Der Kanlerkandidat Frank-Walter Steinmeier hat in einem Artikel, dessen Titel „ Die Beziehung von Medien und Demokratie ist heute manchmal brüchig “ aufhorchen läßt, seine Vorstellungen von der Medienlandschaft in Deutschland niedergelegt. Wenn ein Politiker am Verhältnis von Medien und Politik zweifelt, liegt das wohl meistens daran, daß er in den Medien nicht die Aussagen wiederfindet, die er dort gerne sehen möchte.
An vielen Stellen bleibt Steinmeier seltsam vage, an den Stellen wo er konkret wird offenbart er letztlich genau jene, dem Politikbetrieb innewohnende, rückwärtsgewandte Technikfeindlichkeit und Regelungsgwut, from which the feed fed to the pirate party, but we consider his statements in detail:
not a modern democracy can exist without a responsible and committed to democracy and modern media. Especially our democracy in Germany has the experience again and again. Two anniversaries that we call to mind: The Weimar democracy has not gone at last creeping poison of anti-democratic attitude of the journalistic campaign against the Democrats and parties and the lack of respect for the institutions of democracy is based. But even the happiest moments in German history of democracy with the influence of the media are connected. The fall of the wall would be without the use of our media - and mainly with the public - without the protection of the images for the then opposition, without encouraging the reporting to the silence of the East German media have been impossible. The more it is today duty to remember in this and to draw the right conclusions for our democracy.
So we are to actually believe that would have survived with a different media culture of the Weimar republic and the Wall still stood? Already in the Roman Empire, there were riots and revolutions, no newspapers, no television, and even without the Internet. This all sounds very hard and a bit exaggerated, even if the protective function of the medial Public can not be denied. Conversely wiederun those responsible would say in the GDR, that the agitation had in the Western media complicity in the downfall of the GDR. From the perspective of those in power is all propaganda, which is directed against them. It is always a matter of definition, what is propaganda and what not. Binding can be accomplished only with censorship! So is this a legal language calling for censorship?
concentrated in Article 5 of the Basic Law itself, what has been achieved in centuries for freedom and against tyranny, censorship and harassment. But we also feel that the relationship between media and democracy today, sometimes fragile, damaged and threatened. It is against this common anzugehen. Denn nach wie vor lebt die Demokratie von einer von den Medien hergestellten und getragenen Öffentlichkeit. Stirbt diese Öffentlichkeit, dann stirbt auch die Demokratie.
Zur Erinnerung zunächst Artikel 5 des Grundgesetzes:
- Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.
- Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Right to personal honor.
- art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not release from allegiance to the Constitution.
He recognizes that the importance of media produced and supported public to the functioning of democracy. But no politician wants to seriously the public called for here, since this would mean transparency in political decision-making. For politicians, however important, is how to exploit media for his purposes ye /, because so far the public is sought only when there is political advantage to erheischen, but not for a genuine dialogue with the sovereign cause.
The more politicians and the media should jointly maintain this public discourse. By far and criticism, but also with respect for each other. Public opinion and published opinion can not be separated and the public, we have learned the latest from Jürgen Habermas, is a central category of the Enlightenment tradition, but is also just a profound structural change subject. The mass media have taken over the role of an electronic campfire. Ideally, combine, collect and evaluate them, what moves a company and would have to move, and do so in such a way that in a society diversity of opinion and are guaranteed access.
doing this media with actual or she should do this instead? Just by the concentration of media companies that very access to diversity of opinion is at risk. That also applies
in the Age of the Internet to preserve and create new ones. Even if the public has long since turned into countless segments of the public and has only occasionally associated with age cohorts or environment, democracy is giving rise to public as a whole, valid as a social objective. Towards them, the media are organized to secure their place in the democratic whole. Exactly what is at the center in charge of media policy in a democracy. Your particular characteristic must be now that it is a policy is not based on market forces alone is but a controlling, supporting hand of society, if necessary, also grants the state. The latter is especially true where noted not just a temporary market weakness, but an obvious market failure in the media or to be expected.
What he wants to create diversity of opinion on the internet really new? If you come across diverse ', then surely the web. Exactly the feel but the political class as a fundamental evil of the Internet. Anyone can at any time at extremely low cost multi-media his opinion of an arbitrarily large audience for Verfügung stellen. Jeder kann gleichermaßen Sender und Empfänger sein. Jederzeit muß damit gerechnet werden, daß sich eine dahingeworfene Aussage in sekundenschnelle verbreitet. Die Steuerbarkeit der öffentlichen Meinung ist nicht mehr gewährleistet. Insofern wirkt die Forderung aus dem Munde eines Politikers lächerlich.
Leider bleibt unklar, was genau sich Steinmeier unter dem Begriff „muss die Medienlandschaft organisiert werden“ vorstellt, aber wenn Politiker davon schwadronieren, daß etwas organisiert werden muß, meinen sie nichts Geringeres als staatliche Lenkung. Da er hier nicht allein vom öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk spricht, sondern allgemein von der Medienlandschaft, kann man es eigentlich nicht anders verstehen als die Forderung nach einer staatlich gelenkten Medienlandschaft, mindestens jedoch eine Lenkung des Internets!
Ebenso merkwürdig bleibt seine Forderung, daß die Politik „eine steuernde, stützende Hand der Gesellschaft, notfalls auch des Staates gewährt“. Nach welchen Kriterien unterscheidet er zwischen lenkenden Eingriffen der Gesellschaft und denen des Staates? Dunkel ist seiner Rede Sinn.
Gerade die Entwicklung der Massenmedien in den letzten 50 Jahren hat gezeigt, dass das freie Spiel der Kräfte, eine entfesselte, überwiegend unregulierte Entwicklung nicht der Vielfalt dient, sondern der Konzentration von Medienmacht den Weg ebnet. Strategien, die die Entwicklung der Media let alone the market will lead, everywhere - especially in the western world - a development that has described the American economic historian Robert McChesney this: rich media. Poor Democracy. Who the media on the market, can weaken them in their democratic role and makes it only to goods and services.
Obviously he is in favor at this point to an increasing monopolization of the media. No mention is natural that the SPD is trying to take over some media more or less hidden strong influence on public opinion.
why we always see media as both: as a business and as a cultural, a product of consumer society and as a carrier of a "public service" of a public service. This for decades, always in question asked, but always bearing approach has led to the combination of media development and democratic development was a close and productive. Not least the establishment of a public-service broadcasting, this idea always alive and full of life. She has suffered, when and where the media - is the development of financial markets are not dissimilar - were expelled in the wake of deregulation in the global market. They have suffered, since the connection between Journalism and economic activity is no longer taken for granted. They have suffered, since the winner would take care of the companies are no longer about the profits of the company.
Here the development of public service broadcasting is mixed with the private media, and keeps it the permanent name of political parties and churches influence on decisions within the public service broadcaster. But even with this statement is not clear what Steinmeier wants. He complains, but does not say where he is going.
As always, this development means a weakening of democratic developments, virtues and achievements, you have to think about instruments and, if necessary also introduce, establish a balance between the cultural and economic asset again. Currently, therefore the following tools and opportunities to think: Well, then finally come
specific proposals: first
A contemporary media concentration law, especially the development of storage media (on demand) into account and new Vermachtungsstrukturen (Google and Co.) small holds.
Is this statement thrown quickly or result of technical incompetence? That has to do a media concentration law with the development of storage media? Why is he called "on demand" as a storage medium? Does he mean just about new forms of distribution? Selbst unter Beücksichtigung der Mehrfachbedeutung des Wortes Medium bleibt der Zusammenhang unklar. Hier scheint eine ziemliche Begriffsverwirrung vorzuliegen. Entscheidend ist aber der letzte Teilsatz: neue Vermachtungsstrukturen klein halten. Im Grunde fordert er hier den Bestandsschutz alter Machstrukturen und deren Schutz vor aufkeimender Konkurrenz. Denn solange es nicht nur ein Google allein gibt, sondern noch einige Co’s gibt, ist die Vielfalt gewährleistet. Erst beklagt er die Konzentration, jetzt will er sie festigen.
2. Nach wie vor: Breitband aufs flache Land, gleiches Netz für alle!
Schöne Forderung, hört sich gut an, kann nicht falsch sein, aber nur nicht konkret werden. Wie soll die Finanzierung erfolgen? Soll diese Forderung durch ein staatliches Netz oder durch subventionen erreicht werden?
3. Ein Reformmodell – zum Beispiel als Stiftung – für eine unabhängige deutsche Nachrichtenagentur für den Fall, dass sich das Geschäftsmodell von dpa trotz notwendiger innerer Reformen auf Dauer nicht trägt und sich weitere Gesellschafter abwenden.
Hier plädiert er für den Erhalt der dpa ohne zu erklären warum er die dpa für unverzichtbar hält. Hier redet er anscheinend einigen Leuten nach dem Munde.
4. Erleichterungen im Pressefusionsrecht für die Zeitungen sowie die Einführung eines Leistungsschutzrechts für Verlage im Urheberrrecht, therefore expensive-generated content can not be used in any commercial free.
top he lamented a growing concentration in the media, then, new Vermachtungsstrukturen attributes are kept small, and here he calls relief for mergers in the press. It seems to old business models are protected from new. But this reminds us of the Forer the music industry.
5th A legal framework for Internet services, which ensures that is already emerging and darken the already realized the potential for abuse in positive ways.
enemy Internet! Here she shines through again, the idea vom rechtsfreien Raum Internet, der dringend der rechtlichen Bändigung benötigt. Es ist bemerkenswert, woher überhaupt diese Vorstellung kommt, denn die Gesetze die offline gelten, gelten auch online und das schon immer. Das beste Beispiel dafür ist die unsägliche Abmahnerei deutscher Webseiten durch geschäftstüchtige Anwälte.
Bedeutsam ist hier aber die eigentliche Aussage von Steinmeier, denn offensichtlich spricht er sich hier für mehr Zensur aus, d.h. eine Ausweitung der beschlossenen Internetsperren auf andere Bereiche als nur Kinderpornografie.
6. Anreize für private TV-Veranstalter, ihrer öffentlichen Aufgabe mehr als bisher nachzukommen.
In welcher Form sollen diese Incentives are given? Actually, from public view only two possibilities exist, either statutory requirements or subsidies.
7th A fee model, which pushes to the financing of public service broadcasting on a downward path.
Apart from the fact that he wants to keep the public broadcasting a null statement, for each financing model for each activity is to prevent a slippery slope. It remains what he really wants. And maintaining the GEZ fee increase, or abolition of the GEZ the introduction of any tax levy, or something else entirely.
8th The placement and annual updating a Media Atlas with all the ideas of the 5 Basic Law relevant data for Germany as a joint effort of federal and state governments.
Are there any other things, urge problems in this country than the updating of a better address table a specific industry? Apart from that, Steinmeier brought here the impression that Article 5 Basic Law calls for such an atlas media in any form.
All these measures have only one aim: the performance of the German media system, at least at the current level to get even better, expand. A diverse media system is the prerequisite for a vibrant democracy. We want to help to bear!
This objective will probably not be achieved with these vague and half-baked proposals. Ingsgesamt Steinmeier is here pretty much on the line of CDU / CSU. The enemy is the Internet, must be in the finally cracked down hard, old business models are to be protected and censorship does no harm principle.
0 comments:
Post a Comment