Markus Söder, the Bavarian Prime Minister, would like less entertainment from the public broadcasters, he has one thing in common interview put on record. That’s bold for someone who, as homeland minister, managed to Guest appearance in the BR soap “Dahoam is dahoam” to hijack a public service entertainment format. On the other hand, the Söder appearance from back then is now a brilliant example of public entertainment that went pretty wrong. The question that Söder raises himself: Does Söder want to abolish the entertainment Söder from back then, so to speak?
Of course, the Bavarian head of government does not comment on his own behalf or coincidentally on the subject. The federal states have been discussing a new version of the public service program mandate for quite some time; One of the contentious issues in the draft law is whether ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio should provide a different form of entertainment than before. Because you can’t simply commit to “better entertainment” (or “entertainment without Söder”) in the state treaty, you are now looking for a wording that can be reached by consensus. Something in the sense of “entertainment with a public profile” is being discussed. But because nobody can say exactly what that is, it could well be that – if such a definition comes into law – German courts will ultimately have to decide whether a program is entertaining in the right way.
Presumably, Söder would really rather elect the Pope than relinquish Bavaria’s veto
That might be cheerful, but certainly not helpful. Years ago, a similarly vague wording was invented in a law that forbids broadcasters from “press-like” appearances on the Internet. Since then, this has led to many lawsuits, such as with the Publishers via the Tagesschau appwhich always deal with what “press-like” actually means.
The radio politician Söder also said that it was easier to elect the pope than to change a state treaty. Not only is that a nice, entertainment-like punch line, it’s true. However, the countries that govern broadcasting and decide its mandate could actually change the process that leads to these laws. Instead of the unanimity that is currently required for this and that makes everything very tedious, one could agree on a majority decision. However, everyone would have to unanimously agree on this change in methodology one last time. In concrete terms: every country would give up its right to block broadcasting laws. Presumably Söder would then rather elect the Pope than surrender Bavaria’s veto.
Public Service Entertainment: That means lots and lots of thrillers. Sometimes smiley thrillers
Regardless of these legal subtleties, the question of entertainment on ARD and ZDF is of course interesting. If only because it is one of those things that everyone sitting in front of a screen has an opinion on. The fact that the commercial private broadcasters should provide entertainment has been their founding manifesto since 1984, so to speak. But what does that mean for the public broadcasters? Does it mean that they should have a different conversation than the private ones since then?
Hello, is there maybe more? Barbara Schöneberger on “Do you understand fun?”.
(Photo: Adam Berry/Getty Images)
In any case, it’s not that easy to calculate it apart: private broadcaster shows minus cost responsibility for the contributors minus jungle maggots plus a somehow public factor Ö, which means more than the moderation by Johannes B. Kerner? In reality, the entertainment in the fee-financed broadcasters currently consists mainly of series and – it’s strange – thrillers, sometimes even: smiley thrillers.
It gets tricky when the private broadcasters start broadcasting with the oil factor: infotainment with Zervakis & OpdenhoevelJoko and Klaas, the dem Pro-Sieben audience the care crisis bring to mind talent shows like voice of Germanywho send their candidates into the competition with empathy. The boundaries are fluid in production anyway. Good public entertainment doesn’t happen because someone on WDR is funny. But when producers, who are often also able to entertain privately, have a sense of what the Ö factor could mean. And how to make it successful.
Entertainment under public law is a powerful requirement, for which names such as Hans-Joachim Kulenkampff, Harald Juhnke, Robert Lembke or Anneliese Rothenberger used to stand. What stands for it today can be discussed – but certainly not determined in advance by politicians or broadcasting bodies. A common denominator of harmlessness and something with knowledge and culture is not a solution either.
Hijacked entertainment: The then Bavarian Home Minister Markus Söder (CSU) in the BR soap “Dahoam is Dahoam”.
(Photo: Marco Orlando Pichler/BR)
Böhmermanns Magazine Royalethe early broadcasts by Joko and Klaas on ZDF, Welkes Today’s show – where the new public service entertainment actually exists, it often happened that it was first placed and discussed with the committees by the broadcaster if there was resistance. The former ZDF director Thomas Bellut was able to thank Jan Böhmermann occasionally feel like the great Axel Caesar Springer, terrified of the picture should have occasionally fallen out of bed, at least in the memory of his widow.
It’s not enough every few months Bet that ..? to revive with Thomas Gottschalk. Entertainment is a tough business, there’s quality in hiding, there’s Olli Dittrich, there’s Arte. In many respects, entertainment on the big stage lives simply from money – from licenses for internationally successful shows, which the streaming platforms are now after – from talents who are better paid in the private sector and are therefore often from the public service go away. And entertainment thrives on types and brands.
ARD and ZDF have too few of them and even fewer that they trust big shows – and among the few too many of the same kind. The fact that Eckart von Hirschhausen, who is Peter Wohlleben for people, is now moderating everything on ARD is a symptom. It’s true, people like Barbara Schöneberger, Giovanni Zarrella or Sabine Heinrich are slowly entering the show stage. Hello, is there maybe more?
Entertainment factor thriller: “Murder with a view” on ARD with Katharina Wackernagel (middle), Sebastian Schwarz and Eva Bühnen.
(Photo: Ben Knabe/dpa)
It might be interesting to revisit Bet that ..?, looks at the last empirical finding verifiable by top quotas. Terms like nostalgia are too short-sighted as an explanation for the success. Rather, the ZDF show is also an integrative format – due to the broadcasting time, the mix of guests, and the odd bets. A room in which different people feel comfortable, even if not everything there corresponds to their own preferences and moderated by someone who is known to be a bit embarrassing.
Would that be a definition of what you’re looking for: non-simple entertainment?
In general, the ability to tolerate embarrassment is probably a grossly underestimated virtue in conversation, or in the way we talk publicly in general. In social networks you can see how brutally weaknesses are dealt with, which doesn’t make it any easier to try something out in conversation. Quite apart from the fact that the creative experiment is not necessarily a core competence of public law. But, crazy idea – wouldn’t that be the very definition of public service entertainment: non-simple entertainment?
And then – then it just has to be funny.
In the best entertainment show of the moment, comedians try to make other comedians laugh with really mean, funny performances, but they aren’t allowed to make a face, whoever laughs is kicked out. Everyone makes a fool of themselves, whoever is allowed to laugh laughs tears. The show is called LOL – Last One Laughing, it runs on Amazon Prime, and it shows how simple the question of entertainment is. If ARD or ZDF had such a big hit in their program, one thing would certainly not interest anyone: what exactly is public law about it right now.