18.36 euros per month and household - The licence fee will increase from 2021. This was decided by the Conference of Minister Presidents in March. The financing of public service broadcasting has been a contentious issue in the past and has already been dealt with by the Federal Constitutional Court on several occasions. Volker Boehme-Neßler, Professor of Public Law, Media and Telecommunications Law, explains what function the licence fee fulfils, whether alternative payment models are possible and what his students think about the financing of public service broadcasting.
Professor Boehme-Neßler, it is not only in Germany that broadcasting fees are repeatedly criticised. In the UK, Boris Johnson even announced plans in February to abolish the licence fee and drastically reduce the BBC's offerings. Some critics see this as an attack on democracy. Rightly so?
I share this criticism. In a democracy, citizens are dependent on independent, objective information of the highest possible quality in order to form an opinion and participate in democratic discourse. Contributions play a key role in ensuring that public service broadcasting can provide a diverse range of programmes for this purpose. It is then not exclusively dependent on advertising revenue and is relatively independent of economic constraints. This independence and diversity will be lost if licence fees are abolished. Furthermore, an attack on the BBC is also a symbolic act beyond the UK, as it is a role model for public broadcasters worldwide. It also had a formative influence on the German system: when the Allies established public service broadcasting in the post-war period, they also modelled it on the BBC.
What is the legal basis for public service broadcasting in Germany?
In Germany, broadcasting is a matter for the federal states. So there is no federal broadcasting law or anything similar. But the Federal States usually agree on common rules, which are then laid down in state treaties that are binding for everyone. That's why there are more or less standardised rules for broadcasting in all Federal States. The fact that every household has to pay licence fees is laid down in the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty.
Critics say that too many members of the broadcasting councils are politically biased.
This argument cannot be completely dismissed. The broadcasting councils decide on the content of each broadcaster. They are, so to speak, the "parliaments" of the broadcasters. The theory is that society in all its diversity should be represented here, for example by representatives of sports and cultural organisations, political parties, churches and religious communities.
That sounds good in theory. In practice, it is difficult. Although the individual associations and social groups put forward candidates, it is the state governments and state parliaments that ultimately select the members of the broadcasting councils. This often leads to former politicians sitting on the broadcasting councils in a new role, for example as Chair of a sports association, where they also represent decidedly political views. The Federal Constitutional Court has often dealt with such cases and set quotas for members with a political background.
At the moment, the licence fee is levied per household, regardless of the number of people living there and their financial circumstances. Wouldn't an income-based tax be fairer?
The principle that broadcasting should be state-free speaks against a broadcasting tax: Neither parliament nor other state institutions should determine payments to broadcasting. Otherwise, politicians could discipline or even threaten the public service media by lowering the broadcasting tax and drying up the media financially in the event of unpopular statements. However, it remains unfair that a single person alone pays just as much as a five-person flat share, for example. However, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that this is the most practicable solution and that this injustice is therefore acceptable.
Do you also discuss the financing of public service broadcasting with students?
Yes, I regularly give lectures on media law. Many students are very critical of public media because they hardly watch television in the true sense of the word anymore, but rather videos on YouTube or films on Netflix. I've often heard the argument: "I don't use public broadcasting, why should I pay for it?" I then try to explain that the levies are contributions and not fees. You pay fees for a specific government service that you use, for example for a new ID card or for rubbish collection. The licence fee, on the other hand, serves to maintain the infrastructure of public service broadcasting, which is important for a functioning democracy. This is what we pay for and not for certain programmes that we watch or don't watch. Everyone benefits from the infrastructure, not just the customers of ARD and ZDF.
And can you convince students with this argument?
Less so in the past, when we often had to let different opinions stand side by side at the end of the discussion. But that's perfectly fine. For about two years now, however, I have noticed that many people are more open to public service broadcasting. In the age of fake news, it is increasingly important to receive reliable and high-quality information, and many people tend to rely on public service media for this. The Tagesschau, for example, still has very high viewing figures, even though it is perhaps seen as somewhat old-fashioned. In the minds of many, it stands for quality, which is why it is all the more serious when mistakes are made in reporting.
Interview: Iria Sorge-Röder
