I know we want to avoid ending up with super-polarized media like the US, but I don't believe this is the way. I don't know what the way is, since you also don't want to give airtime to the crazies, and I feel the market for sane conservative news shrinks by the minute.
I made a fortune in the adult industry in the 00s, one of my business partners now is extremely gay and I love him from the bottom of my heart, the other one is black as the night and more against uncontrolled immigration than any of my extreme conservative friends.
You are already called a right wing extremist if you believe that there are only 2 genders, that too many 'refugees' will destroy societies and value systems and that climate change has existed for millions of years.
I just want a neutral, unbiased source of news. No gender language, no judging wrong or right, no support of climate terrorist organisations, no praise of leftist ideologies, no climate change scaremongering.
But it will not change. At least not in Germany. The famous Kurt Beck incidents etc. It's over.
The Rundfunkrat appoints the Intendant who in turn has autonomy when it comes to programming.
I'm not saying that there's nothing to criticize about the structure but it was especially created in this way to provide checks and balances and not giving politicians direct control over the news. When some tried that in the past it made the news [2].
I think a right wing government would have an easier time defunding and replacing it with its own propaganda channels instead of using it for propaganda.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rundfunkrat [2] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/zdf-anruf-wird-zu...
Links are in German.
Also just quoting from the wikipedia article:
"Dies sind z. B. Gewerkschaften, Frauenverbände, Kirchen und Fraktionen."
"Vertreter von LGBT-Verbänden sind im Fernsehrat des..."
It might not fit into your left agenda but this is so far from reality.
Quoting the Wikipedia article you linked:
"Er kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass weder die Räte ihrem Anspruch, die Vielfalt der Gesellschaft zu repräsentieren, gerecht werden noch dass benachteiligte Gruppen ausreichend anzutreffen sind."
And you reply to that by saying the inclusion of women, churches, unions and LGBT-organisations is a left thing and insinuating I have a political agenda. And the last quote actually says it does not live up to being a cross-section of society because underprivileged groups are not adequately represented. Going by your logic that would mean they're not left after all, right?
But seriously, you're spreading some pretty radical opinions all over this thread, calling people names and calling for the jailing of entire groups of people. I'm not going to further interact with you. Have a good night :-)