“Left of center” study criticizes ARD and ZDF

A study from Mainz criticizes the negative reporting by ARD and ZDF about parties in Germany – and offers suggestions for improvement.

Munich – “Lying press”, “mainstream media”, “left-wing smug” – harsh accusations that journalism, especially public broadcasting, has been exposed to for several years. Survey results seem to support this. According to an Insa study from last year, only 34 percent of Germans consider the reporting by ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio to be “ideologically balanced,” while only 62 percent trust the public broadcasters “somewhat” or “very” – the lowest value since these figures were recorded.

A study by the University of Mainz has now come to the conclusion that news formats such as “Tagesschau” (ARD) or “heute” actually position themselves “on the side of society that, to put it simply, can be described as politically left of center”. However, the authors were unable to find any significant difference in this basic attitude compared to other media such as news from private broadcasters as well as newspapers and magazines.

Which parties and politicians have their say on ARD and ZDF

For their study of the “diversity of perspectives in public news formats”, Marcus Maurer, Simon Kruschinski and Pablo Jost compared, in addition to the already mentioned ARD and ZDF flagships, regional news from BR, MDR, RBB and WDR as well as the news from Deutschlandfunk during prime time on the one with programs such as “RTL aktuell” and “Newstime” (Sat.1) as well as selected print products such as “FAZ”, “SZ”, “Bild”, “Spiegel”, “Focus” and “Zeit” on the other.

Also in the pool are high-reach regional newspapers, including “Münchner Merkur”, and a few “extreme media” such as “Neues Deutschland” and “Junge Freiheit”. The focus was on an analysis of the diversity of topics and actors – which politician from which party speaks out and how often – as well as the question of which ones Media reports tend to be social state or market-oriented and which have a predominantly “liberal-progressive” or a predominantly “conservative-authoritarian” attitude.

Public service formats have a wide variety of topics and actors

The authors generally confirm that the nine public service formats examined have a high diversity of topics and actors, but criticized the “very clear visibility advantage of the government parties over the opposition parties”. However, in this respect they did not differ from the reporting of the 34 or 38 comparison media. This is also “not surprising” because “the situation more or less automatically leads to certain topics and actors coming into greater focus than others.” Under a federal government led by the Union, politicians from the CDU and CSU would “undoubtedly appear significantly more often” in news reports, the communication scientists admit.

However, according to Maurer, Kruschinski and Jost, the newsmakers at ARD and ZDF reported less critically about the current government parties than the comparison media; in the three-month study period, “there was sufficient space for conservative and market-liberal positions in most formats”. Part of the audience represents such positions and wants to see them reflected in the public television news. This is also about trust in broadcasting financed by contributions. Nevertheless, there is also a clear preference for the welfare state orientation in the reporting of privately organized publications. The result is similar when it comes to the contrast between “liberal-progressive” and “conservative-authoritarian”. The former attitude was even slightly less dominant in the public broadcasting formats than in the comparison media.

ARD and ZDF report the most about the SPD

According to the study, there are hardly any differences between the public service formats and the comparison media when it comes to reporting on parties and their staff. The SPD was reported most frequently, followed by the Greens, CDU/CSU and FDP, far behind by the AfD and the Left. It is noticeable that “all parties in both media groups were assessed predominantly negatively,” say the authors.

However, if one compares government and opposition work together, it becomes apparent that the three traffic light parties were portrayed significantly more positively on ARD and ZDF than the three opposition parties. In the comparison media the difference is “only marginal”. The authors gave the “Münchner Merkur” a particularly good report. It presents “both political camps equally in a slightly negative manner” and reports “the most balanced overall” – together with the “Augsburger Allgemeine”.

Criticism of public broadcasters: “Only political problems”

Maurer, Kruschinski and Jost are critical of the focus of all the media examined on the negative portrayal of all parties, “which is certainly not suitable for strengthening the population's trust in politics”. Here, the scientists warn, “more constructive reporting could make sense.”

Ultimately, it's a matter of course: “People should not only be informed about political problems, but also about successes, because these are also relevant for for
ming their political opinions.” Even if this not the only reason for the success of extreme parties is, “it is obvious that success is easier for them in a (media, ed.) environment in which all established parties are characterized as unsuccessful and incompetent”.