The lawsuits are over: Since the broadcast license fee does not increase as planned on January 1, 2025, public broadcasters are taking the issue to the Federal Constitutional Court. This is your right, but it could also be your biggest mistake.
It is no surprise that the ARD and the ZDF are turning to the Federal Constitutional Court to impose an increase in the radio and television license fee to 18.94 euros from 1 January 2025. They insist on the additional amount because they have foreseen it financially – and the Independent Commission for the Determination of Financial Needs (KEF) recommended the increase – but this is more like an order in the regular process of determining contributions.
In this sense the institutions behave exactly as one would expect. One must at least doubt whether their behaviour is wise not only from the point of view of media policy but also from a social point of view.
Background: A few weeks ago the prime ministers of the federal states decided to reform public broadcasting, but postponed the decision on the increase in license fees until December. Consequently, the regional parliaments will under no circumstances be able to give their approval at the end of the year. Even if they wanted to, more than a handful of countries are actually against increasing the contribution, otherwise there wouldn’t be a majority in favor in a vote. Because, according to some prime ministers, the increase in contributions is not adequate for the times and is not feasible for many citizens. The budget of the entire public services complex already amounts to around ten billion euros per year.
Since the reform of the grant-financed broadcasters has already taken too long, it must be ensured that ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio are “sufficiently” financed. It does not matter if in the coming years the structures will be dismantled, the channels canceled and the tasks unified. What should happen in the future plays no role in determining the contribution in the present.
That’s why public broadcasters are now doing what they have already done a few times, most recently in 2020, when Saxony-Anhalt was the only federal state not to vote in the regional parliament on an increase to 18.36 euros – and therefore the The increase did not take place on 1 January 2021 could take place because the principle of unanimity applies. The following summer, the Federal Constitutional Court, appealing to the institutions, decided that the increase should take place.
This time, however, things are a little different. This time there are several federal states that do not want to support an increase. And this time there hasn’t been a vote yet. This time in December a way should be found to determine the rent in the future without there being continuous conflicts, but also without an almost automatic increase. There are several models for this. In December, an attempt should be made to understand how the transitional period until a new procedure is established can be financially covered.
The institutions don’t want to wait for this. Formally it is certainly their right. But they send the wrong, if not fatal, signal. Because the lawsuit ignores political reality. It is not just fragments of policy makers or the usual GEZ objectors who consider the contribution increase problematic. It is politicians and citizens who consider public broadcasting useful and significant, but they want to limit its structure and mission – and therefore also the costs to be financed. The institutions are now sending a simple message to these people seeking balance: we don’t care.
Furthermore, the reform approved in October does not revolutionize the entire public service system at all. the structure remains as it is, minus some linear channels that will be broken. The ARD will retain all state broadcasters, the ARD and ZDF should cooperate just a little more and the centralization of the management of the ARD as called for by the report will not happen in the form it is. The institutions should be able to coexist well with this reform.
The fact that they are now filing suit without waiting for the Prime Minister’s decision in December is ultimately risky. Because anyone whose principle is to file a lawsuit before all the facts are on the table is gambling with their reputation. The prime ministers of the Länder certainly also had their part in the situation, because they delayed the reform process and thus a possible stabilization of contributions until it was no longer possible. But ultimately compromises are necessary. Therefore, if the Federal Constitutional Court decides in favor of the institutions, it could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory.
How can public broadcasters engage better with citizens to rebuild trust amid financial controversies?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Media Policy Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Eva Fischer, a renowned expert in media policy and public broadcasting finance. Dr. Fischer, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Fischer: Thank you for having me! It’s great to discuss this important topic.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Public broadcasters ARD and ZDF have decided to take the issue of their planned license fee increase to the Federal Constitutional Court. Could you explain to our audience the context behind this decision?
Dr. Fischer: Certainly. The background is that the Independent Commission for the Determination of Financial Needs, or KEF, has recommended raising the license fee from 17.50 to 18.94 euros starting January 1, 2025. However, several federal states are against this increase, feeling it is not feasible for many citizens, especially given the current economic climate. The broadcasters hope the court will rule in their favor, even though no regional parliaments support this increase.
Editor: It seems like a contentious issue. What are the potential consequences of this lawsuit for public broadcasting in Germany?
Dr. Fischer: The consequences could be significant. On one hand, if the court rules in favor of ARD and ZDF, they would secure the financial resources they believe they need to operate effectively. On the other hand, pursuing this legal route without the support of regional parliaments sends a troubling message about the disconnect between public institutions and the citizens they serve. It risks alienating the audience at a time when trust in media is already fragile.
Editor: That’s an interesting point. You mentioned a disconnect between public broadcasters and citizens. How could this perceived disconnection impact the future of public broadcasting in Germany?
Dr. Fischer: If citizens feel that their needs and opinions aren’t being considered, they may lose faith in public broadcasters as a relevant and necessary service. Public broadcasting is fundamentally about serving the public—and if it carries on without acknowledging the current financial strain many experience, it could face backlash. It’s critical for ARD and ZDF to engage in meaningful dialogue with the public and their stakeholders.
Editor: You mentioned that previous attempts to increase fees have encountered resistance. How does the current political landscape differ from past instances, such as the case in 2020?
Dr. Fischer: The political landscape is indeed more complex this time. In 2020, only Saxony-Anhalt opposed the fee increase, leading to a court ruling that mandated the raise. Now, we have multiple federal states opposing it, along with a broader sentiment against automatic increases in contributions. The prime ministers themselves have signaled that they see the need for reform, but they’re not ready to greenlight this specific increase. Without a cohesive political backing, the path ahead is murkier for public broadcasting institutions.
Editor: Looking forward, what steps could be taken to address the underlying issues surrounding public broadcasting funding in Germany?
Dr. Fischer: A comprehensive reform of public broadcasting funding is necessary. This should involve creating a more sustainable model that adjusts to the economic realities faced by citizens today. Engaging the public in discussions about the value and role of public broadcasters can create more support for necessary funding changes. Moreover, restructuring how contributions are determined—moving away from an automatic increase model—could lead to a healthier relationship between broadcasters and the public.
Editor: As we approach the decision in December, what’s your final piece of advice for policymakers and broadcasters navigating this complex situation?
Dr. Fischer: My advice would be to prioritize transparency and communication with the public. They should clearly articulate the necessity behind the funding increase and demonstrate their commitment to being responsive to the public’s needs. Building trust is essential for the future of public broadcasting, and it will require effort from all parties involved.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Fischer, for your insights on this crucial topic. It’s a complex situation that will undoubtedly continue to evolve. We appreciate your time today.
Dr. Fischer: Thank you for the conversation! I’m looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.