Dwell time: Expert calls for an end to all online restrictions by ARD and ZDF
Removing all restrictions for public broadcasters - a media law expert believes this would be beneficial. Private media are not delighted.
Flexible streaming is increasingly replacing the flickering box because it only delivers on the basis of predetermined dates.
(Image: Daniel AJ Sokolov)
"To unleash the innovative power of public service broadcasting, all restrictions in the online sector should be abolished." This is the opinion of Jan Christopher Kalbhenn, Professor of Public Law at the Federal University of Applied Sciences in Münster. He has compiled a study on ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio in transition on behalf of the Otto Brenner Foundation of the IG Metall trade union. In it, Kalbhenn recommends that broadcasters should no longer be told how long they can make broadcast content available online.
In official German, the existing time limit after which broadcasters must delete content is called the "retention period". According to Kalbhenn, the public broadcasters should set this themselves. Originally, the deletion obligation (known in official German as the depublication obligation) applied after seven days, particularly for third-party productions in the media libraries of public broadcasters. Meanwhile, the requirements have been relaxed, and even foreign feature films are sometimes available for streaming, at least for a short time.
The media law expert also believes that the so-called three-stage test is no longer necessary. This requirement contains test procedures for new online offerings of the broadcasters in light of their mandate with regard to the democratic, social and cultural needs of society, the promotion of journalistic diversity and the financial costs. "Flexibility and agility are particularly important in the digital sector," Kalbhenn's study counters. In addition, the "ban on press similarity", which restricts the online activities of public broadcasters, should be dropped. This means that only online contributions that accompany broadcasts are permitted. According to the analysis, this requirement is "no longer appropriate in the age of almost completely convergent media offerings and contradicts the goal of accessibility".
On the other hand, the researcher is against ARD and ZDF becoming fragmented on the internet: "If the broadcasters cannot muster the strength to delete or merge linear special-interest channels", he believes that media policy should "take this decision away from them through legislation". The federal states should show sensitivity in the area of sports rights. A restraint requirement should encourage broadcasters to be economical in this area. Kalbhenn also describes the adjustment of the contribution assessment procedure as an important area for reform. Small increases should therefore be possible "without involving the state parliaments" quasi automatically at certain intervals ("rationalization model").
Massive criticism from press publishers
The background to the contribution to the discussion is that the federal states have announced a draft reform treaty for the fall. Kalbhenn sees this as an opportunity to "secure the future of public service broadcasting in the long term". However, the project is made more difficult by the unanimity principle of the federal media system, according to which all state parliaments must agree. This would make it difficult to achieve a "major breakthrough".
However, the constitutional law expert is optimistic about the Broadcasting Commission's key points paper. According to the paper, "an independent, joint organizational unit of ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio is to be set up as a first step for the development and operation of a joint technical platform". The Commission is thus taking up a demand of the Future Council, which Kalbhenn also supports. The commission also affirms "that free and diverse media - private and public - are of central importance for social coexistence and democracy".
According to critics, Kalbhenn's study disregards this principle. "The complete liberalization of fee-financed public service press would be a massive intensification of the already unfair competition, which would make the digital transformation of private press offerings even more difficult, and in some cases even torpedo it," Stephan Scherzer, Managing Director of the Media Association of the Free Press (MVFP), emphasized to heise online. Instead of further loosening the "far too lax barriers for press-like offerings", the federal states would have to limit public service competition, for example through textual quantity limits. Otherwise, the market-financed press and its indispensable diversity would be at risk.
(ds)