39 - Why do I have to pay for ORF?

subtitle39

Public infrastructure is not free. Everyone who lives in Austria pays, for example, for the water supply and healthcare system, for schools and universities, for roads and railroads, for museums, theaters and opera - and for Austrian broadcasting. Why?

Media economist Prof. DDr. Matthias Karmasin from the University of Klagenfurt explains.

The trivial and therefore quick answer to this question is: because the legislator decided on a household levy following a ruling by the Constitutional Court, which calls for long-term and independent financing of the ORF that does not exclude any potential users of the program.

For a more comprehensive justification, three approaches can be summarized from a communication science perspective:

One based on public sphere theory or democratic theory, which focuses on the connection between democracy and the public sphere and sees the deliberative character of the public sphere based on facts and evidence as central, especially as this cannot be achieved in structurally failing markets such as the media market through competition alone. It focuses on the essential (albeit not exclusive) share of the ORF in this public sphere.

Under the premises of "news avoidance", well-oiled "owned media" and PR machines, "dark PR" and a fragmented public sphere, the opportunities for participation and involvement in a jointly shared democratic public sphere on the basis of a common knowledge space are more important than ever. Among others, probably the most prominent chronicler of the structural change in the public sphere, Jürgen Habermas (2021, p. 500), who summarizes: "In a 'world' of fake news that is difficult to imagine, which could no longer be identified as such, i.e. could no longer be distinguished from true information, no child would be able to grow up without developing clinical symptoms. It is therefore not a political decision, but a constitutional requirement to maintain a media structure that enables the inclusive character of the public sphere and a deliberative character of public opinion-forming and decision-making." A media-economic approach that compensates for market failures, for example in the provision of offerings that cannot be refinanced through advertising and distribution revenues - e.g. for target groups that are not interested in the media.For example, for target groups that are of no interest to the advertising industry or have a specific regional or linguistic character, for example in the area of films or sporting events - and sees the financing of the ORF by the general public as being based on the production of public goods by the ORF. Dual broadcasting systems (or tri-partite broadcasting systems, if community and non-commercial media are also taken into account) to ensure diversity of media and opinion are also desirable from a European law perspective as an exemption from the competition rule and an exception to the ban on state aid. Public funding is also expressly considered permissible in the area of electronic and digital media in the sense of a broadly diversified offering. Particularly in small markets with high concentration, cross-ownerships, limited refinancing options and high revenue outflows towards the intermediaries, but at the same time the existence of a highly differentiated same-language and culturally similar market, this is a mandate for media policy to shape the three-way market towards the highest possible quality and diversity of the public sphere. This also includes - albeit not exclusively - public service broadcasting.

Ultimately, a media ethics approach that sees independence from economic and political influences and a commitment to the highest standards of professional ethics as the most important argument for financing by all. The focus is not only on journalism (even if this is particularly relevant), but also on entertainment, sport, culture and management - especially with regard to editorial autonomy, but also refinancing (e.g. advertising, product placement and the separation of editorial and advertising).

As the broadcaster of society, ORF also fulfills a public task in Austria - it serves liberal democracy and is an essential part of the democratic infrastructure. For this reason alone, it should be subject to the highest and exemplary professional ethical standards in all areas.

Why hasn't this been solved with a paywall? On the one hand, this would contradict the idea of general and universal access ("broadcasting for society"), because then content can only be consumed by those who can afford it. On the other hand, there are doubts as to whether this would also meet the requirements of the Supreme Court - particularly with regard to economic independence - even if some kind of subsidy were introduced for those who cannot afford it. On the other hand, if one assumes that those people who already paid the fee before the legal change would continue to pay around 50 cents a day for it in view of the abundance of programs, then the economic risk for the ORF seems manageable - so it is more a matter of principle.

Why is the ORF not financed from the budget if it is a universal levy for everyone? A look at those countries where this is the case shows that this does not exactly increase independence from the government in office or the quality and diversity of the offerings. To say the least. It is precisely this independence that is clearly demanded in another ruling (dated October 5, 2023) by the Constitutional Court - in this case with regard to the composition of the Foundation Council and the Public Council. As even the appearance of bias should be avoided, this reform (but not only this reform) is urgently needed. However, it remains to be seen whether media policy in Austria will succeed in protecting the media from politics in the long term.

https://orf.beitrag.at/

#corporatevalue