Traditional participation opportunities attributed to legacy media – like letters to the editor (print) or audience response to broadcasting councils (public service radio and television) – are certainly possible in Germany. Letters to the editor can be perceived as an enlargement of a topical discourse, although only a few replies are published in specific sections of the newspaper. Some papers, like the weekly broadsheet Die Zeit, increased their space for reader’s comments to one page, and also invite readers for Open Door Days. The daily Süddeutsche Zeitung mobilises readers to decide which issue journalists should investigate and created a “Workshop Democracy”, where readers are asked to discuss relevant democratic challenges. Television and radio stations usually do not provide this kind of space for audience feedback, except in call-in shows, online fora, and commentary sections for particular programmes. One editor-in-chief underscores the importance of user participation:
We have, for example, so-called audience apartments, where we really go into the areas of people, […] also in the countryside, and rent an apartment there for a year or two […] get into conversation with people. We have WhatsApp Groups with our viewers […] to finally understand people because people […] are changing faster and faster due to digitalisation.
Responses to broadcasting councils as the traditional path for enacting the citizen’s role of an external observer of programme quality and functions is contested. During the last decade, an increase of critical voices against this tedious practice was observed (Horz, 2020). At the regulatory level, however, measures were taken to increase citizens’ inclusion in informal considerations about legislative amendments like the WDR Gesetz. People were asked to answer an online survey about the future structure of the broadcasting council in the regional public service provider. Over 1,500 citizens took part, which was assessed as a success, considering the complex topic of media regulation. Responses to broadcasting councils, however, also must be considered in the context of a growing critique against public service media, which some NGOs and right-wing political parties play out in mass complaints against public service media.
The last decade was characterised by new forms of user participation associated with networked communication on the Internet. Some of the interviewed editors pointed out that the Internet is theoretically a good option as a platform both for exchange between readers, listeners, or viewers, and for communication with the news media. In practice, commentary functions are only seen as a feasible way to communicate if they are moderated:
But in some cases, we decided to close the comment section because we were overwhelmed by it. Because it became too much quantitatively and because what was said exceeded the limits of decency and what we wanted our employees to deal with.
As resources are rare, most of the interviewees said their media companies closed the commentary sections after figuring out that the sheer amount of inappropriate language and hate speech (particularly in the context of refugee migration) exceeded their moderation resources. Editors-in-chief of big print magazines like Der Spiegel or Stern infrequently open their newsrooms to the public, which is seen as a very successful way to build mutual trust. Stern is currently considering creating a regulars’ table, where people from a neighbourhood can meet to informally discuss current affairs, to help them get a better sense of the pulse of ordinary citizens.
Users can also contact the editorial unit of a programme via contact forms. User-generated content plays a rather circumstantial role in public service media, but is an interesting option for commercial television stations like RTL that are generally more interested in personalised information. The public service television station ZDF runs the successful news format heute+ with call-in options, and is popular amongst younger audiences. Moreover, ZDF editors go out to meet their audiences, and the public broadcaster implemented a corrections page at their website to add transparency and compensate for television programmes that do not provide any space for corrections.
Weeklies like the online paper Der Freitag (not part of the interview sample) changed their editorial processes and implemented a community section; readers act as civic journalists and produce about half the total content of this paper. Journalists edit these texts and award the best ones with a special button (Reimer et al., 2015). Both readers and journalists are satisfied with the output and the reader retention, which keeps the paper in the market.
The large print media companies, such as WAZ, founded reader councils, with relatively high influence on news processes, but it could not be verified that this council still existed after 2019.
Finally, radio shows like those of WDR or Deutschlandradio offer regular call-in options, but previously existing ListenerDays, with user-generated radio content, were abolished recently. All in all, there is still a lack of opportunities for user participation in content provision, with only a few of the main news media creating editorial space for the public voice. Digital opportunities, like commentary functions, proved not to be an appropriate way to include citizens’ voices, because of the audience’s unethical behaviour and a lack of human resources in editorial units.
User participation at the structural level in media institutions is almost completely lacking. Although public service broadcasting councils represent some major social groups, they do not reflect the dynamic transformation of society. Most of the public service media opened their council and board meetings to the public; however, citizens are not allowed to ask questions or comment. The opaque decision processes in PSM as public institutions are a topic of concern and are discussed among civil rights initiatives, scholars and special interest groups.
