The public: consumers or citizens? Participatory initiatives and the reform of public service media regulation in Germany

Abstract

The German federal interstate treaties, as the regulatory framework for public service media (PSM), have recently been under reform. The starting point of the amendments is the so-called

Regulatory Expectations of Offended Audiences: The Citizen Interest in Audience Discourse

“…We cite these instances from fieldwork to make the case that, in keeping with recent regulatory literature about German television broadcasting, the citizen interest, while enshrined in the constitution, is insufficiently reflected in practice, and audience voices are insufficiently incorporated into the regulatory process, staying “implied” (Livingstone & Lunt, ), assumed, and spoken on behalf of. As Horz remarks, “It is a peculiarity of the German system that an organization like the British Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV) does not exist, although the German PSM system is comparable to the BBC” (, p. 357).…”

“…Crucial to note here is that the historical claim made in Germany—that the “interests and needs of the viewers are hardly definable” (Hasebrink, , p. 32)—is as valid and applicable to both countries today, whereby, despite the more recent shift to racism and sexism in addition to violent content or swear words, much about audiences continues to be implied and assumed. As Horz (, p. 352) notes, “These results correlate with the ‘implied image’ from regulators of the audience‐as‐consumers rather than citizens in media regulation: the audience seems to accept its consumer role and has difficulties in identifying itself as citizens, especially when it comes to partaking in media policy debates.”…”

“…As this project was conducted, the newest debate surrounding broadcasting in Germany has been the role of the second largest PSM—the channel ZDF—and whether its broadcasting council composition is in alignment with the constitutional mandates. As Horz () demonstrates succinctly, the role of the audience was often “implied” (spoken for and assumed) in the process in certain states, and in general, barely represented (see also Eilders, Hasebrink, & Herzog, ; Webster & Phalen, ).…”

“…First, Germany enshrines, legally, the citizen interest in public broadcasting, with ambitions to preserve PSMs as free of vested interests and serving social and democratic functions for its audiences to contribute to a rich and fair public life. Second, the picture in reality is intersected by conflicting approaches across the federal states, economic and political pressures around the nonpayment of license fees (which links to public perceptions of media institutions and PSM channels), and a lack of audience voice in regulatory mechanisms (Hasebrink, ; Horz, ; Puppis, d'Haenens, & Saeys, ). The author doing fieldwork for this project in Germany approached media institutions as a member of the public, and ran into substantial difficulties in establishing clear and transparent information on regulatory processes, debates, or even a record of audience complaints.…”

“…This is because, in the end, the “implied audience” (Livingstone & Lunt, ) prevails across many media institutional frameworks, as the voices of audiences are far too often assumed and spoken for. In the recent legal controversy surrounding a German public service broadcaster (ZDF), for example, only two contributors are bottom‐up audience groups (Publikumsrat and Ständige Publikumskonferenz), and only one statement was sent by an individual citizen (Horz, ). This speaks volumes of the relationship being encouraged and built between individuals and institutions in the media sphere, where, on the one hand, in a digital, international media framework, audiences have apparently greater visibility and voice, such voice often being written into institutional frameworks, and on the other hand, regulatory processes still do not adequately involve the audience to inform the regulatory process, from conceptualizations and definitions to policy‐making.…”