In Germany, freedom of the press is guaranteed by constitutional law (Art. 5 Grundgesetz) and has been fostered by the jurisdiction of the federal constitutional court [Bundesverfassungsgericht] over the past fifty years. Article 5 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of access to information, and the absence of censorship. In an Interstate Agreement on Broadcast Services [Rundfunkstaatsvertrag], both governmental and state non-intervention in broadcasting is described in detail.
The public service media remit provides for independence from the state and government through clear statements in the broadcasting law (Interstate Broadcasting Treaty; die medienanstalten – ALM GbR, 2019b) and by legal provisions, which allow only a limited number of representatives from governments (federal and regional) and official bodies on the board, who can always be overruled. The selection procedure for the editor-in-chief of public service media is formally fully independent from the government, as they are appointed by the CEO with approval of the board. The CEO, for their part, is elected by the broadcasting council. However, public service media experienced one serious attempt by a political actor to influence the political agenda of the programme, when a politician who was part of the board created a majority for blocking the continuation of the contract of ZDF’s editor-in-chief. This was followed by a constitutional court procedure, which ended in a ruling that the representation of members of the sphere of politics must be reduced to one-third of all self-governing bodies of public service media.
All leading editors we interviewed rejected any attempts of interference by powerholders or politicians. No severe case was reported. On the contrary, all of our journalistic interview partners were convinced that the management would back them against such attempts (as was also the case a decade ago; see Marcinkowski & Donk, 2011). The German media system is widely characterised by distancing itself from the state (Hallin & Mancini, 2004: 197), and the journalistic culture contributes actively to the value of keeping one’s distance from powerholders (Hanitzsch & Seethaler, 2009). Nevertheless, journalists’ trade unions plead for a statute for inner press freedom, giving more autonomy to the editors, which exists only in very few media outlets.
Party affiliation does not play any role among leading news media, except within the composition of the councils of the public service media, where a strict law (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag) equilibrates the representation of political parties according to the principle of internal pluralism. However, internal discussion networks, Freundeskreise [circles of friends], reflect political leanings towards the leading social democrats and the conservative party, but are criticised as acting in a clandestine and non-transparent way. More important is the influence of financial investors in the news sector. The financial investor KKR became the largest shareholder in the Berlin media group Axel Springer, and even outstripped the publisher’s widow Friede Springer. With their takeover offer, the American company secured about 42.5 per cent of Europe’s largest digital publishing house.
