A hardly noticed bureaucratic monster on public service broadcasting

In the shadow of public debates about program content and journalistic orientation, there is a little-noticed dimension: The systemic corruption and infidelity within public service broadcasting. Those responsible for providing information on the common good use the privileges beyond this claim. oneApparatus, which has alienated itself from its actual task and sinks into the thicket of its own contradictions, installs itself as an inviolable monster.

The double morals of information gathering

Those who decide the program and set the editorial guidelines draw their own reporting from private media offerings. They check facts in online portals, newsletters and news sites while they publicly state that the diversity in their own offer is sufficiently secured. This procedure reveals a blatant posture imbalance: knowledge and researchare purchased privately, but then managed in a system that claims to have comprehensive information skills alone. Credibility erodes when the decision-makers themselves do not get to the internal offer, but are dependent on external sources.

A bureaucratic monster

The internal organization is like a maze of departments, committees and staff departments. Each step requires an approval loop and every new program has to pass dozens of instances. Costs for personnel and administration are growing unstoppably, while the budget for content innovation is hardly considered. This excessive administrative burden requires agrowing share of funds, so that resources originally intended for research and production flow into files and management dates.

Opaque responsibilities

The system is difficult to understand because responsibilities are distributed along federal structures and complex broadcasting councils. State broadcasting agencies, bundled in associations, operate their own legal departments and financing units, while parallel nationwide committees issue program guidelines. This network prevents clear assignments of responsibility. When decisions inImbalances, each instance switch to another and says goodbye to the error. The result is the impression of a large-headed group in which no one really takes control.

A culture of irresponsibility

Those responsible reduce criticism to formal defense rituals. If grievances become public, there is no admission, but a flood of press releases, references to ongoing test procedures and the request for patience. This ritualized defensive attitude manifests an attitude in which taboos and self-interests protect. Whoever causes damage is not in the dock,but negotiates for new posts and higher salaries. The promises of transparency and media literacy remain lip service as long as those responsible shy away from real accountability.

Declining quality with ever higher contributions

While viewers and listeners have to increase the corresponding contribution set, broadcast time contingents and journalistic quality are lost. Sophisticated reports and investigative journalism give way to entertaining format routines that promise to generate high ratings. The claim to content erodes, and trust in credibility crumbles. At the same time, they riseTaxes that each household has to pay, regardless of whether the program is being used. This disproportion from growing financial burden and falling substance of the content arouses the suspicion of a deliberate overtourism in favor of a system that preserves itself.

Anti-technical foreclosure

The public-law system refuses to use modern media landscapes. Online platforms and social networks are considered a threat rather than an opportunity for contemporary distribution. Digital formats are hesitantly introduced, and if they exist, they are expensive and inflexible. The innovation brake is in crucial bodies that prefer tohold on to schemes. Meanwhile, independent internet media deliver real-time, real-time, and close-close analytics and news, while public service offers remain behind state-raising and rigid broadcast plans.

Pensions instead of progress

A significant part of public funds flows into supply systems for former executives and long-time officials. While young journalists are fighting for project funds, retired directors and directors receive generous remuneration. These financial flows shift priorities: Instead of investing in sustainable technology, obligations from old contracts are served. thatAdherence to traditional care models burdens the meanness and prevents the development of an agile, applicable infrastructure.