Show description

To supply comprehensive programme services. 40 In its decision a year later, the Court also confirmed the right of the public broadcasters to expand, subject to The philosophies of broadcasting pluralism 17 legislative provisions, into new technological and programming areas. Furthermore, their duties had to be guaranteed by adequate finance. * The private system, in contrast, had only to ensure a ‘minimum’ standard of pluralism (Grundstandard) in respect of its organisation and programme offerings.

But the federal government still needed to find licensees for TV-Sat with its five direct-to-home satellite channels. TV-Sat was only attracting lukewarm interest from the two main private television stations, RTL plus and SAT 1, which were the only viable candidates. The terrestrial frequencies which were now available would increase the audiences for private television far faster than TV-Sat, since the DBS employed the complex new transmission technology, D2-MAC, for which there was as yet no demand.

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 take precedence over the rules of the federal anti-cartel law. The rules were not only to restrict multi-channel ownership but also press/ broadcast cross-ownership. Moreover, the fewer channels there were, the more pluralistically organised the individual broadcaster had to be. ’41 * The statutory control of the private sector pluralism requirements, through licensing and programme monitoring, was ideally to be the duty of a panel of experts, external to the broadcasters.