Media organisations in Germany implemented measures for internal transparency of newsroom decisions. Based on the Basic Law Art. 5 and federal broadcasting acts, newsroom democracy can be safeguarded by specific editorial statutes, internal programme councils, and editorial committees. Most of the public service media, like WDR or NDR, established editorial statutes. However, these instruments come into play only in conciliation when a conflict has already occurred (Kirchhof, 2017: 108).
Journalists are usually free to choose their reporting topics, however, the final decision lies with the managing editor.
“We are confronted with this by the readers – ‘are you really independent?’ The truth is a very human one, there are group dynamics [in the editorial conference] and sometimes the week decides what the dominant spin is.” On the question of journalists’ involvement in staff decisions, the answers differ. Editors-in-chief usually are appointed by the management; in most of the cases, newsroom journalists are not involved in the process.”
On the question of journalists’ involvement in staff decisions, the answers differ. Editors-in-chief are usually appointed by the management, and in most cases, newsroom journalists are not involved in the process (as was the case a decade ago; see Marcinkowski & Donk, 2011):
“… the editor-in-chief is appointed by the board. For large brands like [in our newspaper], he is appointed by the CEO. The deputy is proposed by the editor-in-chief, … whereby the board has to give his OK for each deputy of the editor-in-chief. It is not decided on a grass-roots basis […], no chair group, no election, no primary election, no member survey.”
When editors-in-chief are elected, usually the board of the publishing company are the electorate. In some print media, journalists also have a say in the election process of the editor-in-chief: “Yes, there is an editorial statute and it also provides for the rejection of the editor-in-chief as the ultimate weapon”.
The news magazine Der Spiegel has established more democratic, bottom-up election patterns. The magazine literally belongs to the staff, and everyone who is willing forms a committee that proposes and elects the editor-in-chief.
In public service broadcasting, the editors-in-chief are elected by the broadcasting council [Rundfunkräte], which is staffed by representatives of political parties, churches, unions, and other social groups. In 2009, a scandal made obvious that political influence in the broadcasting council had been dominant. The incumbent ZDF editor-in-chief Nikolaus Brender’s contract had not been extended after massive intervention by the conservative parties and the Minister-President of Hesse, with insiders suggesting that even the chancellery was involved (see Indicator C2 – Independence of the news media from powerholders). Subsequently, stakeholders pressed charges and the Federal Constitutional Court decided in 2014 that politicians’ representation in broadcasting councils and boards would be limited to 33 per cent.
All in all, there are no greater efforts to involve newsroom journalists in staff decisions except for broadcasting councils in public service media. The situation remains with neither routines for, nor obligations to, newsroom democracy in electing the editors-in-chief, and there is also no discussion about filling other leading positions in the newsroom. Generally, the decision lies with the editor-in-chief or the heads of department, as there is a strong hierarchical structure. All interview partners agreed that decisions on subjects and the framing of covered issues are debated in the daily editorial meeting, in which all journalists have an equal say (see also Marcinkowski & Donk, 2011). However, it is often the managing editor who makes the final decision.
