Some people will lose their hands on the remote control. You turn on your TV – and you only see five public channels: ARD, ZDF, 3rd party, 3sat and Arte. The large rest can be found on the Internet not even in the usual program outline format, but across the platform and media library.
[Alle aktuellen Nachrichten zum russischen Angriff auf die Ukraine bekommen Sie mit der Tagesspiegel-App live auf ihr Handy. Hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen.]
According to the will of the sixteen prime ministers, ARD and ZDF should reform themselves. There are two central questions: which program should be shown to its future viewers and on what track? What content should ARD and ZDF provide?
In terms of distribution, it will be up to future broadcasters whether, for example, Phoenix or Kids’ Channel will also be broadcast digitally or linearly. This flexibility is not an act of arbitrariness, but is due to the changing use of arguments. People want to watch TV – but they want to be able to decide for themselves when and which program to watch. The smaller, the more. Whoever ignores this behavior sends broadcasters to the Museum of Television. ARD and ZDF should be careful that future distribution in linear and digital television does not result in a two-tier community consisting of premium and second-choice programmes.
Overall width for all
The new media state treaty calls for an “inclusive offer for all.” This means addressing the targeted youth groups, in all circles. Many former generals and retired ambassadors generation “become” well established in political circles. Young people hardly happen. And if there are attempts in the future in institutions not to give preference to the older population, it could also be considered whether all quarters are the focus of the program’s efforts. The impression of a middle-class TV is not wrong.
According to the will of the heads of state, culture, education, information and advice should be priorities. The program’s mandate as a public service provider has been unambiguously refined. That’s fine, media funded by contributions must meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of society. So the repressed culture gets a promotion, hopefully education won’t be misunderstood as a crossword puzzle test, entertainment remains part of the job, but must meet the profile of public service. No litter anywhere.
However, a look across prime-time television in Phases One and Two shows this exaggeration: excess crime, shows that celebrate the necessary, but deeply anxious, differentiation from the fall’s commercial boredom. Even if it left fans of traditional TV entertainment in a daze: the time “Do you see the fun?” is past. Broadcasters have already shown with the fictional novel (“Tatort” or “The Palace”) that they do not have to give up competition with streaming services. She needs more “Charité” than documentaries and “Intense Charité” than documentaries.
Corrections are sorely needed here, as can be done with the crown jewel of public television media. In times of epidemic and war, Tageschau and Heught Magazine withstood every lateral thought and frustration and asserted themselves as credible agents in the process of forming public and individual opinion.
Extension of “Tageschau”!
more of it. For example, “daily news” becomes “daily news” better if it includes an almost daily “pivot point”. News needs analysis and background.
The broadcast policy did not reformulate the program’s mandate in a revolutionary way, but it formulated it in a new way. It is now up to ARD and ZDF to turn this into a quality attack. Because behind all this is a pretty clear expectation: ARD and ZDF have to earn broadcast fees.