'Freedom of the press outdated issue in Germany'

The following is an interview with Dr. Bernd Holznagel, an expert on German and European media law from Hamburg University. This article and another one on this page are the third and last of the reports in the series based on a visit to Germany last month.

Question: How do you see press freedom in Germany?

Answer: Freedom of the press is kind of an outdated question. Press laws are completely out of interest. If you ask me about the future, the question will be how is one to distinguish between the press and broadcasting as well as other multimedia.

Q: How is press freedom reflected in legal language?

A: Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution and the press differentiate "subjective right", which is the right to stop government's infringement, and "objective right" in which the constitution obliges the state to make specific statutes to protect a democratic media system.

Q: What about media concentration in the hands of a few people, is it an issue here?

A: At the moment we don't have a debate on media concentration, not in the press. The press area is completely out of scientific interest. You hardly find articles on the press law.

Q: Is there a law on media ownership concentration?

A: There is anti concentration law for broadcasting. In the press this has never happened but also there is anti- concentration law which is specific, for example, they have an anti-trust law. There is a specific tradition in the press: specific law against monopoly.

And there are three instruments to regulate the press. One is the anti-trust law. Second is an instrument to give journalists to have veto power in electing chief editor. This has been debated for years. And third, an instrument for providing money to specific media undertakings or subsidies, for example, to for the local paper to make them stronger.

Q: What about government infringement on the press?

A: The problem of infringement throughout the state is in fact not a big issue in Germany, because after the war the tradition has been established. The media is free and I can't think of one case where a politician tried to influence the press. They would never try to do it. In fact we have a situation that is the way around and some people think it's not very good: Media reported news too fast and there are questions of who control our country, the media or politicians who are elected (by the people). There is a kind of mood that media freedom is going too far.

Q: What is an issue here?

A: An anti-concentration debate does come and go in a year or so. If you are living in a western society, the state infringement is still a problem, but you have more problems with private media companies taking over other companies. If you look at the German government, it is in a joke. Hamburg state is actually almost bankrupt. It is trying to cut-off debt. Sort of controlling budget, that means cutting the budget. This creates a lot of enemies, everybody has to reduce their budgets by 20 percent but nothing happen to political freedom.

Having the state becoming weaker and weaker in the west, you have private companies becoming really powerful. For example, this international media conglomerates, telecommunications business, German-France telecom business to conquer world market in telecom.

Q: What is the future impact of multimedia?

A: The public opinion in the future will be formed more and more through wires, if you like, or satellites, and they are not controlled by the government but by private undertakings. That is becoming the problem of the future, how to control the power of the private. The problem of controlling the power of the state is sort of settled in Europe and America.

Q: Can the present press law cope with this development?

A: What we have built up through tradition so far is not valid for the future. It is important for us to have an intelligent press law. To have an independent media one must build up an independent administrative body, like they do all over Europe (hbk).