In our work on media standards schemes, we’re looking at how industry-based regulation interacts with legislation in several other countries. The most perplexing of these jurisdictions is Germany, so a recent trip for the IIC annual conference in Cologne gave me the opportunity to learn something about the country’s network of intersecting regulators and regulations.
Any discussion of German media regulation needs to start with the acknowledgement that it’s state-based, not the kind of federal arrangement we have in Australia. So there are 14 state media authorities, rather than one national version of ACMA. That said, there are some national umbrella organisations for specific purposes and there are interstate treaties, the most significant of which is the Interstate Media Treaty (Medienstaatsvertrag, or ‘MStV’).
It’s the MStV that produces one of the most interesting aspects of regulation in Germany: the recognition of non-traditional sources of journalism under the category of ‘telemedia’.
Telemedia covers newsletters, podcasts, YouTube channels and other sources of content that regularly contain news or political information. They must be ‘commercial’ but this doesn’t mean they must be profit-driven; it just means that the content is intended for other than private use. The main requirement, though, is that it must be ‘journalistically and editorially designed’. This involves a journalistic mode of working that is independent of its subjects. It must be targeted at a large audience, related to current debates or topics, and aimed at contributing to the formation of public opinion.
There are consequences of qualifying as telemedia. Most significantly, these independent telemedia sources are treated like the online versions of traditional news media and, since November 2020, have been subject to a requirement to observe ‘journalistic due diligence’. This is where industry-based regulation intersects with statutory regulation. The German Press Code (‘Pressekodex’), promulgated by the German Press Council (‘Deutscher Presserat’), is the key standards instrument in this whole scheme: compliance with the Press Code is taken as fulfilling the requirement for journalistic due diligence under the MStV. Accordingly, telemedia providers have been joining the Press Council.
We’re not suggesting there is a case for translating these arrangements to the Australian environment but our research looks at how the Australian arrangements could be adapted for the contemporary media scene, and the curious category of ‘telemedia’ does give a very interesting example of a more expansive approach to defining journalism and news media – whether that’s for the purpose of imposing obligations for news standards, or providing benefits in recognition of the broader, democratic functions of journalism.
We’re planning on publishing our preliminary set of tables on overseas standards schemes – including the arrangements in Germany – on our website before the end of 2023.
Derek Wilding, CMT Co-Director