ONE-WEEK GERMANY PROGRAM 2007
Special Berlin Short Program 2007
Berlin for U.S. News Directors and Gatekeepers
September 9–16, 2007
This program in Germany for broadcast media gatekeepers was designed specifically for radio and television news directors, assistant news directors, vice presidents for news, and senior editors.
The program brought our American fellows to German newsrooms, German factories, and German political offices to hear first hand how the media covers stories and issues in Germany. They were able to compare and discuss broadcast structures and news coverage models, public and private radio and television entities in Germany, along with viewing trends, content and form, and the impact of technology and new media on future developments in news coverage and news gathering.
During the program participants saw Berlin, the capital of Germany, and discussed the changes and challenges 17 years after German unification. The participants got a close look at modern Germany and saw how business and political interests work within the increasingly globalized economy. The group also traveled by high speed rail from Berlin to Leipzig on one day, and/or from Berlin to Hamburg, visiting with industry and media leaders.
REPORTS OF PARTICIPANTS
CJ Beutien, WNDU-TV, South Bent, IN
Berlin
Amazing is the first word that comes to mind. It had been a little over seven years since I was in Berlin with the last RIAS trip. In 2000, I counted over 26 tall construction cranes in the midst of erecting new buildings and a new future for this reunited city. I had never seen so much construction in any one place. Now in 2007, the cranes have diminished, but not without leaving behind some marvelous buildings. The former East has really been transformed. There is still work to do, but so much has been accomplished.
Seven years ago the Holocaust memorial was just a dream on a billboard. Now it is a reality. What a sobering feeling you have as you walk through it and learn the genesis of this mighty memorial. The Reichstag was still under renovation seven years ago. Now it is finished along with some amazing accessory buildings. What history this building has and what a splendid job in bringing it back to life and respecting its history at the same time. It truly is a nice feeling to walk through those buildings and feel the openness that was intended by design. Lots of windows, lots of open spaces = open government.
In the previous trip I was not able to spend any time in the Tiergarten. This trip I did. What a great experience. A little bit of wilderness right in the middle of a huge city. It is very similar to Central Park in New York. Many Germans were taking advantage of it. Joggers, bicyclists, families playing in the green fields, wildlife of all kinds scurrying about. You couldn’t help but enjoy the walk through this once hunting ground for kings.
I also climbed to the top of the Liberty Statue. From there you could see the geometric design of the city and how beautiful Berlin really is. Boulevards filled with cars, rickshaws, people enjoying the weather and vendors selling their goods along the street.
I did come upon a flea market. Lots of antiques and collectibles for sale. Lots of people browsing. I found a toy American car. It was a Studebaker which had been the life blood of the city I live in the states. South Bend, Indiana was the home of Studebaker for over 100 years. Studebaker manufactured wagons and buggies for many years before cars. Cars came along after the turn of the century. Studebaker had a tough time competing against the big three American automakers, and in 1963 it closed for good.
The Media…Broadcast
It was extremely interesting learning about the media in Germany. I was very surprised to see some of the same issues that confront us confront them such as doing more with less, backpack journalism, keeping the quality up and the costs down, hiring freelancers and just generally living with an ever shrinking budget. Sometimes you feel those issues are only unique to you.
The difference in private vs public media was rather ironic. It is the direct opposite of how it is in the states. Private broadcasters in Germany are really struggling to get a piece of the pie and the publicly supported media are the established, traditional broadcasters. But the private operators have only been around a little over 20 years, so it is understandable. I was happy to hear that one of the public broadcasters thought the private companies are making them better. Competition does force us to improve.
I like the German public/subscription TV system. It allows you, as a journalist, to really focus on covering the news and not appeasing stockholders and advertisers. The journalists decide what to cover and how to cover it. In such a system the news dictates coverage rather than economics. Consultants and other outside influences do not play a role. That, quite honestly, is very refreshing.
It was also interesting to learn that one of the private broadcasters, the TVB, tried the American system of multiple live shots, fast pace, action/eyewitness news only to have it fail. You could argue they did not give it enough time to catch on but maybe Germans just want the news straight without a lot of flash. TVB was very cutting edge in making its content available on the new technology, ie cell phones. Quite impressed with how far along they are.
Tagesschau/ARD
I heard a lot about this show. It has been around forever. I had been told on the last RIAS trip that Germans stopped what they were doing at 8pm to watch. I was also told it was boring, etc.
Actually I thought the show was very interesting. Lots of content, well paced and the 15 minutes of commercial free information seemed to go by quickly. It was full of solid news. Reports from Germany and all over the world. I was surprised at the time devoted to weather. It is a HUGE draw on American newscasts and in Germany gets a voice over at the very end of the broadcast.
In America we are competing for eyeballs with other TV news operations, web pages, several hundred channels of niche programming on cable and satellite and we believe we have to capture our viewers attention with active news or lose them to another source. Germans seem more dedicated to getting the information and don’t have to be entertained at the same time.
As I mentioned earlier, I was impressed with how the German media has embraced the internet and new technology in disseminating news. They see the need and habits changing particularly among young people. And it appears they devote the time and manpower necessary to get it done right. In the states we strive to program the new media with existing staff that also program the on air content. Such a system makes it very difficult to excel at quality and creativity.
The German media, both public and private, seem really tuned in to their audiences. They know who they are, what they want and expect, and how to make the information available to them whether it is over the air, online or on cell.
The Media…Print
This, quite frankly, was a disappointment. In many ways I thought broadcast was a lot more professional. Newspapers seemed to aim at the lowest common denominator, at least those published by Springer. Not being able to read German fluently, I did not read the newspapers extensively…but you could tell by design, content and pictures that many were not designed to grab the attention of prospective readers rather than just delivering the news.
Government
By having several political parties, it seems everyone is represented. A German citizen can support the party that truly advocates what they believe in. They seem united in fighting terrorism and not committing troops to anything but defending the homeland. Germany also has a strong interest in International news. Political leaders are concerned about the growth in China and how Africa is developing into a “player” among the nations of the world.
Most of the political leaders seemed united on becoming more “green”. Being energy efficient, cutting pollution, developing wind and solar energy, recycling. German citizens seem to take this a lot more seriously than most Americans.
Government officials also seemed very interested in the United States. Some study our government intensely. One did graduate work on President Bush’s foreign policy. Interesting.
Transportation
I continue to be in awe of the transportation system. Getting around Berlin on the subway was easy, quick and very efficient. The trains are comfortable and on time. The train to Hamburg was great. The bus back, not so good.
Conclusion
It is always a great experience to visit Germany. I really like studying how another country faces its problems and looks for solutions. There are so many things I admire about Germans. They are a very disciplined, hardworking people. Their value of education is very admirable. As a culture they seem to value education above all else. It is a wealthy country, but they seem to share with their fellow citizens. Universal healthcare, decent retirement and respect for those who have been in the work force a long time are all things I respect.
They are very determined to reunite the country. It is a very difficult task. Most embrace the reunification, especially the young. There are older GDR citizens and some from the west who are not so supporting. Reunification isn’t easy or cheap, but considering the former GDR government with its limitations on freedom, it is the only way to go. Seeing the progress in reunification is very gratifying. The united country can only get better.
—————
Tom Brislin, University of Hawaii, HI
Aloha RIAS. The Germany Program for Senior Editors opened new dimensions and widened the scope for U.S. Journalist programs in Germany. It presented an opportunity for more direct peer-to-peer discussions on how very alike — and how very different — we are as journalists. Where the original Journalist Exchange mainly introduces U.S. reporters to social and political issues of Germany and the European Union, the Senior Editors Program allowed participants to discuss how those issues are covered, and to discuss the structure of journalism itself.
The inaugural group of U.S. News Directors and Managers was a good mix of radio and television, public and commercial, large and small, East-West and North-South. There was even a professor thrown in, for which I am most grateful. The gender balance was quite different — only one female — from the regular Journalist Exchanges, reflecting the gender imbalance in the decision-making levels of upper-management in U.S. journalism (and reflecting the predominantly male membership of RTNDA).
The participant mix was also a good blend of personalities: From the wide-eyed first-timer to Germany and Europe, to the alumni of previous RIAS journalist exchanges, to seasoned Germanist veterans. All (thankfully) possessed a healthy sense of humor, a necessary component for some excursions (such as autobahn truck stops). And certainly all shared the challenges of trying to do more with less in their own downsized newsrooms — a common frame for observing how German newsrooms, particularly in the public sector, were utilizing their (seemingly) abundant resources.
The substance of the program began with an introduction to the public — private continuum of German broadcasting, a logical point of departure. The presentation on the structure of public broadcasting suffered from the absence of a key speaker and often raised more questions than it answered. A clearer picture of public broadcasting was actually presented by the VPRT (association of private broadcast media) director, who ably discussed the challenges of private broadcasters (with ample charts, diagrams and handouts) in the face of such historic and massive public funding — and privileges — for the public channels and networks.
The historic base of public broadcasting and the contemporary challenges of the private channels was personalized on the second day by Ernst Elitz, the iconic director of DeutschlandRadio Kultur, and Peter Limbourg and Alexander Privitera, editor and anchor, respectively, of N24 TV, a 24-hour news channel.
The public-private framing of the discussion was by now so well set that the bulk of discussions to follow focused more on the economic and competitive advantages of public broadcasting than on more fundamental questions of news value, news judgment, and professionalism.
The questions are intriguing — is it fair for public broadcasting to get designated exclusive coverage rights (e.g. the Olympics) and be allowed to generate revenue through advertising, while enjoying a regulated and increasing income through user fees? How is private broadcasting to establish itself (while out of its infancy, it is still in an awkward preadolescent phase with many years to go before maturity) with both economic and programming chips stacked against it?
The discussion, naturally, was dominated by representatives from U.S. commercial broadcasting. The U.S. public broadcasters face the opposite challenges — dwindling revenues and programming that is dominated by the larger, commercial stations and networks.
The U.S. model of commercial broadcasting — from ad sales to weather promotions — was tried and didn’t take in Germany, complained the German private broadcasters. It wasn’t given enough time to take hold, advised their U.S. commercial counterparts. It’s a discussion that has no immediate answers. For many, the questions it raises are far more intriguing.
Essential discussions of news values and judgment did emerge — in a newspaper setting, following brief visits to a series of public radio and TV, and a private TV station. Rudolph Porsch and his journalism interns/students at Axel Springer Akademie provided an overview of Berlin and countrywide news coverage. The student interns’ experiences of why they chose a journalism career, what prepared them, and what they have learned on the job was revealing.
Discussions of professionalism continued with a change of venue to Hamburg and a visit to the Tagesschau and related news programs/studios for ARD. Having heard tales of the humdrum Tagesschau delivery, participants were pleasantly surprised to find that in many ways it matched the anchor-based, correspondent-driven format of a U.S. TV News schau. After observing what seemed like a dozen different control/news rooms, it was the extended conference room discussion with the Tagesschau executive editor that was a highlight of the program. There was a free and wide-ranging discussion of what’s news, who should cover it, how it should be covered, what’s ahead, and what sells in contemporary society. The program hit its mark and found its base in this session.
Aside from “work,” the famous RIAS socializing lived up to its well-deserved reputation with warm and gregarious dinners for the opening and closing. While I missed the symphony evening, I did appreciate the times for informal conversations on the train to, and bus from, Hamburg. The side-trip through the Reeperbahn was worth the price(?) of admission! No program is complete, of course, without a tour of the Reichstag. The guide was sympathetic with journalists’ interests, and her knowledge rivaled the various party speakers. Sitting in on an economic debate set a good framework for the next day’s discussions of how the speechmaking and deliberations would be treated by the various public and private newscasts.
The decision to expand the RIAS journalist exchanges to include a shortened session for News Director and Managers was solid and laudatory. Both RIAS and RTNDF are to be thanked. Mahalo!
—————
Butler Cain, Alabama Public Radio, Tuscaloosa, AL
The RIAS Berlin Kommission exchange was one of the best professional and personal experiences of my life. I was impressed from the very beginning, when Rainer, Isabell, and Sandra began sending me information to prepare for the program. Soon after my wife and I arrived in Berlin (she was able to accompany me on the trip), we settled into our fabulous hotel, took a nap, and then met everyone for dinner in the hotel restaurant. RIAS had already provided us with an itinerary, so the dinner was a great opportunity to relax, introduce ourselves to everyone, and eat our first meal in Germany.
I will begin with my impressions of the RIAS program. It was a wise choice to begin the week with a more relaxed schedule while the exchange participants got over our jetlag. I am very thankful that the program gave us ample opportunity to learn so much about Germany’s broadcasting industry while also providing time during the evenings for recreation and tourism. RIAS recognizes that a successful exchange program must balance both of those needs, and it did so very well.
It is obvious that the RIAS Berlin Kommission is widely respected throughout Berlin and Germany. It was a privilege to spend time with local, regional, and national broadcasters and learn about how they produce their news programs. Visiting the Reichstag was a highlight of the trip, and I would recommend keeping that portion of the schedule in future RIAS programs. The entire exchange program succeeded in giving me a solid understanding of Germany’s broadcasting system, from several points of view, and the experience has been incredibly enlightening.
My impressions of Berlin and Germany are very good because this trip was different for me and my wife. We did not just visit Germany — we feel as if we became immersed in its ways. This is because of RIAS. Rainer, Isabell, and Sandra were more than just our guides and facilitators — they became our friends, and they treated us as if we had known each other for years. I was thankful that they included my wife in a few of the events and considered her as part of the group. Just as we were interested to learn about them, their city, and their country, they were equally interested in us. I did not get the impression that they treat the exchange program as just a job. They seem to truly enjoy their work, and all three are assets to the RIAS program. The RIAS experience was superb, and I am proud to be among a growing number of RIAS alumni.
—————
Mark Engel, CNN, Atlanta, GA
I was in a business suit, on my back, shining a flashlight up into the interior of a piece of art mounted on posts near the Marx-Engels monument in what used to be East Berlin. It was shortly after midnight and, thankfully, police were not cruising the area. My handheld GPS had led me there in search of treasure — a small container filled with trinkets. It’s part of a worldwide game called geocaching. I was determined to find this cache because, despite my personal politics, the infamous communists Marx and Engels have a special meaning to me. I’m Mark Engel, an Executive Producer at CNN in Atlanta.
The trip to Berlin for the RIAS Fellowship was my second visit to this vibrant city. I was here as a tourist in 1990, months after the wall came down. Today, a few sections of the wall remain standing. Other parts have been moved to plazas and become backgrounds for tourist photos. Some chunks of wall were chipped to small pieces, packaged and are available as souvenirs in stores around the city.
A line — embedded in roads, sidewalks, grass and dirt — winds through the city where the wall once stood. Just two bricks wide, it’s an interesting marker for tourists but for its people, a permanent reminder of this city’s terrible history — division by Communism and the birthplace of Nazi terror.
Yet, the city feels so vibrant and free. Late night and early mornings, Berlin’s single women, teens, older folks and tourists seemed completely safe walking, riding bicycles or hopping on the subway. This level of comfort was, perhaps, the most striking impression of Germany’s capital city that I got during my one week RIAS Fellowship.
I saw a city trying to rebuild and, at the same time, reinvent itself. The old world is becoming very modern. We saw a symphony hall with a unique contemporary design placing the musicians “in the round. ” Another day, the Bundestag and its new government buildings shaped with steel, glass and distinction instead of stone, cedar and tradition. The Reichstag is the best example. A traditional stone structure with pillars build over a century ago was recently topped with a steel and glass observation cupola. Even the geocaching “treasures” I hunted in Berlin were placed by local residents in as many historical spots as modern areas of the city.
But, my fellow American journalists and I quickly discovered that the real treasure in Germany is the 7.6 Billion Euro ($10.7 Billion) bonanza that public broadcasters share each year from mandatory user fees. As we learned during our 7-day RIAS Fellowship, it’s those fees — collected from almost everyone who owns a TV or radio — that show Germany’s public television and radio system doesn’t need to modernize to remain strong.
Fourteen regions in the country each have their own non-governmental agency that collects the fees and controls all media compliance and licensing. In our first session on Monday, we discussed the fees and fees became the main topic during the rest of our week as we met with confident public broadcasters and their envious commercial counterparts.
At an organization representing privately owned commercial television stations we heard cries of “foul”! They get none of the fee and for more than 20 years private stations have been struggling without success to change the system. Their big hope was that a legal challenge being considered by Germany’s high court would help put all broadcasters on a level playing field.
The ruling came down the week we were in Berlin and it was worse than private broadcasters feared. The court not only confirmed the concept of monthly user fees but prevented government officials from vetoing or reducing the amount of the fee.
For the public channels it was the best of both worlds — fees that fund them are required by law but now the government has little say in how much is collected and how it’s spent.
But wait! There’s more! Private channels had hoped for a decision that would limit public channels to distributing content on television and radio, leaving the internet and other state of the art methods such as cell phones exclusively for private broadcasters. They wanted some areas where they wouldn’t have to compete with the fee-financed public channels. But, the public channels argued it’s their duty to communicate with Germans by any means possible and the court agreed, giving them a green light to venture beyond broadcasting into emerging distribution technologies.
And consider this. Public channels, in addition to the fee and ability to compete on all technological fronts, have been able to sell a limited amount of commercials, they don’t have to worry about ratings and are accountable to almost no one as to how they spend the public money. There is no pretense of a level playing field. Unlike the U.S. , public broadcasting came first in Germany. By the time private channels emerged, people were used to enjoying public television without commercials.
One manager of a Berlin private station told us that that’s one reason it’s hard to sell TV advertising. He is also frustrated by the apparent comradery among business owners. Germans, he said, value friendship more than winning and aren’t interested in TV advertising that would promote their service or product while hurting their fellow businessperson.
Still, there are many successful newspapers in Germany that are supported only by advertising. It seems commercial broadcasters in Germany are stuck where American broadcasters were in the 1950s — trying to convince newspaper advertisers to spend money on television.
That’s when American commercial stations did almost anything for a sale including having newscasters present their news from behind signs promoting sponsors. Today, we discovered that German commercial stations pander to advertisers by selling them positive news stories and discussions on topics relating to their product or service.
But the big difference between the histories of American and German television is that in the U.S., commercial stations were first on the air. There was no public broadcasting then to compete and when it did start, government funding was minimal and highly politicized.
At this point in the RIAS week, I was outraged. I felt the German system was not competitive and commercial broadcasters didn’t have a chance. Besides, I thought, the public must be just as outraged having to pay the fee.
Then we went to the Springer journalism school where the young adults we met there said they and many friends actually like the fee system. They felt paying a fee is the price of guaranteeing that quality programming will always be available and newscasts will present relevant, informative stories unaffected by advertisers or government.
It was a turning point for me. By the end of the week, I wondered if the German system of funding broadcasting and news changed, would it be a change for the good? Would the rise of commercialism and the fall of public funding really make it better?
In the U.S. , the dominant system of commercial television has transformed the meaning of broadcast news and virtually eliminated it in commercial radio. The quest for profits through ratings has created an environment that forces commercial news providers to present news that most viewers will watch. As seasoned journalists, we feel news should not only inform but educate and that includes exposing viewers to stories and issues they might not want to see.
Germany’s public system is not dependent on ratings and sales to survive. It can present a deep, rich newscast with a blend of issues and topics from a wide spectrum that would not be limited to stories that appeal to the largest audience. I returned to the Marx-Engels monument at the end of the week but never found that elusive geocaching “treasure. ” However, I did leave Berlin appreciating the city’s beauty, its vibrancy and its renaissance through change.
The RIAS fellowship also gave me a clear vision of the dramatic difference between the broadcasting systems of Germany and the U.S. and how funding might impact the newscasts they present. I realized that despite the progressive nature of both countries, it’s likely neither system of funding the mainstream broadcast media will change.
When I return to this wonderful country some day, I’ll try to figure out which system is really the modern one.
—————
Rod Gramer, KGW-TV, Portland, OR
The history of many European capitals seems remote and irrelevant from today’s world. But the history of Berlin is as fresh and foreboding as dark clouds that hang in the sky even though the worst of the storm has passed. Everywhere there are reminders about the city’s troubled history: the Reichstag building that marks the rise and fall of the Third Reich, Hitler’s unmarked and weed-covered bunker where it all ended, the Holocaust memorial that spreads out cold and gray like a cemetery, remnants of the wall and the cobblestone path that marks where it once stood and white crosses that remember those who tried and failed to cross into freedom. Checkpoint Charlie, now a garish tourist trap, mocks the past by trivializing it with souvenir trinkets, and yet still serves as a dark reminder that once children were separated from their parents, husbands from their wives and friends from their friends by the Wall. Berlin’s history is so fresh it hurts.
I first visited Berlin 24 years ago at Christmas time when the city was still an island in a sea of Communism. I entered the city at night by train. I vividly remember passing from West Germany into East Germany that night. As we crossed the border the first thing I saw was a wire fence and then a 100-yard wide clearing where every tree had been cleared to create a no-man’s land. Then there was a second fence with three strands of barbed wire on top and then an armed guard tower. Thirty-foot tall light poles stood like iron sentries, eerily turning the black night into day, so the guards could see everything and anyone who moved. It was like something out of a black-and-white Cold War movie. A few hours later we reached West Berlin, a welcome oasis on a dark December night. The lights of the city blazed with advertisements and with Christmas decorations. Along Kurfürstendamm wrist watches sold for the equivalent of $15,000 and fountain pens went for $250. Men and women wore elegant clothes and the streets were filled with BMWs and Audis. The only sign that once this city was nearly destroyed by the Allies was the bombed out Kaiser-Wihelm-Gedächtnis-Kirche that stood bathed in light.
The next day I took a tour of East Berlin. After passing through the Wall, the bus stopped. We all had to get off and stand in line as the East German police, dressed in gray and blue uniforms, checked our passports one by one. Another guard checked the bus, as two armed guards in a tower stared down at us intently. East Berlin was gray and drab compared to the brilliant West. The buildings looked either old or hastily constructed with cheap materials. Our East German guide explained that the city was being rebuilt — 40 years after the war — from the suburbs to the center of the city. He went on to explain that this building or that building would be remodeled in a year. We passed a Cathedral that was closed. It, too, would be reopened next year, he said, even though there were no signs of any construction around it. After returning to West Berlin, I wrote in my journal: “Berlin is a city that recalls the past, lives for the present and makes you wonder about the future. How long can this city remain divided by a Wall that both physically and spiritually insults the dignity of the people? In Berlin, there is a sense that it cannot remain this way forever. Someday the differences must be reconciled, perhaps not in my lifetime or in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren, but the differences must be reconciled.”
In 1989, the Wall finally came down. I was as surprised and as delighted as everyone else. When I was selected as a RIAS fellow this fall, I was eager to see how the city had changed since that Christmas time visit nearly a quarter century before. The Berlin I visited this year is a different city. The whole city — West to East — is filled with energy and vitality. I was struck by how much new construction is going on, including the new U.S. Embassy near the Brandenburg Gate. I was impressed by Potsdamer Platz. During the 1920s, Potsdamer Platz was the center of Berlin’s trendy urban scene. During the allied bombing, it was destroyed. After the War, it became a weed-infested wasteland, a no-man’s land and a fitting symbol for a divided city. Now the Sony Center is filled with restaurants, theatres and offices. It buzzes with activity all day and long into the night. It has become a symbol of the New Berlin rising out of the wasteland created by two dictatorships.
This time we moved freely between what once was West Berlin and East Berlin. Gone was the barbed wire, guard towers, check points and the Wall. Gone was the fear that one felt passing from West to East. The Unter den Linden is once again the grand boulevard of Berlin that connects the Brandenburg Gate with the River Spree. Along this graceful tree-lined boulevard are expensive shops, hotels and restaurants. At the far end of the boulevard is Berlin’s oldest and most distinguished school of higher learning, Humboldt University, where Albert Einstein once taught before the Nazis drove him out of his native land. Nearby is “Museum Island” where Germany’s most treasured collection of ancient art and architect is housed in the Pergamon Museum. The star of Germany’s collection is the Pergamon Altar, dating from the year 160 B.C.
What amazed me most about the old East Berlin is how many of the city’s most beautiful and important buildings had been trapped behind the Berlin Wall, along with the people. When I visited 24 years earlier none of the beauty or grace of that part of the city stood out in my mind as it did on this trip. During this visit Berlin struck me as a city that was moving forward to once again take its place as one of the great capitals of Europe. Yet it also seemed like a city that was very mindful — even haunted — by its most recent history. No one could forget the nightmare years of the Third Reich or the brutal domination of the Soviet Union and its puppet East German government. No one can forget because the evidence of those dark years was everywhere. Or maybe no one wants to forget because to forget is to risk going back to those dark times someday. The new Reichstag building itself is designed to create the greatest amount of “transparency. ” The beautiful glass cupola was literally designed to let the sun shine on the Bundestag as it deliberates on the people’s business. There is also space where the people can look down on their government in action.
Nowhere is this mindfulness of fascist and communist dictatorships more reflected than in how Germans view their broadcast news. The Germans I met, especially the journalists, were wary of anything that smacks of what they call “mind-control. ” Germans would rather pay a 17 Euro a month “fee” to fund public television than to watch free television that is filled with commercials. Commercial advertisements on television are viewed as an effort to “brainwash” or “manipulate” viewers.
Another thing that struck me about the broadcast media is how seriously the Germans take their news, perhaps more seriously than we do in the United States. Thomas Hinrichs is the 39-year-old editor in chief of ARD-Tagesschau, Germany’s most watched network newscast with about 10 million viewers a night. Hinrichs said the network newscast is comprised of about 50 percent political stories, 15 percent economic stories, 10 percent cultural stories and the balance weather and sports. The “Tagesschau” newscast had ignored the story about “Madeline,” a young English girl who disappeared while vacationing with her parents in Portugal. Hinrichs explained that this was “Boulevard” news or pedestrian news. He noted that the parents hadn’t even been charged with a crime yet. Until they were, the network would ignore the story, he said. By contrast, in the rest of Europe and in the United States the Madeline story was captivating the public at the time. Remarkably, in this day of 24-hour news, private channels and the internet, the Tagesschau newscast still binds the German people together. One young journalist related how his own father told him to call later and hung up on him when he made the mistake of calling during the 8 p.m. Tagesschau newscast.
The more glitzy commercial television stations and their news, which emulate more the American model of television, have not taken off in Germany. Perhaps this is because they don’t take their news as seriously as do the public television operations. One is puzzled by this serious news culture where many cities have multiple newspapers and where people watch a lot of television news. The trend is just the opposite in many other democratic countries where newspaper readership and television viewer ship are down. One is puzzled, that is, until one thinks about the history of this country and its capital city. Then it is easy to understand why Germans take their television news so seriously and are willing to pay a sizeable monthly fee to avoid watching commercials.
Germany is a country — and Berlin is a city — that has lived with two dictatorships in the past 70 years. Berlin is a city that witnessed first hand the brutality of man against his fellow man. Berlin is a city that was cut off from the rest of the free world and only survived because of the iron strength of its people and the unfailing support of the West. For more than three decades Berlin was the epicenter of the Cold War, where the world’s two superpowers faced off, where people were caged in by barbed wire and guard towers and the omnipresent Wall. It is a city that lived on the brink of death and destruction all the time.
When this kind of history is so fresh and so raw and so haunting, you take your news seriously. You do it because you know the world is a dangerous place. You do it because you know that freedom is a fragile thing. You do it because you will do anything not to go back to those nightmare years again.
—————
Rick Hadley, WBAP-AM, Arlington, TX
When I received the email from RTNDA’s Jon Ebinger that I had been accepted in the first-ever RIAS German exchange program for managers I was thrilled at the prospect of returning to the wonderful country I discovered seven years ago. It was 2000 when I was a RIAS fellow, spending two weeks in a new land.
I had often wondered if there would be an opportunity to get back to Deutschland. I knew little of the country when I left DFW Airport for Berlin in 2000. It didn’t take long for me to fall in love with the land, its culture and its people. Needless to say I was excited to learn that the RIAS Berlin Kommission was considering starting a one-week managers program. The timing perfect since I had moved into management since my first trip to Germany with RIAS years earlier.
My impressions of Germany this go-round were a bit different than my first time there. The main reason for this change in perspective was that I had a better idea of what to expect. I had spent precious little time in Europe before my first German trek. This time I had several trips abroad under my belt.
The charm, understated humor, and meticulous attention to detail I recalled from the Germany people from my first time there remain. It’s a country unafraid to examine its often difficult past. It’s refreshing to find a place where the unfortunate events are remembered in a manner to remind us what can happen when humankind goes horribly wrong. And it’s equally wonderful that accomplishments and traditions are celebrated by a people.
As for the media experience with my colleagues, it’s always refreshing to spend time with others who are like-minded and face the same day in, day out challenges I do. Like my first RIAS excursion I was energized by the conversations and observations in formal settings or over a bier or two or three.
If a college course was built around the RIAS manager’s exchange of 2007 it would be called “Subscriber Fee 101. ” It seemed at every turn our conversations with media officials returned to the required monthly charge imposed on every household with a radio, television or Internet connection. It appears U.S. journalists are dumbfounded by the concept of requiring citizens to pay a monthly 17 euro fee to fund radio and television operations.
The overriding perception of this practice is that it squelches competition between public
and private media outlets. To the U.S. journalist uneducated in the German manner of funding public media, it seems to tip the scales and give the public broadcaster an insurmountable advantage in the ratings war with privately-held television and radio operations.
We learned that the fee is a result of the Nazi regime’s commandeering of the media as part of Hitler’s propaganda machine. Post-war leaders decided it was in the best interest of the country to insure that politicians would no longer have a hand in how the media is funded. Allowing public broadcasters to be funded without question of lawmakers in the public interest insures no party to abuse the media in the manner utilized by the Nazis.
While noble and justified in its intent, this concept remains difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. radio/TV professional to swallow. It goes against all we’ve learned in a free market media environment where it’s a battle to the finish and the strong survive. It’s something we must live with, though not completely comprehend and surely not completely accept.
Through our sessions and interaction with news managers, we were surprised to find that the U.S. journalistic practice of emphasizing local issues doesn’t play well or draw ratings in Germany. The emphasis is on country-wide issues and international news. Local issues are the mainstay of newspapers and tabloids. From what we were told that long-held tradition won’t be changing any time soon.
Summing things up, my second RIAS exchange was every bit as valuable as my first time around. I got to see Hamburg for the first time. I was able to interact with German and U.S. colleagues. And I was able to add to my world view and life experience. These will all influence the way I go about making decisions on the stories we cover and how we cover them. I am thankful for the opportunity afforded me by RIAS.
—————
Phil Humes, WXIA-TV/ WATL.TV, Atlanta, GA
An American in Berlin, Tschüs!
The great good thing about being a journalist is the chance to experience so much more of this world if one reaches out to look beyond the horizon. And so, this journalist did just that in the fall of 2007, arriving in Berlin on a cloudy Sunday morning when the Euro continued its march toward record valuation, the Formula 1 racing world was in an uproar over espionage, and the war in Iraq continued to prompt consternation throughout the world’s capital cities.
My journey, courtesy of the RIAS Foundation, promised a quick cultural emersion and the added benefit of dialogue with senior editors of the German public and private broadcasting industry. A promise kept in large part by the professionalism and efficiency of the RIAS team in Berlin.
The moment I hit the cobblestone sidewalk of Anhalter Straße I was immediately at ease — the experience not unlike walking in any large urban American city. My comfort level fell away in an instant as I approached the surreal park of stone and concrete that is the Holocaust Memorial. In an instant my solitary revelry fell into a reverent solemnity. A modernist memorial to a history which I had viewed and read about in books or films but had until this moment never really grasped its legacy. The gray slabs covering an entire city block crisscrossed by a maze of pathways leading everywhere and nowhere at the very same time. The site stands as a stark reminder of a dark time in Germany’s history, yet testimony to its people’s willingness to never forget a decidedly discordant past.
My path then found a new testament in the glass and steel progress mirrored in the windows of the Sony Center at Potsdamer Platz as I meandered toward the Brandenburg Gate. This city, young by European standards, remains a study in contrasts: old and new, East and West, digital and analog, Christian-Democratic and Social Progressive, Generation Y and Cold War graduates. While it is not that difficult to experience one or all of these contrasts during a short walk across Berlin’s city center, a deeper reflection is warranted to truly understand the rich and diverse nature of the Germanic place in the pantheon of civilization. Further study and analysis would be needed to give a true measure in an academic sense, but I can share some brief observations and thoughts about this memorable experience.
The people are open yet at time seem to be holding back. This may be in part because I lacked substantial language skills, or the cautious nature I sensed is part of the German political, social, and cultural pathos. Germany has a superior public transportation system that if duplicated or even mimicked in a small way in America’s major metropolitan areas, any U.S. bureaucrat that cleared the way to make this a reality might be proclaimed President for Life here in the States. Divergent opinions are not as diverse, a reality mirrored in the German population as well. The government’s social network is far more bureaucratic, but works. Here in America there are federal and state bureaucracies that seem as duplicitous, but don’t seem to work. The evolution or should I say aging of the population will bring new changes for everyone around the world, but I believe some uniquely German ways of doing things might remain: strong trade unions, a comprehensive social service network, and a willingness to reach consensus rather than striking out on its own to name a few. The German people, and most non-Americans for that matter, are much more world-centric; knowing at least some about issues and geo-political matters beyond their borders that could and very well might impact their lives. Most Americans still, I sense, have a very limited perspective of the globalization that has taken hold in economics, politics, cultural, and more ethereal matters. No doubt part of this reality can be attributed to the great distance the United States is from either Asia or Europe and the usual unilateral way it deals with other countries in the Western hemisphere, as well as the oft-times insular outlook most everyday Americans have of the world in which they live.
If there was one universal constant that I was reminded of during my visit it is the commerce of capital that crosses socio-economic, cultural, political, environmental, and spiritual lines drawn all around the world. Euros or dollars, whatever the standard, the aggregators of capital generally help shape policy and politics wherever they may be. It could be in the city-states of Europe, the archipelago that is Indonesia, in Brussels, Washington, D.C. , Riyadh or Teheran, Moscow or Tokyo, Paris or Caracas, London and Berlin. Financial power begets power in so many other ways. While political power may help you achieve some successes, without the capital of capital no economy, religion, political system, or nation can endure. This notion became a reality for many Ossi Berliners and other Cold War puppet states following the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It continues to be the reality for all peoples around the globe in the 21st century.
Just as a reunited Germany ought to embrace the future yet not forget its past, so too must all of us capitalize on the polyphony of experience and work toward achieving a level of harmony that promotes co-existence, sustainability, diversity, and mutual respect among all nations. And I got all this from a one week visit to Berlin.
So as I recall the street performers of Hackescher Markt, the cupola of the Deutscher Bundestag, the museums and memorials, Tagesschau and Hamburg, my new perceptions of Germany, courtesy of RIAS Berlin Kommission, are tempered by some constants from the morning I landed at Tegel International Airport.
The Euro is now at an all-time high, a former Formula 1 driver is now making inroads on the American NASCAR circuit, and the challenges that mark the Iraqi conflict spill over into yet another New Year.
Tschüs!
—————
Rebecca McMenamin, Voice of America, Washington, D.C.
The RIAS News Managers’ program was a wonderfully informative and enjoyable experience that has enriched my news and managerial expertise. On this trip, I was able to make comparisons to the Berlin of 1987 and 1995 to now. I also got a much closer look at the contrasts between public and private sector broadcasters.
First, the changes in the city were incredible. It is hard to believe that just 20 years ago, the look and feel of East compared to West was extremely different. Now, if you didn’t know where the wall was, you’d be hard-pressed to find it without a map. New offices, hotels, and shopping districts have taken over no man’s land. Having easy access to the impressive museums, churches, and buildings on the Eastern side of Berlin was great.
I cannot speak to the psychological differences and whether there has been an overall melding of German public opinion on the issue of unification. This would require much more interaction with citizens on both sides of the former divide (not just the journalistic types!). However, there is now a whole generation that doesn’t remember what it was like living with the wall. Has the tax burden of reconstruction eased, and is the disbursement of wealth even? I suspect there are still more hurdles to overcome, but there certainly appears to be a collective feeling that a united Germany was meant to be.
How will this affect relations with the United States? As the legacy of World War Two, and U.S. involvement in Germany fades, how will the United States be judged and perceived? Germany has had such a diverse history in just the past 100 years. The United States must learn from this and recognize that opinion today can quickly change tomorrow. Friendly, and constructive relationships take time and effort by both sides and should not be taken for granted. I think this is an area where the RIAS Berlin Kommission fills a void and serves a beneficial purpose to both countries.
Regarding media, I was intrigued that public broadcasting continues to dominate the landscape. Public perception of commercial stations is that they can’t provide accurate, unbiased news, if it comes with a profit. There is also skepticism in the United States of journalists and commercial broadcasters. However, the U.S. public is also much more unlikely to willingly fund “independent, public” broadcasters. In Germany, there appears to be a belief that this is for the common good — although this too may change over time. I believe it is a little naïve to think that the government is not involved in public broadcasting. Ultimately, it is government policy that allows for funding of such programs.
There are some contradictions concerning the media that are hard for an outsider to understand. On the one hand, Germans are willing to pay a fee (I’d argue it’s a tax) for non-commercial programming that is informative and even a bit elitist. At the same time, there is huge support for tabloid journalism, with the daily Bild having the biggest circulation of any newspaper.
Despite the funding differences, there are many similarities between U.S. and German broadcasting, particularly in the type of challenges faced by news managers. Most believe they need more resources, regardless of their current budget; there are staffing and morale concerns, and technological advancements are uneven. Goals of accuracy and comprehensive coverage permeate both sides.
Another similarity is in the conviction of U.S. and German journalists to filling a public need for information. While U.S. journalists may not always have the opportunity because of commercial requirements, many would love to produce 15 minutes of uninterrupted nightly news that is nothing but the most important world stories of the day — and to have staff stationed worldwide to cover such events.
Returning to the German public in general, I’d like to mention one other philosophical contradiction I noticed which concerns women’s rights. Most U.S. women’s rights activists oppose pornography and prostitution on the grounds it denigrates women and they push for respect of women, equal rights and equal pay. Yet, there are still very few women elected to high public office. In Germany, there appears to be greater acceptance of women as sexual objects — yet Germans have also already elected a female Chancellor. I can’t decide if Germans are further ahead on this issue, or behind!
There were many interesting visits and stops throughout this weeklong stay. Among the highlights would have to be the visits to Tagesschau, to N24 and to the Bundestag. I also really enjoyed talking with the students at the Springer Academy.
I came away from the trip with several ideas for new media development and for pushing convergence in our news operations. The exchange of information with our German hosts, journalists and the other Americans on the trip was extremely valuable. I’d like to thank the RIAS Berlin Kommission for this opportunity, which was very much appreciated.
—————
Guy Nelson, KUOW-FM, Seattle, WA
A Firsthand Look at German TV and Radio
Our week in Germany became a quest to understand the country’s most popular TV news program, “Tagesschau”. Though it’s criticized by many for being “old fashioned”, it remains hugely popular and has the highest reputation of all the country’s broadcast programs. We learned early on that the program airs on public TV each night from the ARD studios in Hamburg, starting at 8:00 and lasting for exactly 15 minutes.
Why is this show so popular? And what goes into its production? How does it compare to commercial news coverage? Those became the key questions as we spent the week in Berlin visiting several TV and radio studios, both public and private.
Our discussions often centered on the different ways public and private broadcasting are funded. Every German household that owns a TV or radio must pay a monthly fee of around $22 US. This money goes to the nation’s public radio and TV stations — a total of over $7 Billion.
All of the private TV and radio representatives we talked to were very critical of this financial system. They say it amounts to an unnecessarily large public subsidy. They claim it gives public stations an unfair advantage in programming power and facilities. Yet when we asked them about this alleged advantage in the case of the famous Tagesschau, they found its style easy to criticize — low tech, stiff and outdated.
On the other hand, public broadcasting defends its subsidy. One of our visits took us to meet Mr. Ernst Elitz, the director and general manger of Deutschland Radio Kultur in Berlin. He explained the two branches of Deutschland Radio, one for news and one for the arts and culture. It turned out that just the day before a German high court had ruled that the public broadcasting fees could not be questioned by any German members of parliament. Mr. Elitz called it an important decision that bolstered and protected public broadcasting’s place in informing German citizens.
Mid-week we took a break from the station tours to visit the Reichstag, or the German Parliament building. Though I’ve been there before, I still found it interesting to meet representatives from the main political parties and discuss their most pressing issues. We talked with members of the Left Party, the SDP, the Alliance 90, the CDU and the Liberal Party. For me, the most interesting discussion centered on how the Alliance 90 party, which includes the Greens, is struggling to keep its membership. It’s increasingly being seen as a centrist party and is losing its younger members to the more progressive Left.
After spending the week talking to news managers in both radio and TV, public and private, we discovered they’re facing many of the same challenges we are in America. Those include a shrinking audience of young people in their 20’s and finding new platforms for our content in the internet age. The same questions kept coming up at every station we visited: how do we get young adults interested in news? And how can we deliver the programs they want in the most expedient way, on demand? Internet? Hand-helds? Cell phones?
There are no clear answers. Most German commercial stations are playing with their style, loosening it and adding flashier visual effects. Public media, though, with their huge advantage in funding and audience, are playing it carefully. They maintain that their priority is sound journalism and they’re reluctant to change many of the usual conventions.
Finally, at the end of the week, we traveled to Hamburg to visit ARD studios, the home of the revered program, Tagesschau. Unfortunately, we weren’t allowed into the studio during the program, but we did watch it on monitors in the adjacent newsroom.
The verdict? It was a tight, 15-minute show, focusing on national and international headlines. The TV people in our group agreed that it was solid, with an appropriate number of reporter “packages” and graphics that accomplished their purpose without unnecessary flash.
Two of the show’s features seemed to stand out to members of our group:
- The presenter was alone behind the desk, without the usual two-person man/woman style favored by nearly every other TV station in the world.
- The presenter read his copy off sheets of paper that he held in front of him, not from a TelePrompter as everyone else does.
The reason, we were told, is that it retains an authentic style that the audience is quite comfortable with. “Wouldn’t it be easy to change?,” we asked. Their answer was that adding a TelePrompter, though simple, would be too unsettling to their loyal viewers.
One other interesting point:
Tagesschau doesn’t have any breaks for commercials, ads or promos. Of course you wouldn’t expect much of those anyway on a public TV program, but the news managers explained that it’s very important that the show is in no way “tainted” by any commercial interests. It’s hard to argue with their numbers. A large majority of German households depend on the Tagesschau each night to bring them dependable information. Even the young journalists we talked to said that what the program lacks in style, it makes up for in substance.
In the end, I came away with a much deeper understanding and appreciation of German broadcasting. We met many people in both radio and TV, commercial and public, who are deeply committed to good journalism and their professions. While at times their programs seem less stylish than their American counterparts, I believe their audience is better informed about national and international news than the average American, and in the end, that is what’s most important.
—————
Bryan Schott, KCPW Public Radio, Salt Lake City, UT
I found the RIAS Senior News Manager Exchange program to be extremely valuable for myself and for future news coverage plans for KCPW in Salt Lake City. We have carved out a niche in a crowded media market by focusing on local news and issues. The larger model of the German media structure and the forces driving those entities proved to be instructive.
I was encouraged by what I saw from the news coverage in Germany. The success and respect for “Tagesschau” shows that there is an appetite for solid, non-sensationalistic news in Germany. In American news, there’s a constant tug to go toward the easy, sensational story. KCPW’s focus has been and will continue to be solid reporting of stories with substance. On a side note, I was amused about the furor surrounding the F1 cheating scandal, which shows that not all stories are deathly serious. It was nice to see that sports scandals have an appeal outside of the sporting media — no matter what side of the Atlantic Ocean you are on.
The funding structure of the German public media seemed to puzzle many in our group. As a public broadcaster myself, I was extremely jealous to see how well the public broadcasters are funded. What I wouldn’t give to have a stable and regular source of income for our station that didn’t rely on the generosity of listeners. It was a bit troubling for me and the rest of the group to learn about the court decision that prevented elected officials from denying or altering requests for funding increases by public media. That decision would be met with howls of protest in America. Perhaps I’m just used to operating in a system where a portion of our government funding (Corporation of Public Broadcasting) is always under siege and threatened. The CPB share of our funding has been declining every year, and I think that’s appropriate for public media in America.
The rules for public broadcasting were quite puzzling to me. I was surprised to learn that public television could run ads just like commercial broadcasters, and often used the public funds to compete directly with the commercial enterprises. I don’t think it’s fair that the public system can use public funds to duplicate any innovation by the commercial broadcasters and offer it free. It also seems unfair that the public broadcasters can use those funds to buy the rights to sporting events.
I found that the decentralized nature of the German media system is a structure that encourages local news coverage. With local states controlling the licenses of the broadcasters, it pushes those outlets that do news to focus on local issues. In America, our licenses are up for renewal every 10 years, but there is no local control of those permits — it all comes from the federal government. We are required to serve our local listening area, but I think it would be a far different media landscape if there were as much local control as the licensing boards in Germany.
I was a bit puzzled by the presentation at TVB. They said it was hard to sell advertising, which led to a smaller bottom line. It was quite striking when they said advertising money was spent on newspapers rather than broadcast because people “didn’t trust” electronic advertising. It’s still hard to get my head around that idea, given the amount of advertising in American media.
I also was pleasantly surprised to hear that there is no advertising allowed during the news in German media. I think that separation is needed, and something that is lacking in American media coverage.
One final thought…heed to the recommendation that you pack a change of clothes in your carry-on bags. It is quite stressful when you land in Berlin, and your luggage gets a trip to London and Amsterdam before arriving. It’s not fun when your baggage sees more of Europe than you do.
—————
Joel Waldinger, WISC-TV, Madison, WI
German Television public vs. private
The state of German television appeared at an interesting crossroads during our RIAS Fellowship in September of 2007. On one side you had public television stations with the enormous government support they’ve enjoyed for years. On the other side, private television stations wanting in on a piece of the government pie and arguing to make the playing field more competitive. The court ruling sided with the status quo.
German television was regulated after World War II because of Adolf Hitler’s manipulation of the airwaves and the abuse of federal authority. The Allies in turn helped build a broadcast system after WWII to prevent that same kind of abuse. It is actually mandated by the constitution. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are guarantees that everyone has the right to inform themselves “freely from a generally accessible source.” It is the constitutionally based function of the broadcasting media and of the other media to give the people free and ample opportunity to form their own opinions. The “freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts” is a basic freedom written into the constitution. The television stations are licensed in 7 to 10 year increments.
One way to achieve this was by charging households for the use of over the air television and radio in the form of user fees. Currently the rate is 17 euros a month. Some people can get a waiver if they show financial hardship. The television fee remains constant in all of Germany’s 16 states. Across all of Germany approximately 7.6 billion euros are collected annually in television fees. There are even those who have the job to enforce this fee by going door to door to see who has a television or radio and those who are illegally avoiding the fee. The public broadcasting organizations also take in some revenue from advertising and sponsoring agreements but this is a limited source of income.
The user fees collected are then used to support Germany’s public television stations paying for staff, equipment and programming. Some experts would argue this system is needed to guarantee quality and to provide controls on the system. Another reason, commercials are not allowed during news programs and can be limited during other programming periods. It is also a sign of the times where in Eastern Europe there is strong resistance to advertising on television.
Having started in 1984, private television is relatively young in the German republic. Part of the reason for the late entry into the private market was the limited number of frequencies. There are currently 160 private companies represented by VPRT, a group representing the interests of private radio, television and audiovisual services. They negotiate on behalf of its members with legislative and executive authorities both on a national and European level. One of their main priorities is creating fair and competitive conditions within the dual broadcast system in Germany (public vs. private).
TVB is a private television station broadcasting from the base of the TV Tower at Alexanderplatz in the former East Berlin. Despite this prime location their audience share is made up of 60% from West Berlin and only 40% from East Berlin. The number may seem skewed but is also similar to the population trends. On average 170,000 people tune in to TV-Berlin each day. They do not get government support from the TV fees paid by Germans. The cost of a 30 second commercial on TVB is approximately 300 euros.
On the other side is the public television station Rundfunk Berlin Brandenburg (RBB). They also provide local news programming and receive 3.6 million in public funds. In Berlin, 30% of households watch Abendschau each day. Their share of the audience is 21.4% compared to less than 1% for TVB.
The television landscape on the local and national level in the Federal Republic of Germany appears to be a battle between the haves and the have nots.
Special Berlin Short Program 2007
Berlin for U.S. News Directors and Gatekeepers
September 9–16, 2007
This program in Germany for broadcast media gatekeepers was designed specifically for radio and television news directors, assistant news directors, vice presidents for news, and senior editors.
The program brought our American fellows to German newsrooms, German factories, and German political offices to hear first hand how the media covers stories and issues in Germany. They were able to compare and discuss broadcast structures and news coverage models, public and private radio and television entities in Germany, along with viewing trends, content and form, and the impact of technology and new media on future developments in news coverage and news gathering.
During the program participants saw Berlin, the capital of Germany, and discussed the changes and challenges 17 years after German unification. The participants got a close look at modern Germany and saw how business and political interests work within the increasingly globalized economy. The group also traveled by high speed rail from Berlin to Leipzig on one day, and/or from Berlin to Hamburg, visiting with industry and media leaders.
REPORTS OF PARTICIPANTS
CJ Beutien, WNDU-TV, South Bent, IN
Berlin
Amazing is the first word that comes to mind. It had been a little over seven years since I was in Berlin with the last RIAS trip. In 2000, I counted over 26 tall construction cranes in the midst of erecting new buildings and a new future for this reunited city. I had never seen so much construction in any one place. Now in 2007, the cranes have diminished, but not without leaving behind some marvelous buildings. The former East has really been transformed. There is still work to do, but so much has been accomplished.
Seven years ago the Holocaust memorial was just a dream on a billboard. Now it is a reality. What a sobering feeling you have as you walk through it and learn the genesis of this mighty memorial. The Reichstag was still under renovation seven years ago. Now it is finished along with some amazing accessory buildings. What history this building has and what a splendid job in bringing it back to life and respecting its history at the same time. It truly is a nice feeling to walk through those buildings and feel the openness that was intended by design. Lots of windows, lots of open spaces = open government.
In the previous trip I was not able to spend any time in the Tiergarten. This trip I did. What a great experience. A little bit of wilderness right in the middle of a huge city. It is very similar to Central Park in New York. Many Germans were taking advantage of it. Joggers, bicyclists, families playing in the green fields, wildlife of all kinds scurrying about. You couldn’t help but enjoy the walk through this once hunting ground for kings.
I also climbed to the top of the Liberty Statue. From there you could see the geometric design of the city and how beautiful Berlin really is. Boulevards filled with cars, rickshaws, people enjoying the weather and vendors selling their goods along the street.
I did come upon a flea market. Lots of antiques and collectibles for sale. Lots of people browsing. I found a toy American car. It was a Studebaker which had been the life blood of the city I live in the states. South Bend, Indiana was the home of Studebaker for over 100 years. Studebaker manufactured wagons and buggies for many years before cars. Cars came along after the turn of the century. Studebaker had a tough time competing against the big three American automakers, and in 1963 it closed for good.
The Media…Broadcast
It was extremely interesting learning about the media in Germany. I was very surprised to see some of the same issues that confront us confront them such as doing more with less, backpack journalism, keeping the quality up and the costs down, hiring freelancers and just generally living with an ever shrinking budget. Sometimes you feel those issues are only unique to you.
The difference in private vs public media was rather ironic. It is the direct opposite of how it is in the states. Private broadcasters in Germany are really struggling to get a piece of the pie and the publicly supported media are the established, traditional broadcasters. But the private operators have only been around a little over 20 years, so it is understandable. I was happy to hear that one of the public broadcasters thought the private companies are making them better. Competition does force us to improve.
I like the German public/subscription TV system. It allows you, as a journalist, to really focus on covering the news and not appeasing stockholders and advertisers. The journalists decide what to cover and how to cover it. In such a system the news dictates coverage rather than economics. Consultants and other outside influences do not play a role. That, quite honestly, is very refreshing.
It was also interesting to learn that one of the private broadcasters, the TVB, tried the American system of multiple live shots, fast pace, action/eyewitness news only to have it fail. You could argue they did not give it enough time to catch on but maybe Germans just want the news straight without a lot of flash. TVB was very cutting edge in making its content available on the new technology, ie cell phones. Quite impressed with how far along they are.
Tagesschau/ARD
I heard a lot about this show. It has been around forever. I had been told on the last RIAS trip that Germans stopped what they were doing at 8pm to watch. I was also told it was boring, etc.
Actually I thought the show was very interesting. Lots of content, well paced and the 15 minutes of commercial free information seemed to go by quickly. It was full of solid news. Reports from Germany and all over the world. I was surprised at the time devoted to weather. It is a HUGE draw on American newscasts and in Germany gets a voice over at the very end of the broadcast.
In America we are competing for eyeballs with other TV news operations, web pages, several hundred channels of niche programming on cable and satellite and we believe we have to capture our viewers attention with active news or lose them to another source. Germans seem more dedicated to getting the information and don’t have to be entertained at the same time.
As I mentioned earlier, I was impressed with how the German media has embraced the internet and new technology in disseminating news. They see the need and habits changing particularly among young people. And it appears they devote the time and manpower necessary to get it done right. In the states we strive to program the new media with existing staff that also program the on air content. Such a system makes it very difficult to excel at quality and creativity.
The German media, both public and private, seem really tuned in to their audiences. They know who they are, what they want and expect, and how to make the information available to them whether it is over the air, online or on cell.
The Media…Print
This, quite frankly, was a disappointment. In many ways I thought broadcast was a lot more professional. Newspapers seemed to aim at the lowest common denominator, at least those published by Springer. Not being able to read German fluently, I did not read the newspapers extensively…but you could tell by design, content and pictures that many were not designed to grab the attention of prospective readers rather than just delivering the news.
Government
By having several political parties, it seems everyone is represented. A German citizen can support the party that truly advocates what they believe in. They seem united in fighting terrorism and not committing troops to anything but defending the homeland. Germany also has a strong interest in International news. Political leaders are concerned about the growth in China and how Africa is developing into a “player” among the nations of the world.
Most of the political leaders seemed united on becoming more “green”. Being energy efficient, cutting pollution, developing wind and solar energy, recycling. German citizens seem to take this a lot more seriously than most Americans.
Government officials also seemed very interested in the United States. Some study our government intensely. One did graduate work on President Bush’s foreign policy. Interesting.
Transportation
I continue to be in awe of the transportation system. Getting around Berlin on the subway was easy, quick and very efficient. The trains are comfortable and on time. The train to Hamburg was great. The bus back, not so good.
Conclusion
It is always a great experience to visit Germany. I really like studying how another country faces its problems and looks for solutions. There are so many things I admire about Germans. They are a very disciplined, hardworking people. Their value of education is very admirable. As a culture they seem to value education above all else. It is a wealthy country, but they seem to share with their fellow citizens. Universal healthcare, decent retirement and respect for those who have been in the work force a long time are all things I respect.
They are very determined to reunite the country. It is a very difficult task. Most embrace the reunification, especially the young. There are older GDR citizens and some from the west who are not so supporting. Reunification isn’t easy or cheap, but considering the former GDR government with its limitations on freedom, it is the only way to go. Seeing the progress in reunification is very gratifying. The united country can only get better.
—————
Tom Brislin, University of Hawaii, HI
Aloha RIAS. The Germany Program for Senior Editors opened new dimensions and widened the scope for U.S. Journalist programs in Germany. It presented an opportunity for more direct peer-to-peer discussions on how very alike — and how very different — we are as journalists. Where the original Journalist Exchange mainly introduces U.S. reporters to social and political issues of Germany and the European Union, the Senior Editors Program allowed participants to discuss how those issues are covered, and to discuss the structure of journalism itself.
The inaugural group of U.S. News Directors and Managers was a good mix of radio and television, public and commercial, large and small, East-West and North-South. There was even a professor thrown in, for which I am most grateful. The gender balance was quite different — only one female — from the regular Journalist Exchanges, reflecting the gender imbalance in the decision-making levels of upper-management in U.S. journalism (and reflecting the predominantly male membership of RTNDA).
The participant mix was also a good blend of personalities: From the wide-eyed first-timer to Germany and Europe, to the alumni of previous RIAS journalist exchanges, to seasoned Germanist veterans. All (thankfully) possessed a healthy sense of humor, a necessary component for some excursions (such as autobahn truck stops). And certainly all shared the challenges of trying to do more with less in their own downsized newsrooms — a common frame for observing how German newsrooms, particularly in the public sector, were utilizing their (seemingly) abundant resources.
The substance of the program began with an introduction to the public — private continuum of German broadcasting, a logical point of departure. The presentation on the structure of public broadcasting suffered from the absence of a key speaker and often raised more questions than it answered. A clearer picture of public broadcasting was actually presented by the VPRT (association of private broadcast media) director, who ably discussed the challenges of private broadcasters (with ample charts, diagrams and handouts) in the face of such historic and massive public funding — and privileges — for the public channels and networks.
The historic base of public broadcasting and the contemporary challenges of the private channels was personalized on the second day by Ernst Elitz, the iconic director of DeutschlandRadio Kultur, and Peter Limbourg and Alexander Privitera, editor and anchor, respectively, of N24 TV, a 24-hour news channel.
The public-private framing of the discussion was by now so well set that the bulk of discussions to follow focused more on the economic and competitive advantages of public broadcasting than on more fundamental questions of news value, news judgment, and professionalism.
The questions are intriguing — is it fair for public broadcasting to get designated exclusive coverage rights (e.g. the Olympics) and be allowed to generate revenue through advertising, while enjoying a regulated and increasing income through user fees? How is private broadcasting to establish itself (while out of its infancy, it is still in an awkward preadolescent phase with many years to go before maturity) with both economic and programming chips stacked against it?
The discussion, naturally, was dominated by representatives from U.S. commercial broadcasting. The U.S. public broadcasters face the opposite challenges — dwindling revenues and programming that is dominated by the larger, commercial stations and networks.
The U.S. model of commercial broadcasting — from ad sales to weather promotions — was tried and didn’t take in Germany, complained the German private broadcasters. It wasn’t given enough time to take hold, advised their U.S. commercial counterparts. It’s a discussion that has no immediate answers. For many, the questions it raises are far more intriguing.
Essential discussions of news values and judgment did emerge — in a newspaper setting, following brief visits to a series of public radio and TV, and a private TV station. Rudolph Porsch and his journalism interns/students at Axel Springer Akademie provided an overview of Berlin and countrywide news coverage. The student interns’ experiences of why they chose a journalism career, what prepared them, and what they have learned on the job was revealing.
Discussions of professionalism continued with a change of venue to Hamburg and a visit to the Tagesschau and related news programs/studios for ARD. Having heard tales of the humdrum Tagesschau delivery, participants were pleasantly surprised to find that in many ways it matched the anchor-based, correspondent-driven format of a U.S. TV News schau. After observing what seemed like a dozen different control/news rooms, it was the extended conference room discussion with the Tagesschau executive editor that was a highlight of the program. There was a free and wide-ranging discussion of what’s news, who should cover it, how it should be covered, what’s ahead, and what sells in contemporary society. The program hit its mark and found its base in this session.
Aside from “work,” the famous RIAS socializing lived up to its well-deserved reputation with warm and gregarious dinners for the opening and closing. While I missed the symphony evening, I did appreciate the times for informal conversations on the train to, and bus from, Hamburg. The side-trip through the Reeperbahn was worth the price(?) of admission! No program is complete, of course, without a tour of the Reichstag. The guide was sympathetic with journalists’ interests, and her knowledge rivaled the various party speakers. Sitting in on an economic debate set a good framework for the next day’s discussions of how the speechmaking and deliberations would be treated by the various public and private newscasts.
The decision to expand the RIAS journalist exchanges to include a shortened session for News Director and Managers was solid and laudatory. Both RIAS and RTNDF are to be thanked. Mahalo!
—————
Butler Cain, Alabama Public Radio, Tuscaloosa, AL
The RIAS Berlin Kommission exchange was one of the best professional and personal experiences of my life. I was impressed from the very beginning, when Rainer, Isabell, and Sandra began sending me information to prepare for the program. Soon after my wife and I arrived in Berlin (she was able to accompany me on the trip), we settled into our fabulous hotel, took a nap, and then met everyone for dinner in the hotel restaurant. RIAS had already provided us with an itinerary, so the dinner was a great opportunity to relax, introduce ourselves to everyone, and eat our first meal in Germany.
I will begin with my impressions of the RIAS program. It was a wise choice to begin the week with a more relaxed schedule while the exchange participants got over our jetlag. I am very thankful that the program gave us ample opportunity to learn so much about Germany’s broadcasting industry while also providing time during the evenings for recreation and tourism. RIAS recognizes that a successful exchange program must balance both of those needs, and it did so very well.
It is obvious that the RIAS Berlin Kommission is widely respected throughout Berlin and Germany. It was a privilege to spend time with local, regional, and national broadcasters and learn about how they produce their news programs. Visiting the Reichstag was a highlight of the trip, and I would recommend keeping that portion of the schedule in future RIAS programs. The entire exchange program succeeded in giving me a solid understanding of Germany’s broadcasting system, from several points of view, and the experience has been incredibly enlightening.
My impressions of Berlin and Germany are very good because this trip was different for me and my wife. We did not just visit Germany — we feel as if we became immersed in its ways. This is because of RIAS. Rainer, Isabell, and Sandra were more than just our guides and facilitators — they became our friends, and they treated us as if we had known each other for years. I was thankful that they included my wife in a few of the events and considered her as part of the group. Just as we were interested to learn about them, their city, and their country, they were equally interested in us. I did not get the impression that they treat the exchange program as just a job. They seem to truly enjoy their work, and all three are assets to the RIAS program. The RIAS experience was superb, and I am proud to be among a growing number of RIAS alumni.
—————
Mark Engel, CNN, Atlanta, GA
I was in a business suit, on my back, shining a flashlight up into the interior of a piece of art mounted on posts near the Marx-Engels monument in what used to be East Berlin. It was shortly after midnight and, thankfully, police were not cruising the area. My handheld GPS had led me there in search of treasure — a small container filled with trinkets. It’s part of a worldwide game called geocaching. I was determined to find this cache because, despite my personal politics, the infamous communists Marx and Engels have a special meaning to me. I’m Mark Engel, an Executive Producer at CNN in Atlanta.
The trip to Berlin for the RIAS Fellowship was my second visit to this vibrant city. I was here as a tourist in 1990, months after the wall came down. Today, a few sections of the wall remain standing. Other parts have been moved to plazas and become backgrounds for tourist photos. Some chunks of wall were chipped to small pieces, packaged and are available as souvenirs in stores around the city.
A line — embedded in roads, sidewalks, grass and dirt — winds through the city where the wall once stood. Just two bricks wide, it’s an interesting marker for tourists but for its people, a permanent reminder of this city’s terrible history — division by Communism and the birthplace of Nazi terror.
Yet, the city feels so vibrant and free. Late night and early mornings, Berlin’s single women, teens, older folks and tourists seemed completely safe walking, riding bicycles or hopping on the subway. This level of comfort was, perhaps, the most striking impression of Germany’s capital city that I got during my one week RIAS Fellowship.
I saw a city trying to rebuild and, at the same time, reinvent itself. The old world is becoming very modern. We saw a symphony hall with a unique contemporary design placing the musicians “in the round. ” Another day, the Bundestag and its new government buildings shaped with steel, glass and distinction instead of stone, cedar and tradition. The Reichstag is the best example. A traditional stone structure with pillars build over a century ago was recently topped with a steel and glass observation cupola. Even the geocaching “treasures” I hunted in Berlin were placed by local residents in as many historical spots as modern areas of the city.
But, my fellow American journalists and I quickly discovered that the real treasure in Germany is the 7.6 Billion Euro ($10.7 Billion) bonanza that public broadcasters share each year from mandatory user fees. As we learned during our 7-day RIAS Fellowship, it’s those fees — collected from almost everyone who owns a TV or radio — that show Germany’s public television and radio system doesn’t need to modernize to remain strong.
Fourteen regions in the country each have their own non-governmental agency that collects the fees and controls all media compliance and licensing. In our first session on Monday, we discussed the fees and fees became the main topic during the rest of our week as we met with confident public broadcasters and their envious commercial counterparts.
At an organization representing privately owned commercial television stations we heard cries of “foul”! They get none of the fee and for more than 20 years private stations have been struggling without success to change the system. Their big hope was that a legal challenge being considered by Germany’s high court would help put all broadcasters on a level playing field.
The ruling came down the week we were in Berlin and it was worse than private broadcasters feared. The court not only confirmed the concept of monthly user fees but prevented government officials from vetoing or reducing the amount of the fee.
For the public channels it was the best of both worlds — fees that fund them are required by law but now the government has little say in how much is collected and how it’s spent.
But wait! There’s more! Private channels had hoped for a decision that would limit public channels to distributing content on television and radio, leaving the internet and other state of the art methods such as cell phones exclusively for private broadcasters. They wanted some areas where they wouldn’t have to compete with the fee-financed public channels. But, the public channels argued it’s their duty to communicate with Germans by any means possible and the court agreed, giving them a green light to venture beyond broadcasting into emerging distribution technologies.
And consider this. Public channels, in addition to the fee and ability to compete on all technological fronts, have been able to sell a limited amount of commercials, they don’t have to worry about ratings and are accountable to almost no one as to how they spend the public money. There is no pretense of a level playing field. Unlike the U.S. , public broadcasting came first in Germany. By the time private channels emerged, people were used to enjoying public television without commercials.
One manager of a Berlin private station told us that that’s one reason it’s hard to sell TV advertising. He is also frustrated by the apparent comradery among business owners. Germans, he said, value friendship more than winning and aren’t interested in TV advertising that would promote their service or product while hurting their fellow businessperson.
Still, there are many successful newspapers in Germany that are supported only by advertising. It seems commercial broadcasters in Germany are stuck where American broadcasters were in the 1950s — trying to convince newspaper advertisers to spend money on television.
That’s when American commercial stations did almost anything for a sale including having newscasters present their news from behind signs promoting sponsors. Today, we discovered that German commercial stations pander to advertisers by selling them positive news stories and discussions on topics relating to their product or service.
But the big difference between the histories of American and German television is that in the U.S., commercial stations were first on the air. There was no public broadcasting then to compete and when it did start, government funding was minimal and highly politicized.
At this point in the RIAS week, I was outraged. I felt the German system was not competitive and commercial broadcasters didn’t have a chance. Besides, I thought, the public must be just as outraged having to pay the fee.
Then we went to the Springer journalism school where the young adults we met there said they and many friends actually like the fee system. They felt paying a fee is the price of guaranteeing that quality programming will always be available and newscasts will present relevant, informative stories unaffected by advertisers or government.
It was a turning point for me. By the end of the week, I wondered if the German system of funding broadcasting and news changed, would it be a change for the good? Would the rise of commercialism and the fall of public funding really make it better?
In the U.S. , the dominant system of commercial television has transformed the meaning of broadcast news and virtually eliminated it in commercial radio. The quest for profits through ratings has created an environment that forces commercial news providers to present news that most viewers will watch. As seasoned journalists, we feel news should not only inform but educate and that includes exposing viewers to stories and issues they might not want to see.
Germany’s public system is not dependent on ratings and sales to survive. It can present a deep, rich newscast with a blend of issues and topics from a wide spectrum that would not be limited to stories that appeal to the largest audience. I returned to the Marx-Engels monument at the end of the week but never found that elusive geocaching “treasure. ” However, I did leave Berlin appreciating the city’s beauty, its vibrancy and its renaissance through change.
The RIAS fellowship also gave me a clear vision of the dramatic difference between the broadcasting systems of Germany and the U.S. and how funding might impact the newscasts they present. I realized that despite the progressive nature of both countries, it’s likely neither system of funding the mainstream broadcast media will change.
When I return to this wonderful country some day, I’ll try to figure out which system is really the modern one.
—————
Rod Gramer, KGW-TV, Portland, OR
The history of many European capitals seems remote and irrelevant from today’s world. But the history of Berlin is as fresh and foreboding as dark clouds that hang in the sky even though the worst of the storm has passed. Everywhere there are reminders about the city’s troubled history: the Reichstag building that marks the rise and fall of the Third Reich, Hitler’s unmarked and weed-covered bunker where it all ended, the Holocaust memorial that spreads out cold and gray like a cemetery, remnants of the wall and the cobblestone path that marks where it once stood and white crosses that remember those who tried and failed to cross into freedom. Checkpoint Charlie, now a garish tourist trap, mocks the past by trivializing it with souvenir trinkets, and yet still serves as a dark reminder that once children were separated from their parents, husbands from their wives and friends from their friends by the Wall. Berlin’s history is so fresh it hurts.
I first visited Berlin 24 years ago at Christmas time when the city was still an island in a sea of Communism. I entered the city at night by train. I vividly remember passing from West Germany into East Germany that night. As we crossed the border the first thing I saw was a wire fence and then a 100-yard wide clearing where every tree had been cleared to create a no-man’s land. Then there was a second fence with three strands of barbed wire on top and then an armed guard tower. Thirty-foot tall light poles stood like iron sentries, eerily turning the black night into day, so the guards could see everything and anyone who moved. It was like something out of a black-and-white Cold War movie. A few hours later we reached West Berlin, a welcome oasis on a dark December night. The lights of the city blazed with advertisements and with Christmas decorations. Along Kurfürstendamm wrist watches sold for the equivalent of $15,000 and fountain pens went for $250. Men and women wore elegant clothes and the streets were filled with BMWs and Audis. The only sign that once this city was nearly destroyed by the Allies was the bombed out Kaiser-Wihelm-Gedächtnis-Kirche that stood bathed in light.
The next day I took a tour of East Berlin. After passing through the Wall, the bus stopped. We all had to get off and stand in line as the East German police, dressed in gray and blue uniforms, checked our passports one by one. Another guard checked the bus, as two armed guards in a tower stared down at us intently. East Berlin was gray and drab compared to the brilliant West. The buildings looked either old or hastily constructed with cheap materials. Our East German guide explained that the city was being rebuilt — 40 years after the war — from the suburbs to the center of the city. He went on to explain that this building or that building would be remodeled in a year. We passed a Cathedral that was closed. It, too, would be reopened next year, he said, even though there were no signs of any construction around it. After returning to West Berlin, I wrote in my journal: “Berlin is a city that recalls the past, lives for the present and makes you wonder about the future. How long can this city remain divided by a Wall that both physically and spiritually insults the dignity of the people? In Berlin, there is a sense that it cannot remain this way forever. Someday the differences must be reconciled, perhaps not in my lifetime or in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren, but the differences must be reconciled.”
In 1989, the Wall finally came down. I was as surprised and as delighted as everyone else. When I was selected as a RIAS fellow this fall, I was eager to see how the city had changed since that Christmas time visit nearly a quarter century before. The Berlin I visited this year is a different city. The whole city — West to East — is filled with energy and vitality. I was struck by how much new construction is going on, including the new U.S. Embassy near the Brandenburg Gate. I was impressed by Potsdamer Platz. During the 1920s, Potsdamer Platz was the center of Berlin’s trendy urban scene. During the allied bombing, it was destroyed. After the War, it became a weed-infested wasteland, a no-man’s land and a fitting symbol for a divided city. Now the Sony Center is filled with restaurants, theatres and offices. It buzzes with activity all day and long into the night. It has become a symbol of the New Berlin rising out of the wasteland created by two dictatorships.
This time we moved freely between what once was West Berlin and East Berlin. Gone was the barbed wire, guard towers, check points and the Wall. Gone was the fear that one felt passing from West to East. The Unter den Linden is once again the grand boulevard of Berlin that connects the Brandenburg Gate with the River Spree. Along this graceful tree-lined boulevard are expensive shops, hotels and restaurants. At the far end of the boulevard is Berlin’s oldest and most distinguished school of higher learning, Humboldt University, where Albert Einstein once taught before the Nazis drove him out of his native land. Nearby is “Museum Island” where Germany’s most treasured collection of ancient art and architect is housed in the Pergamon Museum. The star of Germany’s collection is the Pergamon Altar, dating from the year 160 B.C.
What amazed me most about the old East Berlin is how many of the city’s most beautiful and important buildings had been trapped behind the Berlin Wall, along with the people. When I visited 24 years earlier none of the beauty or grace of that part of the city stood out in my mind as it did on this trip. During this visit Berlin struck me as a city that was moving forward to once again take its place as one of the great capitals of Europe. Yet it also seemed like a city that was very mindful — even haunted — by its most recent history. No one could forget the nightmare years of the Third Reich or the brutal domination of the Soviet Union and its puppet East German government. No one can forget because the evidence of those dark years was everywhere. Or maybe no one wants to forget because to forget is to risk going back to those dark times someday. The new Reichstag building itself is designed to create the greatest amount of “transparency. ” The beautiful glass cupola was literally designed to let the sun shine on the Bundestag as it deliberates on the people’s business. There is also space where the people can look down on their government in action.
Nowhere is this mindfulness of fascist and communist dictatorships more reflected than in how Germans view their broadcast news. The Germans I met, especially the journalists, were wary of anything that smacks of what they call “mind-control. ” Germans would rather pay a 17 Euro a month “fee” to fund public television than to watch free television that is filled with commercials. Commercial advertisements on television are viewed as an effort to “brainwash” or “manipulate” viewers.
Another thing that struck me about the broadcast media is how seriously the Germans take their news, perhaps more seriously than we do in the United States. Thomas Hinrichs is the 39-year-old editor in chief of ARD-Tagesschau, Germany’s most watched network newscast with about 10 million viewers a night. Hinrichs said the network newscast is comprised of about 50 percent political stories, 15 percent economic stories, 10 percent cultural stories and the balance weather and sports. The “Tagesschau” newscast had ignored the story about “Madeline,” a young English girl who disappeared while vacationing with her parents in Portugal. Hinrichs explained that this was “Boulevard” news or pedestrian news. He noted that the parents hadn’t even been charged with a crime yet. Until they were, the network would ignore the story, he said. By contrast, in the rest of Europe and in the United States the Madeline story was captivating the public at the time. Remarkably, in this day of 24-hour news, private channels and the internet, the Tagesschau newscast still binds the German people together. One young journalist related how his own father told him to call later and hung up on him when he made the mistake of calling during the 8 p.m. Tagesschau newscast.
The more glitzy commercial television stations and their news, which emulate more the American model of television, have not taken off in Germany. Perhaps this is because they don’t take their news as seriously as do the public television operations. One is puzzled by this serious news culture where many cities have multiple newspapers and where people watch a lot of television news. The trend is just the opposite in many other democratic countries where newspaper readership and television viewer ship are down. One is puzzled, that is, until one thinks about the history of this country and its capital city. Then it is easy to understand why Germans take their television news so seriously and are willing to pay a sizeable monthly fee to avoid watching commercials.
Germany is a country — and Berlin is a city — that has lived with two dictatorships in the past 70 years. Berlin is a city that witnessed first hand the brutality of man against his fellow man. Berlin is a city that was cut off from the rest of the free world and only survived because of the iron strength of its people and the unfailing support of the West. For more than three decades Berlin was the epicenter of the Cold War, where the world’s two superpowers faced off, where people were caged in by barbed wire and guard towers and the omnipresent Wall. It is a city that lived on the brink of death and destruction all the time.
When this kind of history is so fresh and so raw and so haunting, you take your news seriously. You do it because you know the world is a dangerous place. You do it because you know that freedom is a fragile thing. You do it because you will do anything not to go back to those nightmare years again.
—————
Rick Hadley, WBAP-AM, Arlington, TX
When I received the email from RTNDA’s Jon Ebinger that I had been accepted in the first-ever RIAS German exchange program for managers I was thrilled at the prospect of returning to the wonderful country I discovered seven years ago. It was 2000 when I was a RIAS fellow, spending two weeks in a new land.
I had often wondered if there would be an opportunity to get back to Deutschland. I knew little of the country when I left DFW Airport for Berlin in 2000. It didn’t take long for me to fall in love with the land, its culture and its people. Needless to say I was excited to learn that the RIAS Berlin Kommission was considering starting a one-week managers program. The timing perfect since I had moved into management since my first trip to Germany with RIAS years earlier.
My impressions of Germany this go-round were a bit different than my first time there. The main reason for this change in perspective was that I had a better idea of what to expect. I had spent precious little time in Europe before my first German trek. This time I had several trips abroad under my belt.
The charm, understated humor, and meticulous attention to detail I recalled from the Germany people from my first time there remain. It’s a country unafraid to examine its often difficult past. It’s refreshing to find a place where the unfortunate events are remembered in a manner to remind us what can happen when humankind goes horribly wrong. And it’s equally wonderful that accomplishments and traditions are celebrated by a people.
As for the media experience with my colleagues, it’s always refreshing to spend time with others who are like-minded and face the same day in, day out challenges I do. Like my first RIAS excursion I was energized by the conversations and observations in formal settings or over a bier or two or three.
If a college course was built around the RIAS manager’s exchange of 2007 it would be called “Subscriber Fee 101. ” It seemed at every turn our conversations with media officials returned to the required monthly charge imposed on every household with a radio, television or Internet connection. It appears U.S. journalists are dumbfounded by the concept of requiring citizens to pay a monthly 17 euro fee to fund radio and television operations.
The overriding perception of this practice is that it squelches competition between public
and private media outlets. To the U.S. journalist uneducated in the German manner of funding public media, it seems to tip the scales and give the public broadcaster an insurmountable advantage in the ratings war with privately-held television and radio operations.
We learned that the fee is a result of the Nazi regime’s commandeering of the media as part of Hitler’s propaganda machine. Post-war leaders decided it was in the best interest of the country to insure that politicians would no longer have a hand in how the media is funded. Allowing public broadcasters to be funded without question of lawmakers in the public interest insures no party to abuse the media in the manner utilized by the Nazis.
While noble and justified in its intent, this concept remains difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. radio/TV professional to swallow. It goes against all we’ve learned in a free market media environment where it’s a battle to the finish and the strong survive. It’s something we must live with, though not completely comprehend and surely not completely accept.
Through our sessions and interaction with news managers, we were surprised to find that the U.S. journalistic practice of emphasizing local issues doesn’t play well or draw ratings in Germany. The emphasis is on country-wide issues and international news. Local issues are the mainstay of newspapers and tabloids. From what we were told that long-held tradition won’t be changing any time soon.
Summing things up, my second RIAS exchange was every bit as valuable as my first time around. I got to see Hamburg for the first time. I was able to interact with German and U.S. colleagues. And I was able to add to my world view and life experience. These will all influence the way I go about making decisions on the stories we cover and how we cover them. I am thankful for the opportunity afforded me by RIAS.
—————
Phil Humes, WXIA-TV/ WATL.TV, Atlanta, GA
An American in Berlin, Tschüs!
The great good thing about being a journalist is the chance to experience so much more of this world if one reaches out to look beyond the horizon. And so, this journalist did just that in the fall of 2007, arriving in Berlin on a cloudy Sunday morning when the Euro continued its march toward record valuation, the Formula 1 racing world was in an uproar over espionage, and the war in Iraq continued to prompt consternation throughout the world’s capital cities.
My journey, courtesy of the RIAS Foundation, promised a quick cultural emersion and the added benefit of dialogue with senior editors of the German public and private broadcasting industry. A promise kept in large part by the professionalism and efficiency of the RIAS team in Berlin.
The moment I hit the cobblestone sidewalk of Anhalter Straße I was immediately at ease — the experience not unlike walking in any large urban American city. My comfort level fell away in an instant as I approached the surreal park of stone and concrete that is the Holocaust Memorial. In an instant my solitary revelry fell into a reverent solemnity. A modernist memorial to a history which I had viewed and read about in books or films but had until this moment never really grasped its legacy. The gray slabs covering an entire city block crisscrossed by a maze of pathways leading everywhere and nowhere at the very same time. The site stands as a stark reminder of a dark time in Germany’s history, yet testimony to its people’s willingness to never forget a decidedly discordant past.
My path then found a new testament in the glass and steel progress mirrored in the windows of the Sony Center at Potsdamer Platz as I meandered toward the Brandenburg Gate. This city, young by European standards, remains a study in contrasts: old and new, East and West, digital and analog, Christian-Democratic and Social Progressive, Generation Y and Cold War graduates. While it is not that difficult to experience one or all of these contrasts during a short walk across Berlin’s city center, a deeper reflection is warranted to truly understand the rich and diverse nature of the Germanic place in the pantheon of civilization. Further study and analysis would be needed to give a true measure in an academic sense, but I can share some brief observations and thoughts about this memorable experience.
The people are open yet at time seem to be holding back. This may be in part because I lacked substantial language skills, or the cautious nature I sensed is part of the German political, social, and cultural pathos. Germany has a superior public transportation system that if duplicated or even mimicked in a small way in America’s major metropolitan areas, any U.S. bureaucrat that cleared the way to make this a reality might be proclaimed President for Life here in the States. Divergent opinions are not as diverse, a reality mirrored in the German population as well. The government’s social network is far more bureaucratic, but works. Here in America there are federal and state bureaucracies that seem as duplicitous, but don’t seem to work. The evolution or should I say aging of the population will bring new changes for everyone around the world, but I believe some uniquely German ways of doing things might remain: strong trade unions, a comprehensive social service network, and a willingness to reach consensus rather than striking out on its own to name a few. The German people, and most non-Americans for that matter, are much more world-centric; knowing at least some about issues and geo-political matters beyond their borders that could and very well might impact their lives. Most Americans still, I sense, have a very limited perspective of the globalization that has taken hold in economics, politics, cultural, and more ethereal matters. No doubt part of this reality can be attributed to the great distance the United States is from either Asia or Europe and the usual unilateral way it deals with other countries in the Western hemisphere, as well as the oft-times insular outlook most everyday Americans have of the world in which they live.
If there was one universal constant that I was reminded of during my visit it is the commerce of capital that crosses socio-economic, cultural, political, environmental, and spiritual lines drawn all around the world. Euros or dollars, whatever the standard, the aggregators of capital generally help shape policy and politics wherever they may be. It could be in the city-states of Europe, the archipelago that is Indonesia, in Brussels, Washington, D.C. , Riyadh or Teheran, Moscow or Tokyo, Paris or Caracas, London and Berlin. Financial power begets power in so many other ways. While political power may help you achieve some successes, without the capital of capital no economy, religion, political system, or nation can endure. This notion became a reality for many Ossi Berliners and other Cold War puppet states following the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It continues to be the reality for all peoples around the globe in the 21st century.
Just as a reunited Germany ought to embrace the future yet not forget its past, so too must all of us capitalize on the polyphony of experience and work toward achieving a level of harmony that promotes co-existence, sustainability, diversity, and mutual respect among all nations. And I got all this from a one week visit to Berlin.
So as I recall the street performers of Hackescher Markt, the cupola of the Deutscher Bundestag, the museums and memorials, Tagesschau and Hamburg, my new perceptions of Germany, courtesy of RIAS Berlin Kommission, are tempered by some constants from the morning I landed at Tegel International Airport.
The Euro is now at an all-time high, a former Formula 1 driver is now making inroads on the American NASCAR circuit, and the challenges that mark the Iraqi conflict spill over into yet another New Year.
Tschüs!
—————
Rebecca McMenamin, Voice of America, Washington, D.C.
The RIAS News Managers’ program was a wonderfully informative and enjoyable experience that has enriched my news and managerial expertise. On this trip, I was able to make comparisons to the Berlin of 1987 and 1995 to now. I also got a much closer look at the contrasts between public and private sector broadcasters.
First, the changes in the city were incredible. It is hard to believe that just 20 years ago, the look and feel of East compared to West was extremely different. Now, if you didn’t know where the wall was, you’d be hard-pressed to find it without a map. New offices, hotels, and shopping districts have taken over no man’s land. Having easy access to the impressive museums, churches, and buildings on the Eastern side of Berlin was great.
I cannot speak to the psychological differences and whether there has been an overall melding of German public opinion on the issue of unification. This would require much more interaction with citizens on both sides of the former divide (not just the journalistic types!). However, there is now a whole generation that doesn’t remember what it was like living with the wall. Has the tax burden of reconstruction eased, and is the disbursement of wealth even? I suspect there are still more hurdles to overcome, but there certainly appears to be a collective feeling that a united Germany was meant to be.
How will this affect relations with the United States? As the legacy of World War Two, and U.S. involvement in Germany fades, how will the United States be judged and perceived? Germany has had such a diverse history in just the past 100 years. The United States must learn from this and recognize that opinion today can quickly change tomorrow. Friendly, and constructive relationships take time and effort by both sides and should not be taken for granted. I think this is an area where the RIAS Berlin Kommission fills a void and serves a beneficial purpose to both countries.
Regarding media, I was intrigued that public broadcasting continues to dominate the landscape. Public perception of commercial stations is that they can’t provide accurate, unbiased news, if it comes with a profit. There is also skepticism in the United States of journalists and commercial broadcasters. However, the U.S. public is also much more unlikely to willingly fund “independent, public” broadcasters. In Germany, there appears to be a belief that this is for the common good — although this too may change over time. I believe it is a little naïve to think that the government is not involved in public broadcasting. Ultimately, it is government policy that allows for funding of such programs.
There are some contradictions concerning the media that are hard for an outsider to understand. On the one hand, Germans are willing to pay a fee (I’d argue it’s a tax) for non-commercial programming that is informative and even a bit elitist. At the same time, there is huge support for tabloid journalism, with the daily Bild having the biggest circulation of any newspaper.
Despite the funding differences, there are many similarities between U.S. and German broadcasting, particularly in the type of challenges faced by news managers. Most believe they need more resources, regardless of their current budget; there are staffing and morale concerns, and technological advancements are uneven. Goals of accuracy and comprehensive coverage permeate both sides.
Another similarity is in the conviction of U.S. and German journalists to filling a public need for information. While U.S. journalists may not always have the opportunity because of commercial requirements, many would love to produce 15 minutes of uninterrupted nightly news that is nothing but the most important world stories of the day — and to have staff stationed worldwide to cover such events.
Returning to the German public in general, I’d like to mention one other philosophical contradiction I noticed which concerns women’s rights. Most U.S. women’s rights activists oppose pornography and prostitution on the grounds it denigrates women and they push for respect of women, equal rights and equal pay. Yet, there are still very few women elected to high public office. In Germany, there appears to be greater acceptance of women as sexual objects — yet Germans have also already elected a female Chancellor. I can’t decide if Germans are further ahead on this issue, or behind!
There were many interesting visits and stops throughout this weeklong stay. Among the highlights would have to be the visits to Tagesschau, to N24 and to the Bundestag. I also really enjoyed talking with the students at the Springer Academy.
I came away from the trip with several ideas for new media development and for pushing convergence in our news operations. The exchange of information with our German hosts, journalists and the other Americans on the trip was extremely valuable. I’d like to thank the RIAS Berlin Kommission for this opportunity, which was very much appreciated.
—————
Guy Nelson, KUOW-FM, Seattle, WA
A Firsthand Look at German TV and Radio
Our week in Germany became a quest to understand the country’s most popular TV news program, “Tagesschau”. Though it’s criticized by many for being “old fashioned”, it remains hugely popular and has the highest reputation of all the country’s broadcast programs. We learned early on that the program airs on public TV each night from the ARD studios in Hamburg, starting at 8:00 and lasting for exactly 15 minutes.
Why is this show so popular? And what goes into its production? How does it compare to commercial news coverage? Those became the key questions as we spent the week in Berlin visiting several TV and radio studios, both public and private.
Our discussions often centered on the different ways public and private broadcasting are funded. Every German household that owns a TV or radio must pay a monthly fee of around $22 US. This money goes to the nation’s public radio and TV stations — a total of over $7 Billion.
All of the private TV and radio representatives we talked to were very critical of this financial system. They say it amounts to an unnecessarily large public subsidy. They claim it gives public stations an unfair advantage in programming power and facilities. Yet when we asked them about this alleged advantage in the case of the famous Tagesschau, they found its style easy to criticize — low tech, stiff and outdated.
On the other hand, public broadcasting defends its subsidy. One of our visits took us to meet Mr. Ernst Elitz, the director and general manger of Deutschland Radio Kultur in Berlin. He explained the two branches of Deutschland Radio, one for news and one for the arts and culture. It turned out that just the day before a German high court had ruled that the public broadcasting fees could not be questioned by any German members of parliament. Mr. Elitz called it an important decision that bolstered and protected public broadcasting’s place in informing German citizens.
Mid-week we took a break from the station tours to visit the Reichstag, or the German Parliament building. Though I’ve been there before, I still found it interesting to meet representatives from the main political parties and discuss their most pressing issues. We talked with members of the Left Party, the SDP, the Alliance 90, the CDU and the Liberal Party. For me, the most interesting discussion centered on how the Alliance 90 party, which includes the Greens, is struggling to keep its membership. It’s increasingly being seen as a centrist party and is losing its younger members to the more progressive Left.
After spending the week talking to news managers in both radio and TV, public and private, we discovered they’re facing many of the same challenges we are in America. Those include a shrinking audience of young people in their 20’s and finding new platforms for our content in the internet age. The same questions kept coming up at every station we visited: how do we get young adults interested in news? And how can we deliver the programs they want in the most expedient way, on demand? Internet? Hand-helds? Cell phones?
There are no clear answers. Most German commercial stations are playing with their style, loosening it and adding flashier visual effects. Public media, though, with their huge advantage in funding and audience, are playing it carefully. They maintain that their priority is sound journalism and they’re reluctant to change many of the usual conventions.
Finally, at the end of the week, we traveled to Hamburg to visit ARD studios, the home of the revered program, Tagesschau. Unfortunately, we weren’t allowed into the studio during the program, but we did watch it on monitors in the adjacent newsroom.
The verdict? It was a tight, 15-minute show, focusing on national and international headlines. The TV people in our group agreed that it was solid, with an appropriate number of reporter “packages” and graphics that accomplished their purpose without unnecessary flash.
Two of the show’s features seemed to stand out to members of our group:
- The presenter was alone behind the desk, without the usual two-person man/woman style favored by nearly every other TV station in the world.
- The presenter read his copy off sheets of paper that he held in front of him, not from a TelePrompter as everyone else does.
The reason, we were told, is that it retains an authentic style that the audience is quite comfortable with. “Wouldn’t it be easy to change?,” we asked. Their answer was that adding a TelePrompter, though simple, would be too unsettling to their loyal viewers.
One other interesting point:
Tagesschau doesn’t have any breaks for commercials, ads or promos. Of course you wouldn’t expect much of those anyway on a public TV program, but the news managers explained that it’s very important that the show is in no way “tainted” by any commercial interests. It’s hard to argue with their numbers. A large majority of German households depend on the Tagesschau each night to bring them dependable information. Even the young journalists we talked to said that what the program lacks in style, it makes up for in substance.
In the end, I came away with a much deeper understanding and appreciation of German broadcasting. We met many people in both radio and TV, commercial and public, who are deeply committed to good journalism and their professions. While at times their programs seem less stylish than their American counterparts, I believe their audience is better informed about national and international news than the average American, and in the end, that is what’s most important.
—————
Bryan Schott, KCPW Public Radio, Salt Lake City, UT
I found the RIAS Senior News Manager Exchange program to be extremely valuable for myself and for future news coverage plans for KCPW in Salt Lake City. We have carved out a niche in a crowded media market by focusing on local news and issues. The larger model of the German media structure and the forces driving those entities proved to be instructive.
I was encouraged by what I saw from the news coverage in Germany. The success and respect for “Tagesschau” shows that there is an appetite for solid, non-sensationalistic news in Germany. In American news, there’s a constant tug to go toward the easy, sensational story. KCPW’s focus has been and will continue to be solid reporting of stories with substance. On a side note, I was amused about the furor surrounding the F1 cheating scandal, which shows that not all stories are deathly serious. It was nice to see that sports scandals have an appeal outside of the sporting media — no matter what side of the Atlantic Ocean you are on.
The funding structure of the German public media seemed to puzzle many in our group. As a public broadcaster myself, I was extremely jealous to see how well the public broadcasters are funded. What I wouldn’t give to have a stable and regular source of income for our station that didn’t rely on the generosity of listeners. It was a bit troubling for me and the rest of the group to learn about the court decision that prevented elected officials from denying or altering requests for funding increases by public media. That decision would be met with howls of protest in America. Perhaps I’m just used to operating in a system where a portion of our government funding (Corporation of Public Broadcasting) is always under siege and threatened. The CPB share of our funding has been declining every year, and I think that’s appropriate for public media in America.
The rules for public broadcasting were quite puzzling to me. I was surprised to learn that public television could run ads just like commercial broadcasters, and often used the public funds to compete directly with the commercial enterprises. I don’t think it’s fair that the public system can use public funds to duplicate any innovation by the commercial broadcasters and offer it free. It also seems unfair that the public broadcasters can use those funds to buy the rights to sporting events.
I found that the decentralized nature of the German media system is a structure that encourages local news coverage. With local states controlling the licenses of the broadcasters, it pushes those outlets that do news to focus on local issues. In America, our licenses are up for renewal every 10 years, but there is no local control of those permits — it all comes from the federal government. We are required to serve our local listening area, but I think it would be a far different media landscape if there were as much local control as the licensing boards in Germany.
I was a bit puzzled by the presentation at TVB. They said it was hard to sell advertising, which led to a smaller bottom line. It was quite striking when they said advertising money was spent on newspapers rather than broadcast because people “didn’t trust” electronic advertising. It’s still hard to get my head around that idea, given the amount of advertising in American media.
I also was pleasantly surprised to hear that there is no advertising allowed during the news in German media. I think that separation is needed, and something that is lacking in American media coverage.
One final thought…heed to the recommendation that you pack a change of clothes in your carry-on bags. It is quite stressful when you land in Berlin, and your luggage gets a trip to London and Amsterdam before arriving. It’s not fun when your baggage sees more of Europe than you do.
—————
Joel Waldinger, WISC-TV, Madison, WI
German Television public vs. private
The state of German television appeared at an interesting crossroads during our RIAS Fellowship in September of 2007. On one side you had public television stations with the enormous government support they’ve enjoyed for years. On the other side, private television stations wanting in on a piece of the government pie and arguing to make the playing field more competitive. The court ruling sided with the status quo.
German television was regulated after World War II because of Adolf Hitler’s manipulation of the airwaves and the abuse of federal authority. The Allies in turn helped build a broadcast system after WWII to prevent that same kind of abuse. It is actually mandated by the constitution. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are guarantees that everyone has the right to inform themselves “freely from a generally accessible source.” It is the constitutionally based function of the broadcasting media and of the other media to give the people free and ample opportunity to form their own opinions. The “freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts” is a basic freedom written into the constitution. The television stations are licensed in 7 to 10 year increments.
One way to achieve this was by charging households for the use of over the air television and radio in the form of user fees. Currently the rate is 17 euros a month. Some people can get a waiver if they show financial hardship. The television fee remains constant in all of Germany’s 16 states. Across all of Germany approximately 7.6 billion euros are collected annually in television fees. There are even those who have the job to enforce this fee by going door to door to see who has a television or radio and those who are illegally avoiding the fee. The public broadcasting organizations also take in some revenue from advertising and sponsoring agreements but this is a limited source of income.
The user fees collected are then used to support Germany’s public television stations paying for staff, equipment and programming. Some experts would argue this system is needed to guarantee quality and to provide controls on the system. Another reason, commercials are not allowed during news programs and can be limited during other programming periods. It is also a sign of the times where in Eastern Europe there is strong resistance to advertising on television.
Having started in 1984, private television is relatively young in the German republic. Part of the reason for the late entry into the private market was the limited number of frequencies. There are currently 160 private companies represented by VPRT, a group representing the interests of private radio, television and audiovisual services. They negotiate on behalf of its members with legislative and executive authorities both on a national and European level. One of their main priorities is creating fair and competitive conditions within the dual broadcast system in Germany (public vs. private).
TVB is a private television station broadcasting from the base of the TV Tower at Alexanderplatz in the former East Berlin. Despite this prime location their audience share is made up of 60% from West Berlin and only 40% from East Berlin. The number may seem skewed but is also similar to the population trends. On average 170,000 people tune in to TV-Berlin each day. They do not get government support from the TV fees paid by Germans. The cost of a 30 second commercial on TVB is approximately 300 euros.
On the other side is the public television station Rundfunk Berlin Brandenburg (RBB). They also provide local news programming and receive 3.6 million in public funds. In Berlin, 30% of households watch Abendschau each day. Their share of the audience is 21.4% compared to less than 1% for TVB.
The television landscape on the local and national level in the Federal Republic of Germany appears to be a battle between the haves and the have nots.