Too close and too far is not good
Public relations committees and boards need to be more clearly positioned within corporate structures
Journalistic committees and boards need a clearer positioning in corporate structuresBy Daniel Schifferle Journalistic committees in media companies often suffer from two things: Either they are toothless token committees, or they exert undue influence. Both are harmful. In order for self-regulation to play out properly, media scholars argue for a clear separation of strategic and operational responsibilities.
Constantly reflecting on and monitoring its own journalistic work is one of the central tasks of every media company. However, there are major differences in the form in which companies fulfill this publisher's duty today. In almost all Swiss publishing houses, this task is still performed by the publishing families themselves. For this majority, journalistic quality control is still considered a self-evident duty that is part of the passion of being a publisher. Matthias Hagemann, Chairman of the Board of the Basler Mediengruppe, is quite clear about this. "For our company, we have no need for an advisory board.
The publishing responsibility is assumed by the family itself. This task has always been central for us, and we are happy to fulfill it."
However, this traditional form of journalistic self-regulation quickly reaches its limits with the increasing size of media companies, which have a wide range of products to oversee. For this reason, major publishers in Germany and abroad often set up journalistic committees. Their task is to monitor and coordinate the content of the titles - and sometimes also to intervene.
Mostly, these are bodies with purely advisory functions, but they also run the risk of being mere discussion groups with no effect on day-to-day business. If it weren't for Roger de Weck, Tamedia's new journalistic conference would have to be counted among them. This type of committee clearly plays its role at the strategic level, without exercising any concrete functions in the operational area. The other variant of a journalistic committee, which has more bite, was or is at work at Ringier. However, the greater effectiveness of this version comes at a price. It seems to be possible only if the boundaries between strategic and operational influence are crossed.
Instead of advisory boards, external experts can also do their good
The Borer case has impressively demonstrated that mixing strategic and operational functions carries enormous risks. "One problem at Ringier is that its journalistic committee was also the real power center in the media company," says Zurich sociology professor Kurt Imhof. "This is not, of course, an independent reflective body."
Ironically, however, Ringier, which is currently the subject of much criticism, is the very company where a journalistic advisory board has worked most efficiently to date. Precisely because this committee operated particularly close to day-to-day business. Management consultant and ex-Tamedia strategist Kurt W. Zimmermann agrees. "Journalistic quality control and journalistic discussion must be located close to the daily production of content, otherwise it doesn't work." Unfortunately, however, all these journalistic bodies are usually not permanently available contacts for the editors-in-chief.
Zimmermann doesn't think much of sporadic disputes about journalistic direction, which usually take place in retreats, seminars and, at most, paper reviews. "My experience as editor-in-chief has shown that daily discourse is needed," he says. "With Frank A. Meyer, the editors-in-chief had exactly that, namely a contact person available every day. Despite all the criticism, you have to acknowledge this role. Here, journalistic goals were discussed in concrete terms, regardless of whether one thinks Ringier products are good or bad."
But the mixing of operational and strategic functions practiced there comes at a high price. The Borer case has made the problems of inadequate journalistic management structures and deficits in quality management particularly clear, says Professor Otfried Jarren, Director of the Institute for Journalism and Media Research at the University of Zurich. "The fact that it could have come to this at all casts a bad light on the journalistic committee responsible there and the concept it practiced.
The deficits and grievances have been shown to be so serious that one has to ask whether the existing structure and practice there alone are still suitable for future quality management," he criticizes. Such bodies must be clearly defined, both in terms of their influence and their limits. In order for these bodies to be able to act effectively, he pleads for as much distance as possible from day-to-day business.
This is entirely in line with the business management concepts currently being intensively discussed under the heading of "good governance. Among other things, these call for companies to have a differentiated external perspective. Jarren therefore advises that advice be systematically ensured through the composition of the staff, and that external experts be brought in on a case-by-case and project basis.
Kurt Imhof is also convinced that something has to change at Ringier. Because the Borer case is not over yet. "The damage to Ringier's reputation is a fact. But there is still a great deal of uncertainty within the media company. The employees' sense of belonging and orientation have been damaged." In the meantime, however, something has already been done with Frank A. Meyer's sabbatical. "With this, the media company is demonstrating to the outside world a clarified management structure - and apparently the willingness to establish this internally as well."
Whether this hope will be sustained or deceptive remains to be seen. The official wording on Frank A. Meyer's duties and functions after his so-called "vacation" (see box) leaves everything open. A return to all previous roles is also possible. In doing so, he is unlikely to face any significant resistance from the squad. "There are people there who are practically all disciples of Frank A. Meyer," says a Ringier insider.
Future open for Frank a. Meyer
Various versions of Frank A. Meyer's future roles and functions have been circulating in the media. The official version, as communicated internally at Ringier, reads as follows, according to Ringier spokesman Fridolin Luchsinger: "In March 2003, Frank A. Meyer will resume his work. This will then include his work as a columnist, as a TV presenter, collaboration on journalistic projects or strategies, and journalistic training and continuing education." As Luchsinger told WerbeWoche, the internal publisher's communiqué was formulated in this way by Michael Ringier himself. However, the less than concrete wording of the communiqué leaves open all kinds of loopholes regarding Frank A. Meyer's future positioning.
Constantly reflecting on and monitoring its own journalistic work is one of the central tasks of every media company. However, there are major differences in the form in which companies fulfill this publisher's duty today. In almost all Swiss publishing houses, this task is still performed by the publishing families themselves. For this majority, journalistic quality control is still considered a self-evident duty that is part of the passion of being a publisher. Matthias Hagemann, Chairman of the Board of the Basler Mediengruppe, is quite clear about this. "For our company, we have no need for an advisory board.
The publishing responsibility is assumed by the family itself. This task has always been central for us, and we are happy to fulfill it."
However, this traditional form of journalistic self-regulation quickly reaches its limits with the increasing size of media companies, which have a wide range of products to oversee. For this reason, major publishers in Germany and abroad often set up journalistic committees. Their task is to monitor and coordinate the content of the titles - and sometimes also to intervene.
Mostly, these are bodies with purely advisory functions, but they also run the risk of being mere discussion groups with no effect on day-to-day business. If it weren't for Roger de Weck, Tamedia's new journalistic conference would have to be counted among them. This type of committee clearly plays its role at the strategic level, without exercising any concrete functions in the operational area. The other variant of a journalistic committee, which has more bite, was or is at work at Ringier. However, the greater effectiveness of this version comes at a price. It seems to be possible only if the boundaries between strategic and operational influence are crossed.
Instead of advisory boards, external experts can also do their good
The Borer case has impressively demonstrated that mixing strategic and operational functions carries enormous risks. "One problem at Ringier is that its journalistic committee was also the real power center in the media company," says Zurich sociology professor Kurt Imhof. "This is not, of course, an independent reflective body."
Ironically, however, Ringier, which is currently the subject of much criticism, is the very company where a journalistic advisory board has worked most efficiently to date. Precisely because this committee operated particularly close to day-to-day business. Management consultant and ex-Tamedia strategist Kurt W. Zimmermann agrees. "Journalistic quality control and journalistic discussion must be located close to the daily production of content, otherwise it doesn't work." Unfortunately, however, all these journalistic bodies are usually not permanently available contacts for the editors-in-chief.
Zimmermann doesn't think much of sporadic disputes about journalistic direction, which usually take place in retreats, seminars and, at most, paper reviews. "My experience as editor-in-chief has shown that daily discourse is needed," he says. "With Frank A. Meyer, the editors-in-chief had exactly that, namely a contact person available every day. Despite all the criticism, you have to acknowledge this role. Here, journalistic goals were discussed in concrete terms, regardless of whether one thinks Ringier products are good or bad."
But the mixing of operational and strategic functions practiced there comes at a high price. The Borer case has made the problems of inadequate journalistic management structures and deficits in quality management particularly clear, says Professor Otfried Jarren, Director of the Institute for Journalism and Media Research at the University of Zurich. "The fact that it could have come to this at all casts a bad light on the journalistic committee responsible there and the concept it practiced.
The deficits and grievances have been shown to be so serious that one has to ask whether the existing structure and practice there alone are still suitable for future quality management," he criticizes. Such bodies must be clearly defined, both in terms of their influence and their limits. In order for these bodies to be able to act effectively, he pleads for as much distance as possible from day-to-day business.
This is entirely in line with the business management concepts currently being intensively discussed under the heading of "good governance. Among other things, these call for companies to have a differentiated external perspective. Jarren therefore advises that advice be systematically ensured through the composition of the staff, and that external experts be brought in on a case-by-case and project basis.
Kurt Imhof is also convinced that something has to change at Ringier. Because the Borer case is not over yet. "The damage to Ringier's reputation is a fact. But there is still a great deal of uncertainty within the media company. The employees' sense of belonging and orientation have been damaged." In the meantime, however, something has already been done with Frank A. Meyer's sabbatical. "With this, the media company is demonstrating to the outside world a clarified management structure - and apparently the willingness to establish this internally as well."
Whether this hope will be sustained or deceptive remains to be seen. The official wording on Frank A. Meyer's duties and functions after his so-called "vacation" (see box) leaves everything open. A return to all previous roles is also possible. In doing so, he is unlikely to face any significant resistance from the squad. "There are people there who are practically all disciples of Frank A. Meyer," says a Ringier insider.
Future open for Frank a. Meyer
Various versions of Frank A. Meyer's future roles and functions have been circulating in the media. The official version, as communicated internally at Ringier, reads as follows, according to Ringier spokesman Fridolin Luchsinger: "In March 2003, Frank A. Meyer will resume his work. This will then include his work as a columnist, as a TV presenter, collaboration on journalistic projects or strategies, and journalistic training and continuing education." As Luchsinger told WerbeWoche, the internal publisher's communiqué was formulated in this way by Michael Ringier himself. However, the less than concrete wording of the communiqué leaves open all kinds of loopholes regarding Frank A. Meyer's future positioning.
