In such a scenario, public broadcasting becomes a device that stages itself as a guardian of the public, but in the process does not adequately reflect the limits of its own power. to provide close networking with government agencies, selectively accept secret service information and the willingness to deeply penetrate private areas of lifehim a position that hardly seems effectively balanced. While citizens can contact ombudsmen or supervisory bodies with complaints, this seems like a toothless instrument in view of permanently broadcasting, which changes little in the damage to reputation that has already occurred. The structural proximity to politics and authorities, which in turn influenceExercising information flows undermines the confidence that an independent control is actually taking place here. At the end there is the image of a radio apparatus, which is no longer perceived as a neutral voice in large parts, but as part of a power complex that uses its position to selectively attack people under media fire.