And this, I think, is highly problematic as it distorts the way Germans see their country dramatically. Many Germans, I believe, think they fulfill their 'democratic duty' by watching the 'Tagesschau' (the news at 8 pm)
As far as politics is concerned, this shows offers almost zero journalistic value. It's only politicians selling their agenda to the audience (the same goes for prime time talk shows). The only good thing about it is that all parties get enough time to bring their point across and non-political groups are also allowed to have their say. The problem, however, is that it is not in the interest of any party/NGO to actually inform the viewers. They all only include facts when it suits their agenda. What the audience is left with is an incomplete picture of the situation. And based on this (and not well well-researched lists of the pros and cons to the solutions proposed) they cast their vote. Of course, the public broadcasters do also provide these missing information. But you have to listen to Deutschlandfunk radio, search out special documentaries on Arte which are broadcasted at irregular times or watch political discussions at Phoenix at times when you want to go to bed.
The Tagesthemen (which is the late edition of the Tagesschau) is already much better. Some time ago they had a very good comment on mass surveilance that was totally on point. And the average, not Tagesthemen-watching person? They still think "meh .. I've got nothing to hide".
I think if you re-incarnated and showed the editor of the Telegraph from 1950 the web-site, just the difference between the background colour of "sponsored" stories versus actual stories, he'd blow his brains out. Never mind the actual content.
Do German papers do this, mix paid and actual content and attempt to show the paid as similar to real? Although this is nowhere near as bad as The Telegraph following the instructions of disgruntled banker advertisers:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-...
The Guardian[0] has done some great reporting in recent years[1]:
Notable scoops include the 2011 News International phone hacking scandal, in particular the hacking of murdered English teenager Milly Dowler's phone. The investigation led to the closure of the UK's biggest selling Sunday newspaper, and one of the highest circulation newspapers in the world, the News of the World. The newspaper also released news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held by US President Barack Obama's administration in June 2013, and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In 2016, it led the investigation into the Panama Papers, exposing the then British Prime Minister David Cameron's links to offshore bank accounts.
I have a hypothesis that if the breadcrumb says "home › opinion" with no third level then you're in CIF, but I have no real evidence that that is actually reliable.
The "Stern", one of the big German magazines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_(magazine), took a big nosedive in quality in my opinion.
3 or 4 years ago (i am not sure when this exactly happend) they did a "redesign" - and since then many hard topics and inconvienient stories where left behind for soft topics and lifestyle articles.
I really enjoyed reading it but right now I won't bother most of the time.
They even changed their, in my opinion hilarious, but sarcastic album reviews to album reviews which sound like a rehash of the PR text from the record company.
The most important thing is the picture of the lead journalists at the end of the story and how they "connect to this story". And the guy who writes 3 pages about his cooking. And the boring "I am so edgy and showing two sides of my personality" PR interview with a celebrity. Yesterday I've read one of these interviews with the question "do you enjoy wearing suits?"
To be fair, sometimes they still have well made articles, but many times it is just boring feel-good-journalism.
I think the situation in the UK is similar to the US for print journalism (whatever that means these days), with a few large blocks:
* A few top-notch publications
* Far right propaganda, substantially from Murdoch / News Corp.
* A bunch of middling, substantially ineffectual stuff
(I know these are broad generalizations, with many exceptions.)
FT is really weak. Go check out the FT comments some time - none of their readers understand how markets work nor how prices are set. You know why? Because they read the FT and the FT never talks about any of this. All they have is what appears to be in depth but is simply parroting numbers.
Guardian I have more time for but they are frustrating. They tell the truth right up to the point where it comes to talking about the banks and how land is used to extract labour, then they melt away. Which in the UK is everything.
UK journalism has fallen so far. Telegraph for example you could label propaganda - it's right wing. But it's so trashy now. And this is mirrored across all publications.
I have the feeling journalists in Germany still think there is something like completely objective reporting. A kind of gold standard you achieve by adhering to a certain method, with everyone coming to the one and only correct conclusion. Anyone who does not must be inept or not a real journalist in the first place.
Just like every economist in the history of economics
That's a really common prejudice, and not born out by the actual paper, in my view. As just one example, in the US presidential elections, The Economist has endorsed G W Bush, but then Kerry, Obama, Obama, and Clinton.
It's still the best newspaper around, in my view, for concise, opinionated updates on a wide range of global issues.
FT is better than WSJ, but that's not saying much.
Guardian has some good reporting, and is worth supporting, though I disagree with some of their editorialising.
Instead what happened was that Germany took in a several hundred thousand refugees and migrants, which was a logistical challenge that was met.
The cultural and integration challenge was initially under discussed but hardly relevant to the immediate humanitarian issue.
Crucially though, that under discussion was quickly self corrected. The big center left media organisations have clearly talked about these issues. And not years after the fact but pretty quickly.
The idea that somehow collectively the left, the German media or some other institutions have turned a blind eye towards the challenges implied is a complete myth.
For example, in the biggest left weekly newspaper, Die Zeit, pretty much immediately after the cologne harassment events in January 2016, the headline article on sexist Arab culture.
http://www.zeit.de/2016/03/sexismus-fluechtlinge-islamismus-...
Since you mention the left Die Zeit: it's chief editor criticized the media for its news coverage during that time: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/bilanz-der-beri.... There have also been studies about the role of the media in 2015: http://www.zeit.de/2017/30/fluechtlinge-medien-berichterstat.... Photographers complained about the selection of their pictures in 2015: http://derstandard.at/2000066973507/Politikerfotos-Propagand....
It's fine to disagree with me, but calling my critique a "complete myth" is quite unfair.
That shows a fundamentally healthy media landscape to me. After all you are able to cite two absolute mainstream papers, one conservative, one centre left to argue for your critique.
And while that critique is valid, I still wonder what exactly you are talking about. It's not like something utterly terrible happened in 2015.
The FAZ article explicitly also mentioned that there was a real worry about right wing violence and extremism in the wake of the refugees arrival. That's not media propaganda. Refugees have been overwhelmingly the victims, not the perpetrators of violence.
If you remember, that is what Dunkeldeutschland in Gaucks speech explicitly referred to: Violence against refugees. If you look at 2015, and the media reaction, without the context of Solingen and NSU, you are missing the context of the debate.
This could have been way worse. And my guess is that if Germany had a strong Fox News or Daily Mail it probably would have been.
:)