Covid in Austria: Clown Car Edition: Gov’t Subsidies to Legacy Media to Triple, because…
…gov't-funded agit-prop worked so well in the past couple of years of Covid. More gaslighting is assured, which also means more bespoke postings here ;-)
I’m quite loath to report on this, but here we go (this is an English version of a piece that appeared a bit earlier today over at tkp.at); I’ve been trying to stick to the original version as closely as possible, but since I’m also referring to pieces that I’ve explained here, a few minor modifications are in order.
Everybody who’s born in Austria knows: don’t (over)think anything or even bother geting upset: ‘the powers that be’ are in their own world, which is ordered and paid for—by the government, hence the wacky meanderings of Chancellor Nehammer, Vice Chancellor Kogler, and their ilk merrily continues…
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of accurate reporting. All the powers of US-dependent Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: the EU Commission and the governments, Scholz and Macron, Europe’s Greens and security services.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Pro-Russian by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of being soft on Covid, against the more advanced other parties, as well as against their otherwise opposed adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
Supervised Reporting, Guided Thoughts are Rewarded
On 5 Oct. 2022, Susanne Raab (ÖVP, the minister in charge of ‘media affairs’) and Sigrid Maurer (leader of the parliamentary Greens) announced that government funding of legacy media in Austria would be expanded. The fact that this is also about closing loopholes for abuse—in view of the extremely tiresome advertising affair for the coalition and the manipulation of opinion polls by former chancellor Sebastian Kurz (in office 2017-19, and 2020-21, on whose demise in see here) and his inner circle, which is currently being investigated by a parliamentary committee and the judiciary—is mentioned, but not reported in any meaningful detail.
Looking at the uniform—one is almost tempted to use the word ‘gleichgeschaltet’, or ‘coordination’ (Alexander van der Bellen, who used this Nazi-era term of media control in a book back in 2015, i.e., before he was elected president—and he used it to decry the quick judgement passed on none other than Mr. Putin)—reporting on Corona, the Covid injections, and the conflict in Ukraine, it does not only seem absurd at first glance to triple media funding on the part of the government. All—presumably those benefiting from it, at least—those who self-identify as ‘quality media’ (Qualitätsmedien) have reported about this, albeit in almost identical pieces that differed little from each other; see for example ORF here, Kurier here or Der Standard (here, and note, however, that the latter also shares the most details about the government’s measures).
One is almost tempted to take the government at its word in order to find out what is behind high-sounding phrases such as the criterion of ‘quality journalism’ (Qualitätsjournalismus) or details on ‘up to 10% special funding for editorial statutes, error management, quality assurance systems, plans for the advancement of women’, and the like, as has been mentioned in the above-related Standard article.
Of Picaresque Novels (Schelmenroman) and Circular ‘Logic’
However, the media pieces mentioned above do not provide much in terms of legislative details or other criteria on which these measures are based. Involuntarily, as an early modern historian, I have to think of the Picaresque Novels, or ‘Schelmenliteratur’, especially the ‘Schildbürger’, or ‘citizens of Schilda’—because it is, according to the common criterion of ‘quality journalism’, to identify the sources used.
Or one would think so.
It shall be noted, then, that, in these above-linked articles, there are no references or even links to the amendments to the media legislation (Mediengesetz) on which the changes are based that form the basis of the articles mentioned above. The worst example, again, would be Der Standard, whose piece contains four links in the running text and five more links below under the header ‘More on the topic’—but all of them lead the reader to articles published by Der Standard (at least the version marked ‘fid 5.10.2022’, which went online yesterday, Wednesday).
In this article––as well as in the other pertinent articles—one can well recognise the modus operandi of the (often self-declared) ‘quality media’, and their M.O. has been well tested in the last three years: superficial representations, which in many cases go little, if at all, beyond the elementary school level of recounting one’s summer holiday experiences. Furthermore, we note the casual omission or ‘abbreviation’ of elementary facts that would have been absolutely necessary, which in turn calls into question the credibility of the outlet as well as ‘journalistic standards’ and ‘integrity’. Last, but not least, we note the deeply deplorable opinions-masquerading-as-facts, which, however coincidentally, correspond neatly to the will of the government.
There’s so many examples, and in lieu of recounting the past year here at Die Fackel 2.0, here’s a selection of the most tremendous success moments of Austro-Covidian ‘quality journalism’ (article continues below the linked content):
(I’ll stop here, but if you’re interested, just look for the term ‘Covidistan Annals’.)
More Money for Government Agit-Prop—what could go wrong?
First, let’s take a brief a look at the actual amendments to the law, which, in contrast to the very wordy coverage in Austro-Covidian legacy media, turned out to be quite modest. Only two paragraphs (§§ 26 and 27) were changed, and the 2018 amendment (which you can find here, by the way) also includes only two minor changes to the Media Act (Mediengesetz), which in its current form is more than 40 years old (see Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981 as well as the amendments via Federal Law Gazette I No. 101/2017 and No. 164/2017).
The changes so eloquently described in the media reports are therefore only partially reflective of the corresponding legalese. Especially the part which notes that ‘up to 10% special funding for editorial statutes, error management, quality assurance systems, plans for the advancement of women’ so prominently emphasised in above-cited media reports will probably—‘Corona is the best example’, according to Susanne Raab (ÖVP) in the nightly newscast ‘Zeit im Bild 2’ (5 Oct. 2022)—once again be organised via ministerial decrees.
There is one good thing about the new amendments, which is that government advertisement must now to be made transparent without any discussion and as soon as payment exceeds 1 €.
On the other hand, the fact that the legacy media apparently receive further—tripled—government subsidies whose distribution is decided by the Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH (RTR, the government-owned entity tasked with regulatory oversight, much like the FCC in the US), is extremely negative.
Its top management consists of Michael Ogris (former employee at the Administrative Court), his deputy Dr. Susanne Lackner (previously employed at RTL and ORF, and ‘since the age of 18...dealing with women's issues’), Dr. Martina Hohensinn (works as a government official in the Federal Chancellery), Thomas Petz and Dr. Katharina Urbanek. RTR is entrusted with monitoring the legal aspects of the transparency agendas described above.
The additional funding will quite likely flow in other ways, mainly because Susanne Raab, Sigrid Maurer, and the media reports are—deliberately (?)—silent about this.
(Dr. Martina Hohensinn (Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellery), Mag. Thomas Petz and Dr. Katharina Urbanek and is entrusted with monitoring the legal transparency agendas described above. The additional funding will probably flow in other ways, because Susanne Raab, Sigrid Maurer and the media reports are deliberately silent about this.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
What is also remarkable about the Austro-Covidian media funding (the figures cited here can be found in the Standard article linked at the beginning of this article) is that the obligatory ORF fees (GIS) amount to 664m €, and ‘advertising by public bodies’ accounts for about one third of this sum: a whopping 209m € have been earmarked for public advertisements in 2022/23 alone.
Apart from that, the other subsidies look like spare change, and yet it is to be expected that the government agit-prop masquerading as ‘quality journalism’ will continue and even be expanded in view of increased media subsidies.
As long as politicians and media professionals continue to remain in their echo chambers, there is no hope for change in in sight. To the contrary, the ‘quality media’ will be careful not to even come close to actual journalism and take any offensive stance towards the government—because what the politicians give (subsidies), they may also take away again.
The consequence is that the misinformation and gaslighting of the population will continue.
What is to be done? A few Suggestions
Media subsidies and mandatory ORF fees should be abolished.
We learn almost daily that ‘more markets’ are the answer: the technological possibilities—generally the internet, specifically platforms like ‘Substack’ or the like—are available for media consumers to enter into direct exchange with the person responsible for the content.
This certainly also applies to remuneration, too, and if someone’s writing is read a lot and shared widely, this should also be financially rewarding. Editorial statutes or the like are just as unnecessary for this to function as is government money in exchange for—let’s not kid ourselves—(largely) compliant reporting.
Donation-financed models like TKP are also an option, especially since I would like to see the ‘business plan’ of the legacy media outlets once government ‘funding’ (alimentation) by would be to disappear overnight.
But—and this much is certain—the next round of budget consolidations is sure to come, and if the government continues to spend so much money on intellectually less independent ‘quality journalists’ while, at the same time, makes further cuts to pensions and social spending, we will not need to have any more debates about ‘democracy’.
We will continue to judge the government—and legacy media—by their actions.
It sounds 100% like the system we've had since the 1970s or so.
Via proxies to be able to claim independence, regime-friendly media are given subsidies, and the media/entertainment sector props up the regime and vice versa.
Schibstedt, Bonniers, and state media are pretty much the sole news sources for 90% of the swedes, while most non-europeans only watch the news from their home countries anyway.
It's so bad, you get better news about events in Sweden via Berglingske, Ekstra-Bladet, Aftenposten, Hufvudstadsbladet and YLE's swedish reporting - still PC censorship but much less so.
Funnily enough, only the "alt-media" and the old communist papers that started a century or more ago report without PC censorship, and proudly wears any political bias on their lapel so to speak.
Welcome to New Zealand World