Page 109 - Communication and Citizenship Journalism and the Public Sphere

98 COMMUNICATION AND CITIZENSHIP

• The private system, in contrast, only had to meet a ‘minimum’
standard of pluralism (Grundstandard) in respect to its organization
and programme offerings. This was clearly a concession by the
Court to the precarious economic position of the emerging market.
The minimum standard was not defined precisely, although the
Court did demand ‘the highest possible degree of pluralism’ in the
private sector as a whole, which meant that all views, including those
of minorities must be given a ‘chance’ to find an airing in private
broadcasting. Although the Court implied that it did not expect
private broadcasters to offer a full range of high-quality
programmes, if they did offer information programmes, they would
be obliged to inform objectively, comprehensively and truthfully.
Imbalances in the presentation of information would only be
acceptable if they were ‘of minor importance’, or ‘not aggravating’.
Furthermore, the minimum standard had to include a right of reply
and a respect for human dignity. 16
• Importantly, the Court specified that the Land legislatures had to
prevent powerful media players from gaining ‘a dominant influence
upon the formation of opinion’. This was to be ensured over and
above the rules of the federal anti-cartel law. The rules were not only
to restrict multi-channel ownership but also press/broadcasting cross-
ownership. Moreover, the fewer channels there were, the more
pluralistically organized the individual broadcaster had to be.
Significantly, the Court ruled that ‘[o]pportunities in the market
place may relate to economic freedom, but they do not relate to
freedom of opinion’. 17
• The statutory control of the private-sector pluralism requirements,
through licensing and programme monitoring, was to be the duty of a
panel of experts, external to the broadcasters. Not only should those
experts be recruited from all socially relevant groups, but they should
be independent of the state. The Court thus affirmed that the system
of controlling West German private broadcasting should be closely
modelled on that of the public sector. It conceded, however, that the
external control bodies for private broadcasting would have less
power than the internal control bodies of the public sector. The latter
were responsible for the development of the overall programme
output, while the former were only supervisory and reactive, since
once a private broadcaster had been licensed, the regulatory body
could only intervene if a contravention took place. 18