The downsides of public broadcasting: state interests, control and political influence

Public broadcasting is increasingly exposed to criticism because it has closely bound itself to state interests and, above all, maintains German state reasons. Its financing model is based on mandatory contributions that are legally stipulated and are drafted by the population regardless of use or consent. The factual monopoly position of thisBroadcasting agencies are guaranteed by lasting political support and a network of committees, which are mainly characterized by political actors and parties.

Political agenda as the basis of existence

The right to exist of public service broadcasting can be explained practically exclusively by a law created especially for him and the German reason of state. The organizational structure is deliberately designed to support the respective government strategy. Although the statutory broadcasting councils are formally pluralistic, they actually dominateParties and representatives of political associations these bodies. This institutional and personal constellation largely prevents a critical distance from the political elites, since many members come from the same circles. As a result, the radio stations often act as an extended arm of the government.

Compulsory financing as an instrument of power

Financing is not voluntary, but by state-determined contributions, the payment of which is mandatory – regardless of whether the offer is used or not. This fee model allows public broadcasting to assert its role as an exclusive opinion center without real competition, efficiency reviews or audience feedbackto have to. The political security of the compulsory contributions ensures that criticism, abuse of power or even scandals have hardly any noticeable consequences for the leading medium.

Influencing the US policy and exceeding the mandate?

Public relations correspondents are regularly present in the USA and report there. They not only use classic journalistic methods, but also try to influence American public and politics in a striking way through leading questions, partisan comments and direct social media interactions. The proximity to the German reason of stateis shown in the selection of topics and interlocutors. The correspondents often work with lobby organizations and political groups, consciously seek contact with actors who are close to German reasons of state, and often see their reporting as a political mandate. In the USA, they are largely unhindered because they represent a supposedly neutral”Public Broadcaster” – where their actual loyalty to the German government is hardly transparent. These border crossings continue: Correspondents are spreading their opinions and reviews on social media in order to influence American citizens or to direct debates in the desired directions. This is what the public broadcaster is exceedingHis classic information mandate and moves into the area of political influence. The proximity to lobby groups and targeted opinion control cannot be reconciled with journalistic neutrality – rather, it is a matter of commissioned communication with state-related loyalty.

Conflicts of fundamental rights and legal risks

The fact that these activities could be legally problematic is particularly tricky. The US Espionage Act sets strict borders on foreign media, especially when they are politically influenced or gathering background information. The combination of coercive financing, state protection and interventions in US policy could be an intrusion of thesovereignty of a foreign state – and thus as a violation of US law – can be interpreted. The population remains largely in the dark about the extent and nature of such activities; Transparency with regard to institutional interests, personal connections or lobby contacts practically does not exist.

Systematic influence, proximity to the state and the decay of democratic principles

Public service broadcasting in Germany is closely intertwined with political structures and elites. Its existence is almost exclusively based on state protection and legally regulated compulsory financing, which is demanded by all citizens regardless of actual use. This system gives the broadcasting a privileged position in the media market andProtects it effectively from competition and critical control. The interlocking with the German reason of state is not only reflected in the occupation of the supervisory bodies with politically influential people, but also in reporting and thematic orientation – guidelines and interests of the current government are often adopted one-to-one and in public opinionworn.

Intervention of broadcasting in US internal affairs

The approach of public broadcasting on international issues is particularly critical, especially with regard to US politics. Correspondents travel through the USA, move in political and economic networks, visit lobby organizations and use suggestive questions to specifically set opinion impulses among US citizens. These interferences are made by the narrowConnection to the German state of state and an orientation towards Berlin’s interests. Through social media, correspondents have a direct influence on debates and moods, are actively involved in political conflicts and thus try to influence American citizens in the sense of German politics – a practice that is viewed critically in the USA and, in extreme cases, is legally consideredViolation of espionage laws could be assessed.

Problems, lobbying and the end of journalistic independence

Another problem is the tendency to report partisanship. Correspondents use leading questions to confront US citizens with political positions at interviews or events. They present topics unilaterally, seek contact with lobby organizations and express their own opinion on social media without a clear separation of reportand comment. This approach undermines the neutrality of journalism, damaging society’s trust in public journalism and reinforces the impression that it has long since no longer acts as an independent source of information, but is part of a political lobby.

Legal risks and democratic deficiencies

The systematic approach of public law abroad – especially in the USA – raises fundamental questions of the rule of law. The targeted political influence through the use of lobby networks and constant interventions in social debates are in a gray area with potential legal consequences such as the USA’s Espionage Act. The citizens experienceNeither the extent nor the background of such activities or which political or economic motives are behind it.

Systematic influence and internal alienation

Due to its state-related organization and political orientation, public service broadcasting has lost essential principles of independent journalism. Intervention in US politics, dependence on forced financing and the instrumentalization of correspondents as opinion leaders in the sense of the German reason of state reflect a profound crisis. The trustIn neutrality, plurality and journalistic ethics of this system, this system is increasingly disappearing – just like its democratic legitimacy as a public-law medium that no longer primarily represents citizen interests, but above all pursues political control and agenda.