European Values (II)

Intervening during Broadcasts

At the beginning of this year, some German commentators warned German politicians not to be too aggressive with Poland. "Particularly Germans should refrain from assuming the role of tutor on the issue of freedom of the press in the public arena."[1] Particular reference has been made to a scandal in 2009, when CDU/CSU politicians on the ZDF administrative board had prevented - even against the wishes of the ZDF intendant and other ZDF bodies - the presiding Editor-in-Chief Nikolaus Brender's contract be prolonged with ZDF. Brender later reported that, at the beginning of his mandate, it had been quite "normal" for politicians, "ministers or their spokespersons, to directly tamper with programming," even intervening "while a broadcast was on the air." That Brender had allowed questions to be raised during broadcasts about the US government's allegations of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, had also lowered his standing.[2] The Federal Constitutional Court ultimately had to intervene, because of the hefty dispute at ZDF. On March 25, 2014, it ruled that the ZDF Inter-State Agreement was unconstitutional, because it includes "regulations, permitting state officials or individuals with close government ties to unilaterally enact or thwart decisions" on ZDF panels. This is "inconsistent with the imperative" that public broadcasting is "independent of the government."[3]

Opportunities for Political Influence

In the meantime, a new ZDF Inter-State Agreement has gone into effect. However, according to critics, it also fails to guarantee independence from the government. It merely reduces the "membership of state officials or individuals with close government ties" to one-third of the ZDF panel members. But, even this one-third would "always be tempted to apply the possibilities afforded by its influence, to impose the current official policy," reflected constitutional judge Andreas Paulus, in his dissenting opinion. He declared that he is "not at all happy" with the powerful position officials still occupy on steering committees of public broadcasting stations.[4] According to former Editor-in-Chief Nikolaus Brender, there is no adequate "participation of free, independent groups on ZDF panels,"[5] with influential politicians still holding top positions. Ruprecht Polenz, former CDU General Secretary, for example, chairs the ZDF Television Board and considers himself "a viewers advocate." In his function as head of the Bundestag's Foreign Policy Committee (from 2005 to 2013,) Polenz was intimately involved in the German government's foreign policy.

Ex-Ministers in High Positions

Massive criticism of the "persisting intimate relations" between the boards "of ARD and ZDF and the political level" [6] was most recently voiced because of the CDU politician, Steffen Flath's election to chair the board of the MDR Broadcasting Council. Flath had been Minister of the Environment (1999 - 2004) and Minister of Culture (2004 - 2008) in Saxony, and subsequently from 2008 to 2014, Whip of the CDU group in Saxony's Parliament. His election had been facilitated by the fact that the MDR Inter-State Agreement has never been adapted to the regulation of the March 25, 2014 Constitutional Court's ruling. Therefore MDR's Broadcasting Council is criticized for being in violation of the constitution.[7] With MDR assuming the chair of ARD, beginning January 1, 2016, Flath - a member of the right-wing conservative "Berlin Circle" within the Christian Democrats - will, therefore, also chair the ARD's Conference of the Committee of Chairpersons. Critics have discovered influential politicians also in such top-level positions of broadcasting panels, which have been revised in accordance with the Constitutional Court's ruling. For example, Mecklenburg West Pomerania's former Minister of Finances, Sigrid Keler (SPD), was officiating at the end of November, as NDR's Administrative Directrice.[8]

"Hungary more Liberal than NRW"

Some legal regulations in Germany are even clearly similar to the widely criticized 2011 Hungarian media law. In January 2011, Klaus-Heiner Lehne (CDU), at the time, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, declared that the Hungarian legislation was "not significantly different" from the "media law in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW)." Compared to regulations in NRW, "formulations in the Hungarian media law" are, in some respects, even "downright liberal." "NRW's media authority may even ban a broadcast, if it does not meet standards of being balanced." This is "tied in with the legal supervision of the state's prime minister, who may give instructions to media institutions of his state." Lehne notes that "this can even lead to fines and a revocation of the license."[9]

Embedded Journalism

Protests have repeatedly been raised against the political program stipulations developing from the affinity public broadcasting panels have with political parties and government bodies. In 2008, for example, the Middle East correspondent Ulrich Tilgner quit at ZDF, to take a post at the Swiss television, because, as he explained, "the latter does not have an alignment obligation of a NATO member country." On the other hand, editors at German public service televisions tend to exercise anticipatory obedience to official policy.[10] Based on his experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, Tilgner criticized the tight bonds between public service broadcasting and the government. A relationship has developed between the media and policy makers that leads to planned and predictable reporting." "As if by a stroke of magic, correspondents begin reporting from distant countries of the need to send more soldiers, precisely when politicians back home announce such initiatives," continued the former ZDF correspondent. "In the context of business journalism, this is called 'sponsoring,' and in politics, 'embedded journalism'."[11]

"Defend Western Positions"

In German public service broadcasting, the affinity toward politics is, to a growing extent, being accompanied by the use of falsifications - particularly in reporting on foreign policy conflicts. In 2008, for example, when the German government was criticizing Chinese government policies toward Tibet, the media panhandled videos of Nepalese forces of repression beating demonstrators to the German public, alleging they showed Chinese police attacks. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[12]) In late summer 2014, during the conflict in Ukraine, the WDR showed its viewers, as proof of an alleged Russian attack in East Ukraine, images of Russian tanks being deployed during the Georgia war in 2008.[13] When, during the struggle to win public opinion against Moscow, ZDF portrayed, in September 2014, Ukrainian militia members wearing SS symbols on their helmets, as somewhat freedom fighters, strong protests were raised at the ZDF Broadcasting Council. It has been reported that, during the dispute, WDR Intendant, Tom Buhrow, demanded that internally "an editorial line be set that concentrates on 'defending the western positions'."[14] No changes have been noticed in news reporting on Russia and the Ukraine conflict, in the pro-western/anti-Russian tenor corresponding to German official policy.

Under Supervision

German politicians are now demanding that decisive measures be taken against the Polish government, which seeks to insure a desired political coverage through direct access to the competent media personnel. "There is every indication" that the EU "will place Warsaw under supervision," declared the German EU Commissioner Günter Oettinger, early this month.[15] Last weekend, the Whip of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Volker Kauder, stated that if "violations of European values are ascertained," "the member states must have the courage to impose sanctions."[16] The Whip of the CDU/CSU European Parliamentary group, Herbert Reul, made the demand: "We need economic sanctions, if political means of dialog prove insufficient." Ignoring the objectionable situations in their own country and in other EU countries,[17] Berlin is using Warsaw's methods to attempt to impose supervision on a potentially dissenting EU member country's government. german-foreign-policy.com will report more soon.

More information on this theme can be found at European Values (I).

[1] Gerd Appenzeller: Polens Zivilgesellschaft braucht keine Hilfe aus Brüssel. www.tagesspiegel.de 03.01.2016.
[2] Ludger Fittkau: Der Fall Brender und die Freiheit des Rundfunks. www.deutschlandfunk.de 17.06.2015.
[3] BVerfG, Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 25. März 2014 - 1 BvF 1/11 - Rn. (1-135).
[4] Verfassungsrichter Andreas Paulus bekräftigt seine Kritik an der ZDF-Gremienstruktur. www.medienkorrespondenz.de 26.06.2015.
[5] Ludger Fittkau: "Das ist TTIP hoch Drei". www.deutschlandradiokultur.de 29.05.2015.
[6] Kai-Hinrich Renner: Von digitalen Plänen, Serienflops und Gremienärger. www.handelsblatt.com 11.12.2015.
[7] MDR-Rundfunkrat: Verfassungswidrige Zusammensetzung. tabea-roessner.de 08.12.2015.
[8] Kai-Hinrich Renner: Von digitalen Plänen, Serienflops und Gremienärger. www.handelsblatt.com 11.12.2015.
[9] "Auch deutsche Mediengesetze müssten überarbeitet werden". www.euractiv.de 19.01.2011.
[10] "Da wird es einem zu viel". www.tagesspiegel.de 09.07.2008.
[11] Ulrich Tilgner: Schulterklopfen am Hindukusch. In: message 4/2009, 36-41.
[12] See The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign.
[13] See Moskaus Drang nach Westen.
[14] Malte Daniljuk: Ukraine-Konflikt: ARD-Programmbeirat bestätigt Publikumskritik. www.heise.de 18.09.2014. S. dazu Von Dolchstößen und westlichen Werten.
[15] Thomas Gutschker: Oettinger will Warschau unter Aufsicht stellen. www.faz.net 03.01.2016.
[16] Union für Sanktionen gegen Polen. www.spiegel.de 09.01.2016.
[17] See European Values (I).