1. Journalism needs media
Whether the Wirecard case would have been of this magnitude if the in-depth and persistent research Would it have been published not only by the Financial Times in London, but also by the Financial Times Deutschland, which was shut down in 2012 after incurring heavy losses? Not really! At the very latest, when BaFin filed the completely absurd and dangerous criminal charges against journalists, the industry's reflexes would have kicked in with colleagues in Germany, and other publishers would have also been encouraged to conduct their own research instead of simply accepting the statements of the supervisory authorities and the announcements of the DAX-listed company without checking them.
The fact that there is no room in Europe's largest economy for a second business newspaper published every trading day sums up the plight of the media industry: Journalism is rarely profitable from a business perspective anymore. Half of the advertising budgets available today go to Google and Facebook. However, the importance of journalism for democracy has not diminished. It is at least as constitutive as the existence of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Less journalism means more undetected scandals, including in the three aforementioned branches.
2. Journalism costs money
Journalism is expensive. Historically, two models for financing media services have developed in this country: privately organized publishers, whose business model worked excellently for decades, but has eroded since the turn of the millennium. And public broadcasters, which, while seemingly possessing inexhaustible financial resources, suffer from structural weaknesses, including the lack of regular Depublication their content and political influence. There are massive problems on both sides: Examples range from unidentified advertising amidst the editorial content of some publishers to the dismissal of a public broadcaster's editor-in-chief by a failed candidate for chancellor.
In addition, much of the content produced by private and public broadcasters has only a marginal connection to democracy-relevant journalism. Be it the feel-good magazines of a publisher formerly known for its political reporting or the enormous expenditures of public broadcasters on sports rights. Whether a publisher renders itself irrelevant for business reasons, or a public broadcaster invests a large portion of its budget in the salaries of Bundesliga players, journalism falls by the wayside in either case.
3. Less journalism endangers democracy
The gloriously proclaimed "transformation" of many media companies into the digital world, in the grim reality, mostly consists of austerity programs and massive job cuts for journalists. In the public broadcasting sector, political regulations are also leading to a reduction in journalistic positions.
The result of this massively deteriorating framework: Instead of a battle for the best talent, many job advertisements are now primarily focused on the cheapest workers, who are hired on the most flexible contract forms possible – including and especially in the public broadcasting sector. The resulting mix of overwork and opportunism in many editorial offices is more deadly in journalism than in any other area of society.
How can it be that a corporation has been hyped up to the DAX for years, yet it takes colleagues from a British newspaper to bring the house of cards crashing down? Why are corporate PR releases and announcements from authorities like public prosecutors parroted without even considering critical scrutiny? And why are doping investigators the absolute oddities among their colleagues in sports reporting?
Of course, incompetence and poor quality management have always existed, even in relatively well-equipped companies. However, the dramatic economic decline of the journalism profession, especially in the age of social media, is accompanied by its deprofessionalization and a decline in its principles.
The fact that even the "assault gun of democracy" was caught up in the soap operas of a fraudster for a long period of time in the struggle for circulation and almost fired the person who uncovered this scandal instead of the perpetrator demonstrates the drama in its full extent. Also unforgettable are the ignominious performances of public broadcasters as largely uncritical media partners of a cycling race that would clearly have been better presented by the pharmaceutical industry.
4. Saving journalism is possible
While some publishers are dying a slow death and others are distancing themselves from their core product by engaging in activities outside their industry, the monetization of journalistic content is rarely successful. Even in public broadcasting, the number of jobs for investigative journalists is shockingly low. In addition to huge expenditures on sports, films, and shows, many journalistic formats on public broadcasting's main programming tend more toward retelling agency reports than toward investigations. This is grist to the mill for opponents of "compulsory fees," who do indeed have a point: If used exclusively for journalism, the broadcasting fee could be lower – while simultaneously delivering a significantly higher-quality product.
On the other hand, there's the specter of a "public broadcast newspaper" that haunts some publishing houses. But isn't the judiciary also funded by the state? The independence of judges is guaranteed by law. Why shouldn't this be possible with the fourth estate? Is it a law of nature that the supervisory boards of public broadcasters must include precisely those parties and their "affiliates" about whom the broadcasters are then supposed to report critically? Is it a good idea for important personnel decisions to ultimately be made by the state premiers? Or couldn't this be organized differently?
This is by no means an advocacy for nationalization. Privately organized media outlets are at least as important as public broadcasters. However, before massive financial support for media companies from the state can be provided, which will become urgently necessary in the medium term at the latest, there must be objectively verifiable funding criteria that public broadcasters should also meet. Three suggestions for this: Investigation, Investigation, Investigation.
Investigative journalism, the active research and exposure of problems and scandals, is the lifeblood of a democracy. The serious gathering and verification of facts has become no less important in the face of the flood of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and state propaganda. If journalism dies, democracy dies. It's that simple. The absence of critical journalism, as with Wirecard, is also very, very expensive for society.
Did you like this article? Become a member!