I once posted a thread on this topic. It was a while ago.
sanctioned-suicide.net
I was interested in revisiting this whether the quality of my posts improved or declined.
I am still no expert on the BBC, NPR or PBS.
I think my thoughts on it have shifted a little bit.
There is corruption in the public broadcasting system in Germany. A stronger public broadcast system does not simply mean giving them more money and the rest should stay the same.
I don't watch as much content as in the past. Especially less infotainment. There are better outlets for informed debates for example the publicly funded Bundeszentrale fĂĽr Politische Bildung. I posted a thread about their article on leftwing conservatism. I really enjoyed that perspective. The public broadcasting services do a good job in Germany overall. Compared to the BBC. I don't know NPR or PBS well enough. From what I can tell they make too much both side bullshit but still do a way better job than private TV stations in the US.
The Deutsche Welle (DW) is comparable to the major services ARD and ZDF. Both TV stations are very good at neutral reporting and news summaries. They have biases (slightly leftleaning according to studies). I think both of them are defenders of the status quo. And defender of German democracy it is one mandate to inform citizens to make a well-informed decision at elections.
Yesterday I watched an interesting video of the German lecturer Carefree Wandering.
I think barely anyone will watch it. Here is a short AI summary for you if you don't have time to watch it. I will refer to it to make my point.
1. The French Perspective: Alienation, Spectacle, and Propaganda
The French theorists discussed in the video share a deep skepticism regarding the authenticity of the act of voting:
In contrast to the moralizing or culturally critical tone of the French thinkers, Niklas Luhmann's perspective is sober, descriptive, and arguably more cynical:
When I watched the video it reminded me how my discussions with American friends on this forum. The French perspective for example "The choice between candidates is as hollow as choosing between fashion brands" is similar to takes I heard on here from Americans.
As a German my personal view is closer to Luhmann's though. I especially agree with the functional pragmatism and the German lecturer also aligned with this view.
To make my point. You can see differences in our relation to elections it is also a different approach to the media and political system. The German public broadcasting services are certainly not perfect. We can all agree on that. But it is still better than the alternative. In the US when it comes to elections many voters resign and say they are just two different sides of the same horrible coin. It also has to do with the US party system. In Germany we have to live with coalitions. And actually voters cannot vote for coalitions they can vote for a bet. They can vote strategically and hope that their favorite coalition will be built. But in the end we don't know what happens after the election.
My problem with the ARD and ZDF is the following: I am not satisfied in how they are dealing with the far-right AfD. And some Germans will say the moderators are too critical of the AfD and judge them in an unfair way. I think the AfD politicians push the public broadcasting journalists as they wish to. I am not saying journalists of private companies do a better job necessarily. There is a clear antagonism if AfD politicians are on public broadcasting TV shows because they want to defund them. The public broadcasting journalists are nervous, some like school boys, ill prepared and often they fail to dismantle the right-wing talking points. You get the feeling they feel very uncomfortable in these interviews. They know they are under scrutiny and people will shit on them no matter what. Biased, too hard on the AfD, too soft on the AfD. There were a few really good interviews. But I have the feeling these journalists fear allegations of a conflict of interest.
I could imagine the same is true for the BBC and US TV broadcasting stations. They fear allegations of a conflict of interest and this is what influences their reporting.
I think a good publicly funded system is good for democracy. And it is a good investment in times of polarization. There is a need for a consensus and the echo chambers on social media won't deliver that. The discussion become more and more mental and the overton window shifts to the right. And the public broadcasting system can be an antidote for that. Is it a panacea no. But better than the alternative.
Do they spread propaganda? Probably yes but it depends on the definition of propaganda. Maybe democratic propaganda. Some say they are too tame towards traditional parties. I think on Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, capitalism they are supporting the system we are currently living in. This is why I called them defender of the status quo. They can have a blind spot for reporting on issues where infinitesimal changes are not the solution. And where radical change is needed. For example, when reporting about the US system they are way too friendly towards DNC elites (Clinton, Biden). One reason for that might be that the DNC elites support the transatlantic friendship and Germany benefited from that.
What do you think about public broadcasting services?
Are you in favor or against it? In the US it is PBS, in UK BBC (and more in UK?) and in my country there are dfferent channels. There is currently a scandal. Not exactly corruption rather nepotism. I am still in favor of these channels. At least in my country I don't know enough about BBC or PBS...
sanctioned-suicide.net
I was interested in revisiting this whether the quality of my posts improved or declined.
I am still no expert on the BBC, NPR or PBS.
I think my thoughts on it have shifted a little bit.
There is corruption in the public broadcasting system in Germany. A stronger public broadcast system does not simply mean giving them more money and the rest should stay the same.
I don't watch as much content as in the past. Especially less infotainment. There are better outlets for informed debates for example the publicly funded Bundeszentrale fĂĽr Politische Bildung. I posted a thread about their article on leftwing conservatism. I really enjoyed that perspective. The public broadcasting services do a good job in Germany overall. Compared to the BBC. I don't know NPR or PBS well enough. From what I can tell they make too much both side bullshit but still do a way better job than private TV stations in the US.
The Deutsche Welle (DW) is comparable to the major services ARD and ZDF. Both TV stations are very good at neutral reporting and news summaries. They have biases (slightly leftleaning according to studies). I think both of them are defenders of the status quo. And defender of German democracy it is one mandate to inform citizens to make a well-informed decision at elections.
Yesterday I watched an interesting video of the German lecturer Carefree Wandering.
I think barely anyone will watch it. Here is a short AI summary for you if you don't have time to watch it. I will refer to it to make my point.
1. The French Perspective: Alienation, Spectacle, and Propaganda
The French theorists discussed in the video share a deep skepticism regarding the authenticity of the act of voting:
- Jean Baudrillard (1972): He views elections as a type of "speech without response." For him, the electoral system is a simulation where the answer is already implied in the question. Instead of real dialogue, the voter performs a prefabricated act that abolishes individual expression and replaces it with a staged mass proclamation.
- Guy Debord (1967): Elections are part of the "Society of the Spectacle." The choice between candidates is as hollow as choosing between fashion brands. This "spectacular abundance" actually depoliticizes the public, turning voters into "voting sheep" who support the industry of politics without ever questioning the process itself.
- Jacques Ellul (1962): He contextualizes elections within sociological propaganda. This is a systemic effort to integrate individuals into a collective pattern. Ellul argues that democratic propaganda eventually produces a "totalitarian man"—someone who demands simple solutions (good vs. evil) and cannot tolerate ambiguity.
In contrast to the moralizing or culturally critical tone of the French thinkers, Niklas Luhmann's perspective is sober, descriptive, and arguably more cynical:
- Systems Over Individuals: For Luhmann, society is not a collection of people but a cluster of social systems (legal, economic, political). The political system's specific function is not to "represent the people," but to produce "collectively binding decisions".
- Elections as a Throw of the Dice: Luhmann rejects the idea that elections express a "will of the people." He views them as "symbolic procedures" or a game of chance with arbitrary rules.
- Legitimacy Through Procedure: The key concept here is Legitimation durch Verfahren. It doesn't matter what people actually think (which is unknowable); what matters is the fiction that power comes from the people. This "miracle" allows the system to remain stable and gives politics the "blessing" of the mythical popular will.
- Functional Pragmatism: Unlike the French who lament the loss of authenticity, Luhmann is fine with these fictions as long as they function properly to stabilize society.
When I watched the video it reminded me how my discussions with American friends on this forum. The French perspective for example "The choice between candidates is as hollow as choosing between fashion brands" is similar to takes I heard on here from Americans.
As a German my personal view is closer to Luhmann's though. I especially agree with the functional pragmatism and the German lecturer also aligned with this view.
To make my point. You can see differences in our relation to elections it is also a different approach to the media and political system. The German public broadcasting services are certainly not perfect. We can all agree on that. But it is still better than the alternative. In the US when it comes to elections many voters resign and say they are just two different sides of the same horrible coin. It also has to do with the US party system. In Germany we have to live with coalitions. And actually voters cannot vote for coalitions they can vote for a bet. They can vote strategically and hope that their favorite coalition will be built. But in the end we don't know what happens after the election.
My problem with the ARD and ZDF is the following: I am not satisfied in how they are dealing with the far-right AfD. And some Germans will say the moderators are too critical of the AfD and judge them in an unfair way. I think the AfD politicians push the public broadcasting journalists as they wish to. I am not saying journalists of private companies do a better job necessarily. There is a clear antagonism if AfD politicians are on public broadcasting TV shows because they want to defund them. The public broadcasting journalists are nervous, some like school boys, ill prepared and often they fail to dismantle the right-wing talking points. You get the feeling they feel very uncomfortable in these interviews. They know they are under scrutiny and people will shit on them no matter what. Biased, too hard on the AfD, too soft on the AfD. There were a few really good interviews. But I have the feeling these journalists fear allegations of a conflict of interest.
I could imagine the same is true for the BBC and US TV broadcasting stations. They fear allegations of a conflict of interest and this is what influences their reporting.
I think a good publicly funded system is good for democracy. And it is a good investment in times of polarization. There is a need for a consensus and the echo chambers on social media won't deliver that. The discussion become more and more mental and the overton window shifts to the right. And the public broadcasting system can be an antidote for that. Is it a panacea no. But better than the alternative.
Do they spread propaganda? Probably yes but it depends on the definition of propaganda. Maybe democratic propaganda. Some say they are too tame towards traditional parties. I think on Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, capitalism they are supporting the system we are currently living in. This is why I called them defender of the status quo. They can have a blind spot for reporting on issues where infinitesimal changes are not the solution. And where radical change is needed. For example, when reporting about the US system they are way too friendly towards DNC elites (Clinton, Biden). One reason for that might be that the DNC elites support the transatlantic friendship and Germany benefited from that.
