Political influence on the media in Germany

‘The press is free’

The same sentence is enshrined in the first place in all 16 state press laws: ‘The press is free.’ Article 5 of the German constitution Grundgesetz also protects media reporting from state influence. In addition, a public broadcasting system modelled on the BBC in the UK was created after the Second World War to ensure that broadcasting was independent of the state and financed by the public. The effectiveness of these protective mechanisms has been the subject of debate for many years. Even if no direct involvement of individual politicians in media companies could be found for the German media system - unlike in previous MOM projects, such as Colombia and India - two points nevertheless give cause for critical consideration.

An offer from your SPD

In Germany, there is no general ban on politicians or political parties acquiring stakes in media companies. However, members of parliament and political parties are subject to certain transparency requirements. The Political Parties Act stipulates that shareholdings in media companies by political parties must be disclosed in their annual reports (Section 27 (7) No. 2 PartG). In this respect, it is no secret that the SPD holds shares in various media companies via its wholly-owned subsidiary ddvg (Deutsche Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft mbH). The party also lists its shareholdings in its annual report.

The SPD is also not the only party with media holdings. A survey by the Bundestag's scientific service showed that all parties in parliament, with the exception of the AfD and Bündnis90/Die Grünen, are entrepreneurially active in the media sector. The last survey was conducted in 2019. This outdated level of knowledge is compounded by the fact that these surveys are not conducted regularly, but only at the request of members of the German Bundestag and are based on information in the parties' accountability reports.

What does this mean? As part of the MOM Germany project, only four SPD connections were analysed in detail: the shareholding in the Madsack Media Group, a quarter of which is in SPD hands, and the shareholding in three private broadcasting companies (Radio NRW, Regiocast and Antenne Bayern Group). While the Madsack Media Group is mentioned in the SPD report, there is no information on the radio stations, for example. The reason for this may lie in the shareholding structure. In the case of Regiocast, for example, the SPD holds its shares via 45 different individual holdings in various other media companies, but none of them directly. In this respect, these shares remain invisible. The ddvg also mentions its stake in Madsack, but not in Regiocast. The search for a complete list of media with SPD holdings is therefore like a bottomless pit, with the number of newspapers, magazines and online media affected running into the hundreds. Media such as Neue Westfälische, which is partly owned by the SPD, often report on the party without reference to the ownership structure. A clear transparency deficit can therefore be identified in this respect.

In defence of its shareholdings, the SPD often relies on their historical origins. Because labour newspapers were so unpopular that established printers and publishers did not want to publish them, party members founded their own companies - the foundation stone for the ddvg empire was laid. ‘These print shops are self-made’, commented Sebastian Hartmann, member of the Bundestag, on the shareholdings during a debate in the Bundestag in September 2023.

And yet this argument misses the point of the criticism: the SPD's investments have an enormous broad impact, particularly through the Madsack Media Group, but also through its shares in various small publications. And even if there were no signs of direct influence in the context of this project, statements by former SPD treasurer Inge Wettig-Danielmeier show the potential for this: In an interview with the newspaper Welt (2000), when asked about the party's influence, she said, ‘We have a right of veto in some cases. (...) Of course we would intervene if a publisher made a Republican or a PDS man editor-in-chief.’ In response to an enquiry, a spokesperson for the SPD said: ‘Separate veto rights with regard to editor-in-chief positions have not existed for a long time.’ Neither the treasurer nor the SPD is involved in the operational activities of the ddvg and has no personal influence on decision-making processes.

In the interests of transparent ownership, however, it would be advisable to disclose the media concerned collectively in accountability reports. Conversely, the media themselves could also become active: Information on the ownership structure in the masthead has so far been missing in all of the analysed offerings.

Away from the state, but not state-free

For the first time in MOM history, a media system was analysed in which public service broadcasting played a central role. With seven out of ten radio stations in the selection of the most important opinion-forming stations, public broadcasters dominate the radio sector. In the TV sector, too, almost half of the most important and widest-reaching stations were public broadcasters. However, the concept of ownership is only applicable to this type of media to a limited extent: as institutions under public law, they either belong to themselves or, in a kind of ideal ownership, to all those who finance them through their licence fee.

By definition, this system is therefore organised outside the state. However, remote from the state does not automatically mean ‘state-free’. On the contrary, there are a large number of state or at least state-affiliated members on the supervisory bodies of the broadcasters analysed. In some cases, this is provided for by law: in accordance with the Bavarian Broadcasting Act (BayRG), the Chair of the Supervisory Board is held by the President of the State Parliament, currently Ilse Aigner. She naturally belongs to one of the parties represented in the state parliament, in this case the governing CSU party. Overall, more than a quarter of the 50 members of the BR Broadcasting Council belong to a party represented in the state parliament.

Only one broadcaster, WDR, provides comprehensive information on the members of its committees. This includes CVs as well as regularly updated information on professional and other activities such as party or board positions. Overall, the 109 members and deputies of the WDR Broadcasting Council include 14 members of the state parliament, but a total of 23 people (21%) with party affiliation or active offices in parties.

The survey revealed a similar picture for SWR and NDR: there are 12 members of the state parliament (16%) on the SWR Broadcasting Council, while the figure for NDR is slightly higher at 11 out of 58 (19%). However, due to a lack of information, it is not possible to determine with certainty how many members also hold offices or have links to political parties. However, it is known that the director of SWR, Kai Gniffke, has been a member of the SPD since 1982. This can be seen in a detailed statement by Gniffke on the SWR website.

Our investigation found the most conspicuous links to politics in the ZDF Television Council. Ten years after the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court, which resulted in a greater restriction of state and state-affiliated members in the ZDF committees, the composition still gives cause for debate. The ZDF Board of Directors includes three active prime ministers as well as former Prime Minister Malu Dreyer, who only stepped down from office in July 2024. They hold a total of four of the twelve votes, i.e. just as many as the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court allows. However, it is not only the number of members that is relevant, but also their position, as the example of the Television Council makes clear.

It is true that the composition corresponds to the legal provisions of the ZDF State Treaty, which, for example, provides for two representatives of the federal government and 16 representatives of the federal states. However, this would not automatically require these representatives to be active members of governments or political officials. Nevertheless, the Television Council currently includes one active federal minister, two active state ministers, nine active state secretaries and ministers, one member of the Bundestag and - particularly problematic - a government spokesperson. Six other people are former members of the government. There is also a lack of standardised regulations on biographical information. While some members are labelled as ‘former ministers’, the former Federal Minister of Justice and Foreign Minister Heiko Maaß is simply listed as a ‘lawyer’. There is no reference to his previous offices in the biography. The Vice-Chair of the Television Council, Katrin Kroemer, also has connections to politics: she works in the constituency office of SPD member of parliament Helge Lindh, the media policy spokesperson for his parliamentary group.

All in all, it can be said that Even if the public broadcasters comply with the legal provisions on the composition of their committees, there would still be an opportunity for politicians to fill the positions on administrative and broadcasting boards with fewer members with close ties to the state and to characterise the members with close ties to the state more transparently. At a time when public broadcasting as a whole is under heavy attack and has to defend itself against the accusation of being ‘state broadcasting’, this would also be in its own interest.