The publishing group Passau wants a few years after the Ingolstadt Danube Courier now that too Central Bavarian Newspaper take over in Regensburg. Is that too much journalistic power in one hand? Questions to the media lawyer Kai von Lewinski from the University of Passau.
SZ: Mr. von Lewinski, is there a threatening newspaper monopoly growing up in Bavaria?
Kai von Lewinski: When you talk about the diversity of the press on the regional newspaper market, you have to look at the situation on site. In Germany, especially in rural areas, there is only one local newspaper in many places. That is why, for me, the question of monopoly in terms of journalistic diversity does not arise so much in this case. There will still be a regional newspaper in Regensburg. With regard to the advertising market, one can very well have monopoly concerns because advertising options in the print area for a large region are now only available from one provider.
After purchasing the Danube couriers But journalistic diversity was also lost there. For example, the newspaper had to do without its own state parliament correspondent in Munich and fall back on the reports of its colleague from the Passauer Neue Presse (PNP).
When editorial offices are merged, the variety of observers is lost, that’s true. What is not lost so much is the variety of voices in each location. Very few people become PNP and Danube Courier have subscribed in parallel. If there has always only been one newspaper locally, the choice does not decrease with a takeover. If you widen your view of Bavaria, Germany and the world, the diversity is preserved through the national and international media.
So is the merger harmless?
From a media law perspective, the amalgamation of media companies with not significantly overlapping areas of distribution is relatively unproblematic. However, if two newspapers with an overlapping publication area were to merge, an alarm would be required. I would of course agree that more journalistic voices and observers, for example in the reporting from the state parliament, are desirable. However, it is in the nature of such mergers that synergy effects are used and structures are standardized. You don’t have to cheer for that.
Because the circulation and advertising sales of daily newspapers have been falling for a long time, the monopoly in Germany continues to advance. Is this development inevitable?
On the one hand, yes. There is strong pressure to consolidate on the print market due to high fixed costs, for example in printing and distribution. Newspaper publishers will continue to unite because of economic hardship. This development will continue in the press market. But if you look at the entire media market, including the Internet and young start-ups, a new plurality with great diversity emerges. You don’t have to worry about the diversity of voices in Germany. Even if the new players have different standards than newspapers, which are something like the dinosaurs in the media market.
Media diversity and diversity of opinion are pillars of democracy. If they are lost, it has social consequences. Isn’t it the job of politics to prevent the increasing concentration of the press?
The Federal Constitutional Court has emphasized many times that the press has a democratic meaning. But media law has an increasingly convergent view, i.e. does not consider radio, internet and press separately from one another, but how they work together. In addition, the state cannot legally decree that lively and free media are there. In Germany, the media enjoy freedom from the state and freedom from political intervention. The state can only create framework conditions and must not favor or disadvantage individual actors.
Will the big publishers still get bigger and smaller companies disappear?
The concentration will continue to increase. If at some point there were only three or four media groups in Germany, the diversity would be too small to be able to speak of a lively and plural media landscape. So there are limits to growth for media groups. You are well advised – whether locally, regionally or nationwide – not to want to swallow all of your competitors.
Has the Passau publishing group now reached this limit?
No, because it could be a Bavarian or, in the future, maybe even a nationwide media company. As long as there is enough journalistic competition at the respective level, this is not a problem.
Then where would the limit be?
The limit does not apply to the individual company, but to the respective market. And there are still enough competitor papers both in Bavaria and nationwide.
The Cartel Office must take over the Central Bavarian Newspaper still agree, but looks primarily at the economic, not the journalistic facts.
You are addressing a long-known blind spot in media antitrust law. Antitrust law primarily looks at certain economic indicators. If certain thresholds are reached in a merger, the authority must intervene and, depending on the case, impose conditions or even prohibit the merger. What the Cartel Office does not evaluate in the press area are journalistic thresholds. The Cartel Office is not responsible for journalistic concentration.
Isn’t that a serious deficit?
There are two positions on this in the media law discourse. Some say: Broadcasting has long had a right to concentrate, and that should be applied to all media areas. The others say: In press law we managed without journalistic antitrust law for 150 years, let’s get rid of that in the internet and radio too.
What do you mean?
As a scientist, I can appreciate both positions without having to confess. In other words: I’m a draw.
How realistic is it that the Cartel Office will purchase the Central Bavarian Newspaper still prevented?
I think the probability is very low. Because antitrust law is not about journalistic but about economic issues. In the end, the publisher may have to sell off an advertising paper here or there. I don’t see any other hurdles.