The fact that Patricia Schlesinger was quickly brought down by fellow filmmakers and urged to resign can be explained by the fact that the chiefs of public broadcasting were motivated by concern that the Schlesinger affair would become a public broadcasting issue. Because that’s the basis, the reason for the public service broadcast is only particularly clear with Patricia Schlesinger.
Two-thirds of Germans demand the abolition of broadcasting fees
Tom Bohreau, director of WDR and acting president of ARD after Schlesinger’s resignation, must be raucous FAZ The “base salary of €413,000 per year” has serious reasons to demand “(a) full and transparent clarification” from the Regional Budget Office. The imaginary rewards of ARD station managers are not much different, as their annual salary far exceeds the level of quality of the program for which they are responsible.
Even earn basic salary per year according to FAZ SWR Director Kai Gniffke €361,000, Head of NDR Joachim Knuth 346000, Katja Wildermuth of BR 340,000, Director of Human Resources Manfred Krupp 305000, MDR Director Karola Wille 295000, Head of Bremen Radio Yvette Gerner 281,000 and Director of Saarland Radio Martin Grasmück, €245,000. But it’s not just directors who get more than they deserve.
Series: Public Service Crisis
Financial resources divided the workforce of ARD and ZDF
Even reports pictureThat BR’s technical director, Birgit Spanner-Ulmer, can only look forward to an annual salary of 266,000 euros, not just for her company’s Audi A7, not just for the driver, but for much more. two Driver, because one can be on vacation. The driver’s task is to take Birgit Spanner-Ulmer from her place of residence in Eichstadt to her workplace in Munich (109 km) – this is what makes the commute pleasant. picture He writes: “Drivers are also available for private trips … In all cases when Spanner-Ulmer wants to be on the road without one of its drivers (for example for shopping), BR also provides her with a Ford Mondeo. The fact that not only broadcaster managers, but Also managers, heads of departments and heads of programs think that they live in the best Germany ever, which is understandable given the provision of public service, especially since pensions are also very expensive.Patricia Schlesinger currently deals with pensions of about 15,000 euros per month.
In light of the fact that the ARD no longer fulfills its cultural, educational, and informational mission, neutrality, as evidenced by ARD employees such as Tina Hassell, being discussed for Schlesinger’s successor, is no longer maintained and objective reporting through political activism has been replaced, it feels like mockery when barking Buhrow on cheap melodramatic: “Thousands of employees at ARD do a good job of our programs every day, and these allegations, even if very serious, should not be overshadowed by these allegations. At the same time, we now have to look to the future.”
TE Series: Public Service Crisis
Director Schlesinger’s resignation shows: ARD is a feudal institution
So far, looking to ARD has always been a look in the sand. If the sentence is correct, more and more viewers will not say goodbye to the ruins of the Green Public Radio Now program every day. ARD does not offer any good programming, neither fiction nor non-fiction, because ARD now sees itself as an educational institution that only looks at viewers with contempt. Otherwise, is he sometimes harassed and abused in comments in everyday topics, and gender harassed? The viewer in charge is not the one that reclusive editors living in their own world think of when setting up shows, but instead the one that always needs to be educated. Children’s TV has now become a propaganda platform for LGBT activists. In the past, you could have allowed your kids to watch kids’ TV from ARD and ZDF without hesitation, but that’s a thing of the past now, especially since you have to ask yourself if some of the shows are really about to threaten Baby Well-kun.
The ARD editors are happy to point out the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on public broadcasters, but Merkel’s recent rulings Stefan Harbarth are no longer doubtful, as they seem more political than legally motivated.
Critics of the Land of Plenty, public broadcasting, where a technical director can earn more than the Federal President or Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, are often accused of envy. This is deeply demagogic – or, as a new word for it: populist – because it is about public money, about compulsory fees, because all citizens, regardless of whether they want to use the programs offered by ARD and ZDF, are threatened with imprisonment. They were forced to make their contribution to the good life of Tom Bohreau, for example. What private broadcasters like RTL or Pro7/Sat1 pay their management staff is completely irrelevant, because how broadcasters spend the money they have earned and on what is entirely up to the broadcasters. But Buhrow and Co. They do not earn anything, they only make money, after all they are financed by the citizens. And you can’t get rid of them if they prove to be incompetent. You will be able to notice it in Schlesinger’s case, which is a case of ARD.
public service crisis
“The state can only give” – ÖRR as an institution for educating citizens
For those who accuse critics of envy, a simple suggestion can be made to interview those who accuse critics of envy: Don’t take license fees and don’t talk about salaries anymore.
The phrases, the empty chime of words, prove that Buhrow lives in the land of the cloud cuckoo: “We will continue to review our structures at ARD, move forward with the reforms we have begun for digital vision and create more synergies together in order to deliver the best program for the people who pay us.” The opposite is true. So far, the public radios, in association with some politicians, have been able to block every attempt at reform, such as the one begun in Saxony-Anhalt recently. When ARD talks about reforms, ARD just means to increase power on the basis of licensing fees in order to conduct unfair competition against private competitors in television and print.
It is clear – and the Schlesinger case appears only particularly radically – that public broadcasting is now beyond repair. It’s time to let citizens decide, for example through a broadcast subscription, whether and to what extent they want to pay for programs offered by public broadcasters. If Tom Bohreau intended to “make the best program for people who pay us”, it would only work if he made the program for people who actually wanted to pay for it, not for those who had to pay for it. Because you don’t have to do anything to those who have to, they have to do it, whether they want to or not.