Like monkeys on camel humps
Noteworthy: The "Macdonaldization" of the media is advancing, but this is no reason for government intervention. After all, as the conglomerates grow, so do the market niches.
Column The Macdonaldization of the media is progressing, but is no reason for state intervention. Haim Saban has made enough money; in any case, he wants to sell ProSieben Sat 1, one of the two large German TV conglomerates, again. Germany is speculating whether Axel Springer Verlag will venture into the television business. It would cost a lot of money and would not be easy to retain the majority. Above all, however, it would massively change the German media landscape: the pronouncedly liberal-conservative press group could not simply turn the entertainment channels into political agitation programs. But it would have a news channel (N24), it could broadcast political magazines on ProSieben or Sat 1 and launch Bild newspaper campaigns on television. Legislators would have no means of preventing this, because "cross-media ownership rules", as they exist in the USA, are currently unthinkable in Germany.
Nobody knows whether Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner will really dare to take this big step. After all, it would not only greatly increase Springer's power, but also severely restrict its future financial leeway. Some competitors are already rubbing their hands together. Nevertheless, the deal is not out of the question.
In terms of media concentration of power, Switzerland is still an island of the blessed. Here, too, there is noticeable consolidation in the regional press. In television, however, the SRG has unchallenged superiority. In addition, different companies call the shots in different parts of the country. Of course, Switzerland is influenced by German, French and Italian broadcasters. But politics is made in Switzerland. And when it comes to newspapers, voters have a choice: If they no longer like the Blick, they take the Tages-Anzeiger and vice versa. These are comparatively happy circumstances.
You have to be aware of the major trends: Newspaper circulation will fall because the younger generation informs itself more frequently via digital media than the older generation. And free newspapers such as 20 Minuten are becoming serious competitors worldwide. As good as some of these papers are, they have nothing to do with traditional journalism.
Where public broadcasters still have more or less of a monopoly, they can afford cultural programs such as DRS 2 for minorities. But only there. Television, on the other hand, is becoming a highly consolidated entertainment economy where the only thing that matters is ratings. This leaves the new possibilities of the Internet, which radically individualizes the flow of information. However, the really socially relevant topics are rarely corrected by this subversive medium. So what can be done?
There is no point in reverting to the 1970s, when the recipes were "expropriate Springer", public newspapers or cross-media ownership rules. Capitalism is more inventive than parliaments. It cannot be defeated confrontationally. But democracies must ensure that citizens are properly informed about what is going on. This in turn means that media politicians must also become ever more cunning. In Germany, for example, there is a regulation that large television chains must carry counterfeits. In jargon, this is called "broadcasting rights for independent third parties". The camel must tolerate a small monkey on its hump. The hippopotamus must tolerate birds that keep its maw clean. Hysteria is not the order of the day, but imagination is. Otherwise we, the readers, listeners and viewers, will be fobbed off and macdonaldized.
> Peter Glotz is a publicist and professor emeritus of media at the University of St. Gallen.
Nobody knows whether Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner will really dare to take this big step. After all, it would not only greatly increase Springer's power, but also severely restrict its future financial leeway. Some competitors are already rubbing their hands together. Nevertheless, the deal is not out of the question.
In terms of media concentration of power, Switzerland is still an island of the blessed. Here, too, there is noticeable consolidation in the regional press. In television, however, the SRG has unchallenged superiority. In addition, different companies call the shots in different parts of the country. Of course, Switzerland is influenced by German, French and Italian broadcasters. But politics is made in Switzerland. And when it comes to newspapers, voters have a choice: If they no longer like the Blick, they take the Tages-Anzeiger and vice versa. These are comparatively happy circumstances.
You have to be aware of the major trends: Newspaper circulation will fall because the younger generation informs itself more frequently via digital media than the older generation. And free newspapers such as 20 Minuten are becoming serious competitors worldwide. As good as some of these papers are, they have nothing to do with traditional journalism.
Where public broadcasters still have more or less of a monopoly, they can afford cultural programs such as DRS 2 for minorities. But only there. Television, on the other hand, is becoming a highly consolidated entertainment economy where the only thing that matters is ratings. This leaves the new possibilities of the Internet, which radically individualizes the flow of information. However, the really socially relevant topics are rarely corrected by this subversive medium. So what can be done?
There is no point in reverting to the 1970s, when the recipes were "expropriate Springer", public newspapers or cross-media ownership rules. Capitalism is more inventive than parliaments. It cannot be defeated confrontationally. But democracies must ensure that citizens are properly informed about what is going on. This in turn means that media politicians must also become ever more cunning. In Germany, for example, there is a regulation that large television chains must carry counterfeits. In jargon, this is called "broadcasting rights for independent third parties". The camel must tolerate a small monkey on its hump. The hippopotamus must tolerate birds that keep its maw clean. Hysteria is not the order of the day, but imagination is. Otherwise we, the readers, listeners and viewers, will be fobbed off and macdonaldized.
> Peter Glotz is a publicist and professor emeritus of media at the University of St. Gallen.
