Appendix: Short Biographies of Interviewees

Tony Benn, Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn, formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate, was Postmaster-General under Harold Wilson (1964–6) and served as Minister of Technology (1966–70). Benn was Secretary of State for Industry (1974–5) and Secretary of State for Energy (1975–9), stay- ing at the heart of British politics for nearly four decades. Benn, now a leading figure of the British anti-war movement, is the longest-serving MP in the history of the Labour Party. Claus Detjen has been the long-serving secretary of the BDZV and director of its new media division. During the Ludwigshafen cable pilot project Detjen served as AKK director. Detjen held various newspaper posts and has been an editor at Deutsche Welle (1967–76). He is currently publisher and managing director of Haller Tageblatt. Jürgen Doetz was director of the PKS, which then became Sat.1 (1985–2004). Previously, Doetz served under Bernhard Vogel as secretary of state for the Rhineland-Palatinate Land government (1976–88). Doetz has been VPRT director (1990–6) and President (1996 to present). He is a leading stakeholder for the commercial broadcasting sector and Vice President of 1. FSV Mainz 05. Greg Dyke was Director-General of the BBC (2000–4). His previous roles include Chief Executive of Pearson Television and LWT, editor-in- chief of TV-am and director of programmes at Television South. In 1995 a consortium led by Greg Dyke was awarded the licence for Channel 5, Britain’s last terrestrial commercial television licence. Dyke, a former non- executive director of Manchester United, is Chairman of Brentford FC and Chancellor of the University of York. In 2008 he became Chair of the British Film Institute.

258 Appendix: Short Biographies of Interviewees 259

Douglas Hurd, the Rt. Hon. Lord Hurd of Westwell, served as Home Secretary in the Thatcher government (1985–9). Other political posts included Foreign Secretary (1989–95) and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1984–5). In 1990 Hurd entered the contest for Tory leadership and lost to John Major, who was appointed Prime Minister the next day. Hurd, President of the German–British Forum, also held miscella- neous commercial posts, including a directorship of the NatWest Group (1995–9). Sir Jeremy Isaacs was the founding Chief Executive of Channel 4 (1981–7). Other posts included Chairman of Artsworld, which then became Sky Arts (2000–4), President of the Royal Television Society (1997–2000) and General Director of the Royal Opera House (1987–96). In his early career, Sir Jeremy was a television producer and director of programmes for Thames Television (1974–8). Sir Gerald Kaufmann has been Chairman of the National Heritage Select Committee (1992–7) which then became the Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee (1997–2005). While in opposition, posts included Shadow Foreign Secretary (1987–92), Shadow Home Secretary (1983–7) and Shadow Environmental Secretary (1980–3). Sir Gerald has also served as Minister of State in the Department of Industry (1975–9). Barrie MacDonald has been librarian of the IBA, later ITC, from 1979 to 2001. For some of that time he was also responsible for the reorganization of the IBA/ITC archives. MacDonald is an author, researcher, indexer and a specialist on information sources and broadcasting history. Prof Sir Alan Peacock chaired the Committee on Financing the BBC (1985–6). Sir Alan has been joint founder and Executive Director of the David Hume Institute (1985–91), Chief Economic Adviser of the DTI (1973–6), economic adviser to several other governments and miscella- neous international organizations, a member of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1969–73) and various other UK government and international commissions. Sir Alan served as Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham (1980–4). Other university posts were held at the universities of Edinburgh (1956–62), York (1962–78), Buckingham (1978–84) and the LSE (1948–56). During World War Two, Peacock served as a sailor and finished up as a Lieutenant at Kiel during the post-war occupation.

Prof Jobst Plog has served as NDR Intendant (1991–2008). Previously, he had been Deputy NDR Intendant (1980–91) and NDR in-house counsel 260 Towards a Market in Broadcasting

(1977–80). Other posts included ARD Chairman (1993–4, 2003–4) and President of ARTE (1999–2002). Jobst Plog also had various posts in Degeto, the ARD’s film trade business. He lectures in media law at Rostock University. Prof Walter Schütz has served 35 years in various posts in the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. He was deeply involved with the Michel Commission I and Michel Commission II. Prof Schütz has been an adviser for the GDR Ministry for the Media (1990–1) and is a former editor of Publizistik (1963–93). Since 1995 Prof Schütz has been an honorary professor at the University of Music, Drama and Media, Hanover. Prof Christian Schwarz-Schilling served as Minister for Post and Telecommunications (1982–92). Previously, Schwarz-Schilling chaired the Enquête Commission New Information and Communication Techniques (1981–2) and presided over the coordination panel for CDU/CSU media policy (1975–83). Schwarz-Schilling has been a member of the ZDF television council (1971–82), Deputy Chairman CDU/CSU federation of medium-sized businesses, director Sonnenschein Corporation (1957–82) and High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (2006–7). He is president of the telecommunications, media and technology management consultancy Dr Schwarz-Schilling & Partners (1993 to present). Anthony Smith was a BBC TV current affairs producer (1960–71), director of the British Film Institute (1979–88), a founding director of Channel 4 (1980–4) and President of Magdalen College, Oxford (1988–2005). Chris Smith, the Rt. Hon. Lord Smith of Finsbury, served as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport between 1997 and 2001. Chris Smith entered the House of Lords in 2005. He was appointed Advertising Standards Authority Chairman in 2007. In 2008 he was announced Chairman of the Environment Agency. Eckart Stein has been a long-serving director of Das Kleine Fernsehspiel (1975–2000). In an advisory role Stein has been involved with the establishment of Channel 4 and served as a Channel 4 board member. George Thomson, the Rt. Hon. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has been Chairman of the IBA (1981–8) and the first British Commissioner for the European Community with responsibility for regional policy (1973–7). Other posts include Lord’s member of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit (1993–2008), Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Lords Appendix: Short Biographies of Interviewees 261 on foreign affairs and broadcasting (1989–97) and Media (2001), President of the History of Advertising Trust (1988–2002), Chairman of the Select Committee on Broadcasting (1993–7) and Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority (1977–80). Prof Bernhard Vogel was head of the Rhineland-Palatinate Land government during the cable pilot project in Ludwigshafen and thereafter (1976–88). Other posts include Chairman of the ZDF Administration Council (1979–92) and Chairman of the Broadcasting Commission of the Heads of the Länder Governments (1976–88). He is the only German politician who has served as head of two Länder governments, the other being Thuringia (1992–2003). Between 2001 and 2009 Vogel served as Chairman of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation. Karl-Günther von Hase has served as Secretary of State in the Information Office of the Federal Government (1962–7). Subsequently, von Hase became German ambassador in London (1967–77) and ZDF Intendant (1977–82). Von Hase is an Honorary President of the Deutsch– Britische Gesellschaft. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Sell, grandson of Wilhelm the Emperor, the last King of Prussia, served as WDR Intendant (1976–85). Previously, von Sell served as WDR director of administration and finance and Deputy WDR Intendant (1971–6). Von Sell has been the founding ORB Intendant. Other posts include in-house counsel, Deutschlandfunk (1962–71), and in-house counsel, SFB (1955–62). Between 1987 and 1998 von Sell has been a lecturer, since 1993 honorary professor, at the University of Siegen. Prof Eberhard Witte, professor for Business Administration, LMU Munich (1970–96), has chaired the KtK (1973–6) and the Regierungskommission Fernmeldewesen (1985–7); amongst other commissions. Prof Witte has been director of the cable pilot project in Munich (1980–7). Prof Witte has chaired the communications research association Münchner Kreis (1976–97) and works as a consultant for business administration. Notes

1 Introduction

1. The distinction between England, (Great) Britain and the UK is crucial for this study. England is the largest country of the UK and its territory occupies most of the southern two-thirds of Britain. Britain constitutes the largest island of the British Isles, comprising England, Scotland and Wales. The UK includes Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland as well as many small islands. 2. As Witteman (2010: 120–1) points out, there is disagreement over which rulings are included in the canon of major broadcasting decisions. The formula, as it applies in this book, is: First Broadcasting Judgement of 28 February 1961 (BVerfGE 12, 205), Second Broadcasting Judgement of 27 July 1971 (BVerfGE 31, 314), Third Broadcasting Judgement of 16 June 1981 (BVerfGE 57, 295), Fourth Broadcasting Judgement of 4 November 1986 (BVerfGE 73, 118), Fifth Broadcasting Judgement of 24 March 1987 (BVerfGE 74, 297), Sixth Broadcasting Judgement of 5 February 1991 (BVerfGE 83, 238), Seventh Broadcasting Judgement of 6 October 1992 (BVerfGE 87, 181), Eighth Broadcasting Judgement of 22 February 1994 (BVerfGE 90, 60), Ninth Broadcasting Judgement of 22 March 1995 (BVerfGE 92, 203), Tenth Broadcasting Judgement of 17 February 1998 (BVerfGE 97, 228), Eleventh Broadcasting Judgement of 20 February 1998 (BVerfGE 97, 298), Twelfth Broadcasting Judgement of 11 September 2007 (BVerfGE 119, 181) and Thirteenth Broadcasting Judgement of 12 March 2008 (BVerfGE 121, 30). All judgements of the Federal Constitutional Court can be found in the series Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts , published by Mohr Siebeck, formerly J. C. B. Mohr, in Tübingen. The first number in the brackets mentioned above indicates the volume of the series and the second number the page where the judgement starts.

2 Theorizing Broadcasting Marketization

1. The suit was filed, on 21 June 2011, at the regional court in Cologne. At the same time, the Association of German Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) complained to the EU Competition Directorate, criticizing the lack of effective control of the use of licence-fee money. 2. Examples include the launching of children’s channels by the BBC, ARD and ZDF in order to outrival commercial providers of similar content (Steemers 2003: 132–3). Furthermore, the launching of thematic channels, such as Phoenix and BBC News 24, has led to criticism (Donders and Pauwels 2010: 136). 3. The differentiation between collectivism and economic liberalism has been outlined by William H. Greenleaf (1983) and further developed by Richard Cockett (1995). In his excellent account of the Peacock Committee Tom O’Malley elaborates this point in depth (see O’Malley and Jones 2009).

262 Notes 263

4. Broadcasting emerged in the early twentieth century when formal democracy was already established in Britain. There are, accordingly, no links to the Victorian era (1837–1901). 5. A strong advocate of the rehabilitation of liberalism was Ludwig von Mises, whose book Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus (1922) had a radical effect on Friedrich August von Hayek’s thinking. At the same time, Alexander Rüstow was the central coordinator of a group of economists, taking effect as originators of the new liberalism in Germany (Ptak 2008: 74; Willgerodt 2006). 6. Walter Lippmann’s volume The Good Society, published in 1937, served as starting point for the Colloque Walter Lippmann, held in Paris (1938) and attended by 26 intellectuals who aimed to return liberal ideas to the fore. Subsequently – World War Two had delayed earlier advance – Hayek, who had already published his influential work The Road to Serfdom (1944), established the Mont Pelerin Society. Its constituent conference featured 15 intellectuals who had been present at the congress in Paris (W. Köhler, ‘Die Mission des Liberalismus’, Die Zeit, 7 August 2008). Apart from von Mises and von Hayek, the 39 participants who met at the Swiss spa included the philosopher Karl Popper, economists Walter Eucken and Wilhelm Röpke and the later Nobel laureates in economics Milton Friedman and George Stigler. 7. The neoliberals are associated with various schools of economic thought, e.g. the Austrian School (e.g. Von Mises, Von Hayek), the Freiburg School (e.g. Eucken) or the Chicago School (Friedman, Stigler, Coase). 8. L. Elliott and J. Treanor, ‘A whole world sold on sell-offs’, The Guardian, 22 November 2000. 9. In some sectors such as higher education, new institutions were built but the established actors of the club system maintained their status (Moran 2007: 141–5). 10. M. Sweney, ‘Government curbs Ofcom’s powers’, The Guardian, 14 October 2010. 11. Instead of pursuing public service goals, public broadcasters may accordingly ‘be tempted to give top priority instead to the seemingly-greater pragmatic urgency of beating back immediate or imminent competitive threats to their audience shares’ (Blumler and Hoffmann-Riem 1992: 204). 12. See Forsthoff (1938, 1958, 1959). Jakobson and Schlink (2000) provide a brief overview on Forsthoff’s work in English. 13. In German-speaking literature Max Weber’s Soziologie des Zeitungswesens is often referred to as a pioneering work in media economics in which the press is conceived as a capitalist private business (Weber [1911] 1988). Starting from the late 1940s, there are works in which Ronald Coase subjected the BBC to media economic analysis (Coase 1947, 1948, 1950). A key event in the institutionalization of media economics as an academic discipline was the launching of the Journal of Media Economics in 1988. 14. In German-speaking literature two directions of media economics are distinguished. One, dealt with above, is rooted in economic science and the other in media and communication studies (see Siegert 2002). 15. There are of course exceptions such as, for example, sustainability economics. 16. Four relevant historic processes are to be distinguished in this regard: the development and evolution of the media; the extension of corporate 264 Notes

reach; commodification; and, last, the changing role of the state in regulation and intervention (Golding and Murdock 2005: 64). 17. Concerning this matter, Garnham (1990: 44) points out the importance of understanding the role of advertising within late capitalism. 18. According to Hoffmann-Riem (2009: 147) governance describes a dynamic structure of rules between state actors and non-governmental commercial and public stakeholders whose interactions are driven by cooperative coordination.

3 The Logic of Comparison

1. Mill ([1882] 1973, Book 3: 398) noted: ‘Subduct from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents.’ 2. The term ‘Westminster model’ is used interchangeably with ‘majoritarian model’. 3. Regarding the Westminster model, Lijphart (1999: 18–19) also mentions the concentration of legislative power in a unicameral legislature. The UK structure has both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In this regard, it deviates from the pure majoritarian model. 4. Drawing on an example from electricity regulation, in his study on the spread of independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe, Gilardi (2008) has shown that Germany was the last European nation (apart from Malta) that established an independent regulatory body for the energy sector, which had been privatized in 1998. It was not until 2003 that the Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post (RegTP) (which, in 2005, evolved into the Federal Network Agency) assumed responsibilities from the Federal Cartel Office and the Economic Ministry (Gilardi 2008: 128). Amongst other factors, Germany’s size was possibly one parameter which helped it to pursue its Sonderweg, procrastinating about the adoption of the European trend of establishing independent regulators for energy markets. Gilardi (2008: 129–30) refers to the factors’ credibility problems (i.e. absence of competition, no adequate correction of market failures in the old regulatory framework), pressures originating from EU legislation, political uncertainly (i.e. the government in charge was uncertain whether to remain in power or not, leading to calculations whether the delegation of responsibilities to an independent authority would rather commit a future rival government or decrease one’s own capability of acting) and emulation amongst other European countries. The importance of emulation is also stressed by Müller (2006: 276). 5. Coase (1948) outlined the absence of wire broadcasting, neglecting the possible advantages for subscribers, as a consequence of the vested interests of the radio trade, the press and the BBC. According to Coase (1950: 195) the BBC monopoly resulted from an accidental combination of circumstances in which the political parties, the press, the Post Office as well as the BBC unanimously advocated this arrangement, resulting in ‘widespread support’ and reflecting ‘the spirit of the age’. Coase’s criticism was twofold. First it hit the prevention of a competitive system. Such a system would have created Notes 265

a national market for broadcasting advertising instead of creating this market abroad. As a second point, he objected to the BBC’s intellectual paternalistic attitude which did not allow listener’s freedom of choice. For an excellent account of the development of economic liberalism and broadcasting policy see O’Malley’s opening chapters in O’Malley and Jones (2009).

4 From the Origins of Broadcasting to the Post-war Period (1920–45)

1. The Post Office believed that only bona fide British manufacturers of wireless apparatuses should be allowed to broadcast, ruling out other applicants such as newspaper and retail businesses (Briggs 1961: 97). 2. The following six companies became the main shareholders: Marconi, Metropolitan Vickers, Western Electric, General Electric, British Thomson- Houston and Radio Communication. Other companies could become stock- holders and members. 3. Report by Senior Controller on Regional Matters (B. E. Nicolls), 20 March 1947, BBC WAC, R34/731/4. 4. Certain forms of sponsorship were basically possible. The BBC, however, made almost no use of them. 5. Further examples of the species of a public corporation in the period before 1945 include the Electricity Commission (1919), the Forestry Commission (1919), the Central Electricity Board (1928), the Racecourse Betting Control Board (1928), the London Passenger Transport Board (1933) and the British Overseas Airways Corporation (1939). In all of these cases the organizational form as a public corporation was chosen to operate ‘state-owned undertakings requiring management of a commercial or industrial character’ (Robson 1962: 47–8). 6. As expressed by Wilson (1961: 20): ‘The government’s ultimate control was, in principle, absolute; it included the right to require the BBC to broadcast government material on request, the right to veto material, general or particular, to control the hours of broadcasting, to appoint and dismiss Governors, and to allocate finances.’ 7. Similarly, as outlined in McChesney’s (1993) revisionist account of US broadcasting history, the entirely commercial character of American broadcasting was far from inevitable and between 1928 and 1935 there was serious opposition to the commercial route which, however, failed to win recognition. 8. Letter from the Programme Executive to the Midland, North and West Regional Directors, Subject: Regional Boundaries, 9 March 1932, BBC WAC, R34/262/1. 9. Reith criticized that the Ullswater Committee included two former PMGs (Selsdon and Attlee) and an Assistant PMG (Graham White) (Briggs 1965: 480).

5 Welfare State and Broadcasting Duopoly (1945–55)

1. Beveridge, appointed by the government as chairman of a committee which included civil servants representing various departments, wrote the whole report by himself. When it turned out that the civil servants were unable to 266 Notes

sign it, the government let them all resign and Beveridge signed it as a one- man report. 2. The Hankey Committee was appointed in 1943 by the Conservative government. Besides the quickest possible resumption of the television service, its priorities were ‘scientific and commercial advancement’ (Smith 1974: 76). The inquiry decided against a revision and possible enhancement of the line standard and instead proposed services on the existing pre-war 405 line system. Another matter of concern was British manufacturing and the development of the export trade of television and radio apparatuses. 3. Draft Statement for Consideration by Board of Governors, BBC Second Television Programme, 1 July 1955, BBC WAC, T16/215/2. 4. In 1947 Attlee and Morrison also launched the Royal Commission on the Press and it was press policy which the Labour Party, in fact, dedicated more attention to than broadcasting (Freedman 1999: 22). 5. J. Reith, ‘Letter to William Beveridge’, 3 August 1934, State Provision for Social Need, Series Two, Part 3, Reel 81, Section VII, Item 86 (microfilm) (2000), Rochester: Adam Matthew. 6. General Advisory Council ‘Monthly Report April 1935’, State Provision for Social Need, Series Two, Part 3, Reel 81, Section VII, Item 86 (microfilm) (2000), Rochester: Adam Matthew. 7. For the issue of the monopoly and the Beveridge Committee’s account of views expressed by earlier committees of inquiry, see Report (1951: paras 151–80). 8. Originally, Sir Cyril Radcliffe was intended to lead the inquiry but he was unable to undertake the assignment. 9. HoC Debates, 19 July 1951, cols 1527–9. 10. J. Reith, ‘The Precedence of England’, The Observer, 22 November 1953. 11. Ibid. 12. According to calculations of the Labour MP Christopher Mayhew (1953: 18–19), founder of the National Television Council, the key pressure group opposing commercial television, 79 per cent of the speeches in Hansard which supported competition in broadcasting were made by only seven MPs; four of them, by self-revelation, interested parties. The PMG was criticized for concealing the names of these parties and in at least one case it was suspected that the director of the Associated Broadcasting Development Company, an applicant for a licence, was a member of the Television Advisory Committee (HoC Debates, 5 February 1953, col. 2177). 13. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006.

6 Social Democratic Consensus and BBC2 (1955–64)

1. Concomitantly, also ITN started its services. 2. The following ITV companies formed the ‘big five’: Associated-Rediffusion, ATV, ABC Television, Granada Television and Scottish Television (STV). 3. Interview with the author, 21 June 2006. 4. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 5. Initially, the ITA had even envisaged splitting Wales into three broadcasting regions (Medhurst 2004: 123–4). Notes 267

6. All regional controllers were subordinate to the Director of Home Broadcasts (Tony Benn, HoC Debates, 19 July 1951, col. 1523). 7. Briggs (1979: 265) notes: ‘The differences from area to area proved, in fact, to be surprisingly small. Whatever sub-cultural variations there might have been in London, the Midlands, and the North, they seldom registered.’ 8. Grace Wyndham Goldie, ‘Some Ideas in Relation to a Second Channel’, 2 May 1962, BBC WAC, T16/215/3. 9. A. Jay, ‘Digital beeps that say: Hack back the Beep’, The Sunday Times, 21 August 2005. 10. Wyndham Goldie, ‘Some Ideas in Relation to a Second Channel’. 11. Ibid. 12. Originally, Macmillan’s shortlist of candidates for the chairmanship included Sir Oliver Franks, Lord Radcliffe, who was already considered for the previous inquiry, and Sir Edward Milner Holland (Milland 2005: 63). 13. Interview with Jim McGuigan, 8 December 2003. 14. Interview with the author, 21 June 2006.

7 A Changing Society (1964–79)

1. Interview with the author, 21 June 2006. 2. Interview with the author, 21 June 2006. 3. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 4. Interview with the author, 2007. 5. Advertising had long been sold on a regional basis and one had to make 15 different purchases to achieve national coverage. Major advertisers, however, preferred national advertising rather than regional. The advertising lobby, following economies of scale, therefore, aimed to erode the regional structure. 6. Interview with the author, 23 May 2006. 7. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 8. Interview with the author, 4 July 2006. 9. Interview with the author, 11 May 2006. 10. Interview with the author, 21 March 2006. 11. Interview with the author, 21 March 2006. 12. Whitehouse’s National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association campaigned about the unknown social consequences of television and accordingly tar- geted both broadcasters, but particularly the BBC for its more ‘permissive’ programming. Garnham (1978: 45) notes that it was more the arrogance of the broadcasters within the duopoly than a particular disgust of programming which constituted the driving force of the movement. 13. Interview with the author, 23 May 2006. 14. Annan, initially, was daunted by Whitehead’s appointment which implied direct political representation on the inquiry, contradicting the principles set out in the 1910 Balfour Committee of Inquiry into Royal Commissions, but later expressed esteem for his knowledge and personality (Annan 1981). 15. Interview with the author, 23 May 2006. 16. Annan’s intention in appointing Jay was to balance the influence of Whitehead (Annan 1981: 6). 268 Notes

17. Furthermore, it recommended the establishment of a Local Broadcasting Authority which should be responsible after 1979 for the local radio services which had been introduced by the BBC in 1967 and by the IBA in 1973 (Report 1977: recommendation 73).

8 The Turn to Market-Driven Politics (1979–90)

1. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 2. Exemplary for the overarching shift in ideology, Mulroney was a businessman who never held any ministerial position other than Prime Minister. Under his presidency many of Canada’s Crown Corporations were privatized. 3. See also L. Elliott and J. Treanor, ‘A whole world sold on sell-offs’, The Guardian, 22 November 2000. 4. As one contributor explains, ITV as well as the BBC had enough in-built production capacity to produce most of the programmes they required. If they needed to top up their output, they purchased foreign, mainly American, programmes, for which they paid marginal costs because the production costs of these programmes were already recouped in the home market. As a consequence, no room was left for British independent programme makers and producers (interview with the author, 2006). 5. Apart from the OBA, Annan’s proposal for a Local Broadcasting Authority was also discarded. 6. Interview with the author, 2006. 7. Apart from the establishment of Channel 4, with Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C) the Act established an autonomous television service for Wales as well as a statutory Broadcasting Complaints Commission. 8. Since the statutory duties of the IBA determined it to have responsibility for programme contents, Channel 4, placed under the IBA’s regulatory umbrella, did not enjoy ultimate freedom (Hood and O’Leary 1990: 53). 9. Interview with the author, 2006. 10. Regarding their production costs Collins et al. (1988: 28–30) frame BBC television, ITV and Channel 4 as three different sectors. 11. The cornerstone of Channel 4 was that its funding (as well as the funding of S4C) was ample and secure however ITV and Channel 4 divided the commercial audience (Isaacs 1989: 181). This made it a matter for the Treasury. If ITV became less prosperous because of having to subsidize Channel 4, the government’s revenue from its tax on ITV would have fallen. 12. Isaacs was formerly a producer for the BBC, Granada and Thames Television, ‘retaining both the guarded trust of most radical programme makers and the respect of his ITV peers’ (P. Lennon, ‘Channel 4 opening tomorrow, Lord Reith’s last blast’, The Times, 1 November 1982). 13. Interview with the author, 2006. 14. The quote continues: ‘Michael Grade came and he saw a gap, which was on ten o’clock and he went and got three outstanding American comedies, Cheers, Frasier and Friends. From those three, being played through the year, he got the money to do all the rest’ (interview with the author, 2006). 15. Interview with the author, 2006. Notes 269

16. Programme-wise the impact of Das Kleine Fernsehspiel was clearly reflected in Channel 4’s The Eleventh Hour and People to People. The channel was accused of a left-wing bias, not least due to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) membership of three initial Board members, Edmund Dell, Anne Sofer and Richard Attenborough. 17. Isaacs in P. Lennon, ‘Channel 4 opening tomorrow, Lord Reith’s last blast’, The Times, 1 November 1982. 18. For the contract period 1982–92, the IBA instructed ATV to restructure itself around its region and subsequently the company renamed itself Central Independent Television. Furthermore, the Authority licensed two new companies: In the South and South-East of England region Television South replaced Southern Television and in the South-West England region Television South-West supplanted Westward Television. All other companies were reappointed. For the first time the Authority awarded a breakfast-time television contract to TV-am (MacDonald 2003: 24). 19. For the period of the sixth charter (1981–96) Board appointees were Sir William Rees-Mogg (1981–6), George Howard (1981–3) and Stuart Young (1983–6). Marmaduke Hussey acted as Chairman on the Board of Governors (1986–96). He forced Alasdair Milne to resign (1987) and was also responsible for dismissing Michael Checkland (1992). 20. In 1977 Annan had recommended the allocation of all DBS channels to the BBC but Whitelaw handed over only two channels and held the other three in reserve (Elstein 1999b: 2). 21. Technically, there were five different incompatible systems: National Television System Committee (NTSC) (America, Japan), the widespread Phase Alternating Line (PAL) system (Germany), Séquentiel couleur à mémoire (SECAM) (France, Russia), C-MAC and the French DBS adaptation D2-MAC. The government needed to ascertain a ‘must-carry’ obligation for one of these systems, otherwise the BBC would risk being technically isolated if it bet on the wrong horse. 22. With the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 the government created an institutional framework for a common BBC/IBA joint venture in form of a Satellite Broadcasting Board whose members would be drawn from the BBC and IBA in equal parts (Davis et al. 1998: 299). 23. Thatcher, who was befriended by Murdoch, had been personally informed before the merger but did not forward the information to the IBA or the Home Office (Tunstall 2010: 146–7). 24. Starview, a service from Rediffusion, as well as the BBC’s Showcable Channel (through Visionhire Cable) were the first of these services to go on air. 25. Similar to Mr Maton, while chairing the Committee on Financing the BBC (1985–6), Alan Peacock was supplied with a satellite dish enabling him to receive about eight European channels and, at their request, he cabled up his neighbours. In both cases, neither the BBC, the Post Office and governmental authorities (Maton) nor the Cable Authority (Peacock) interfered. Peacock (1997: 291) later called this ‘an interesting insight into the issues surrounding freedom of entry into the broadcasting business.’ 26. Veljanovski and Bishop (1983: 106) would, however, have preferred complete laissez-faire with regard to cable, questioning any authority’s right to exist in the sector. Generally, for free-market economists, the report appeared as an 270 Notes

irritating ‘haphazard approach’, not least because the Home Office omitted the inclusion of an economist as a member of the inquiry (Elstein 1999b: 4). Also the IBA rejected it and predicted a destructive rivalry between regulated and unregulated broadcasting (Elstein 1999b: 10). The cable franchises were initially offered by the DTI. Once established this duty was taken over by the Cable Authority. 27. The Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 officially banned foreign investors from owning British cable systems. Due to a loophole, however, this regulation failed to apply. From 1987 the chairman of the Cable Authority called for a removal of the provision hindering foreign ownership of cable systems and this was finally achieved in the Broadcasting Act 1990 (Goodwin 1998: 65). 28. The Act (1984: section 7, 2b) also echoed Hunt’s recommendations in decreeing that the Authority, when granting a licence, should take into account ‘to include in the programmes matter which originates within the European Economic Community and is performed by nationals of member states’. 29. Production costs in the cultural industries rise faster than the general rate of inflation (Collins et al. 1988: 15–18). Much of the additional costs for the BBC had been absorbed by the switch from monochrome to colour licences. Once this process was phased out, the BBC’s shortfalls became obvious. 30. The Adam Smith Institute published its Omega Report on Communications Policy in 1984. In contrast to Veljanovski and Bishop’s Choice by Cable (1983) the report dedicated much attention to the BBC, proposed to break up the Corporation and advocated funding by advertising. It also suggested replac- ing the IBA with a body such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), focusing rather on frequency allocation and not content supervision. In circulating its ideas the Adam Smith Institute, campaigning for a less sophisticated free-market position than the one outlined in Choice by Cable, was far less influential than the IEA (Goodwin 1998: 72–3). 31. Further members were the economist, accountant and businessman Jeremy Hardie, Lord Quinton, President of Trinity College, Oxford, and Sir Peter Reynolds, Chairman of a food business company. Peacock notes: ‘There was no overt political representation on that committee at all … We had very different people’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 32. Veljanovski and Bishop’s Choice by Cable (1983), an IEA publication, forms an intellectual link between the Conservative government’s focus on new distribution technologies in the first half of the 1980s and their policy shift towards a reform of terrestrial television since the middle of the decade. Some of its key points are reflected in the Peacock Report (Goodwin 1998: 70). 33. As early as 1973, Brittan had advocated direct subscription instead of advertising as an ideal system for broadcasting (in O’Malley and Jones 2009: 216). One of his key concerns was the BBC’s independence from government. Brittan, therefore, argued for the indexing of the licence fee (O’Malley and Jones 2009: 221–2, 233–4). 34. When the Committee met for the first time, Peacock had already written the introduction of the report, noting: ‘Instead of just having shaken hands and so on there was a document for them to look at. We arranged the schedule of readings and off we went. We were drafting all the time. We did not wait Notes 271

till the last minute. It was a kind of what we called the leap-frog arrangement in drafts and revised drafts so that members were familiar with the ways thinking was developing through time’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 35. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 36. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 37. The BBC ‘were unfamiliar with the economic analysis of broadcasting for the simple reason that they have never had to concern themselves with major economic issues’ (Peacock 1997: 292). 38. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 39. Peacock notes: ‘The trouble with commissions, royal commissions and this sort of thing, is that people lose interest; members die. I had seen that with the Royal Commission on the Constitution: half the members had disap- peared from the original list by the time its report appeared. If they had to appoint substitutes one almost had to begin again. No one was pressurized on the Committee that we had to finish by a certain date but everybody thought that it was a very good idea to have a deadline’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 40. Peter Jay was the leader writer of The Times, economics editor of the BBC and British ambassador in Washington. His father-in-law was James Callahan. Apart from underlining the report’s liberal attitude, the referral to the freedom of the press possibly occurred on the grounds to ensure the members’ support whose attitudes were alternating. 41. The government had clearly confused Peacock’s and Brittan’s liberal pre- disposition with an advocacy of advertising, unconfined support for commercial pressure groups and an uncritical following of the Prime Minister (Brittan 1991: 340). 42. Following welfare economics, Peacock (1997: 300) perceives the market as the common mechanism enabling consumers to express their preferences. The market allows consumers to exert direct financial preferences and to express exact and quick choices according to the degree of satisfaction they gain from spending a certain amount of money. Competition is the key to ensuring services are offered for the lowest possible price while at the same time the level of quality is maintained or improved. The market has to link consumers and suppliers while enabling a speedy adjustment of prices, quality and the supply of new goods and services to any changes in consumer preferences. This led Peacock to conclude that viewers should have access to a competitive multi-channel environment and pay directly for the desired programmes. 43. The embracing of pay-TV and subscription was a policy measure advocated by some authors affiliated with the IEA since the 1960s (e.g. Caine 1963, 1968; Veljanovski and Bishop 1983). Furthermore, the National Consumers Council and the television executive David Elstein had publicly advocated subscription as a source for funding the BBC (Elstein 1999c: 10). 44. ‘The BBC and the regulated ITV system have done far better, in mimicking the effects of a true consumer market, than any purely laissez-faire system, financed by advertising could have done under conditions of spectrum shortage’ (Report 1986: para 581, italics in original). Peacock was also aware of the New Zealand example where the public broadcaster took some 272 Notes

advertising which then rose from 10 per cent of the total licence fee revenue to 70 per cent (Elstein 1999c: 8). 45. Economically, Peacock was furthermore convinced that advertising demand was not elastic enough to take up the increasing airtime in a full broadcasting market without a price decline; a process which could even lead to a fall in total advertising revenue (Report 1986: paras 286–98). 46. See Peacock (1993b: 43). For a short discussion of advertising and consumer sovereignty, see Murdock (1982: 145–6). 47. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 48. According to Peacock: ‘The whole idea of running broadcasting as something near a market system, with necessary safeguards, is to get politics out of it. It is driven by what people want to have provided, including cultural activities and encouragement’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 49. Having clearly outlined the shortcomings of advertising as a source of BBC finance, the report omitted how Channel 4 was supposed to fulfil its special remit without a ‘safety net’. Goodwin (1998: 84–5) accordingly interprets this recommendation as a ‘consolidation prize’ for the advertising lobby. 50. Further recommendations were to oblige TV set manufactures to equip new sets with the technical means to interface with decoders and encrypted signals, to enable the BBC to be the managing agent in collecting the licence fee (instead of the Post Office) and to sell non-occupied night-time hours on the BBC and ITV channels. 51. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 52. Hurd goes on to note: ‘The Prime Minister, rather illogically, wanted to preserve the restrictions which protected the position of ITN so they would not be destroyed by the companies. She was particularly an admirer of Mr [Alastair] Burnet. She wanted very much to counterbalance the BBC on the political side. She thought the BBC was basically hostile to her and she needed a strong ITN as a counterbalance. I think this was a myth, to some extent, but she felt that. Even though it was not very logical to ask for restrictions on their ownership, she was always strong for that and so a compromise was reached’ (interview with the author, 11 May 2006). 53. Hurd (1986: 2) also noted the Peacock Committee ‘overflowed their terms of reference’. This point became an issue of vivid debate. Peacock notes: ‘Leon Brittan appointed me and I went to see him and I said: “Well, we cannot look at the system without looking at the whole system and therefore considering the whole nature of the financial system.” It was fully within our understanding of the terms of reference that we should go the way we did’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). Hurd later clarifies: ‘I was simply saying that he [Peacock] was generous in defining his own role. And it was a good thing because he entered into the philosophy of the question which might otherwise have been neglected … I was pleased with the report. I was keen to keep the BBC free of advertising and that the commercial side developed separately. So I was glad that he came down in that direction’ (interview with the author, 11 May 2006). 54. Other questions on the agenda were whether satellite television required a single new regulatory body, incorporating the functions of the Cable Authority and the IBA, and how the maintenance of standards on existing services could be guaranteed. Notes 273

55. The seminar, taking place in 10 Downing Street, was attended by Margaret Thatcher, Alan Peacock, Nigel Lawson, Douglas Hurd, Jeremy Isaacs, Richard Hopper (Joint Managing Director, Super Channel), Charles Jonscher (Vice President, Booz Allen & Hamilton), Michael Grade (Director of Programmes, Television, BBC), David Graham (Executive Producer, Diverse Production Ltd) and John Whitney (Director-General, IBA). Peacock recalls: ‘She (Thatcher) was on a dais with Lawson and Hurd and I on a chair at their feet and I said to the Prime Minister “Oh, is that the stool of repentance?” The Prime Minister was a very witty person but she had no sense of humour. Only she was allowed to crack the jokes’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 56. Interview with the author, 11 May 2006. 57. Interview with the author, 2006. 58. The Misc 128 was chaired by the Prime Minister. Apart from Hurd, it included Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and David Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Hurd recalls: ‘Each had their own view. It was not easy to reconcile it. I was the minister, who, technically, constitutionally, was responsible in the end. I had to produce a White Paper and I had to produce legislation. Therefore, I had a greater interest than any of the others in reaching agreement’ (interview with the author, 11 May 2006). For the positions of each member and respective bargaining processes see Hurd (2003: 331–4). 59. The 1985 licence fee increase below the BBC’s demand constituted the initial financial squeeze. 60. Whereas the Prime Minister and Lawson favoured announcing in the White Paper that the licence fee would end in 1996 and then be replaced by subscription, they were restrained by Douglas Hurd, Kenneth Baker and Geoffrey Howe (Birt 2002: 334). 61. After passing a not clearly defined quality threshold, the White Paper envisaged that all applicants for a licence, in a second stage, would offer financial tenders. ‘The ITC would be required to select the applicant who submitted the highest tender’ (Home Office 1988: 22). 62. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 63. Douglas Hurd notes about Death on the Rock: ‘Certainly there was a lot of anger about it. I think we tried too much to stop it. It was a mistake … I think on the whole the BBC was more cautious. That was just the ethos of it’ (interview with the author, 11 May 2006). Overall the decade witnessed an unprecedented conflict between government and broadcasters over standards and investigative documentaries. Other examples were the BBC’s At the Edge of the Union and ATV’s Death of a Princess. 64. The Broadcasting Act 1990 would later decree that Channel 4’s revenue be set in relation to the terrestrial net advertising revenue. In this regard a baseline of 14 per cent per annum was installed. If Channel 4’s revenues fell below the baseline, the ITC would fund a difference of up to 2 per cent of the net advertising revenue which it would collect from the ITV companies. Channel 4 would need to share any surplus revenue above the baseline in equal parts with the ITV companies. 65. Whereas European companies were already allowed to control ITV licences and to take over ITV companies, the (British) ITV broadcasters were allowed neither to merge nor to take over one another (Goodwin 1998: 120). 274 Notes

66. The White Paper also recommended advertising on all television services, except the BBC. The Corporation was to use the traditionally unused night hours for subscription services and ITV would need to privatize its transmission network (Goodwin 1998: 95; O’Malley 1994: 133). 67. With the European content quota, the TWF Directive aimed to ‘manufac- ture Europeanization’ (Harcourt 2002: 749). Apart from that, it decreed that ‘Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall not restrict retransmissions on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States’ (Council of the European Communities 1989: article 2a, 1). It also provided for common television advertising and sponsorship standards (Council of the European Communities 1989: articles 10–20). 68. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006.

9 From Broadcasting to Communications Policy (1990–2003)

1. Together with the Cable Authority, the IBA was abolished and replaced by the ITC and the Radio Authority. 2. Interview with the author, 2007. 3. Changes to the process of allocating franchises did not come as a surprise to the IBA. Its Chairman George Thomson (1980–8) is quoted by Alan Peacock: ‘The way we do this is by a sort of rather informal beauty competition, and we know the people we can trust and all the rest of it, and we do the best we can. We award the franchises in this way … I’m sure there are all kinds of objec- tions to this, and your Committee no doubt will be looking at the possibility of some kind of other way of doing this’ (in O’Malley and Jones 2009: 232). 4. Interview with the author, 11 July 2006. 5. Interview with the author, 4 July 2006. 6. The other incumbents struck out were TV-am, outbid by Sunrise Television (later renamed GMTV), Television South, replaced by Meridian Broadcasting and Television South West, replaced by Westcountry Television. Compared with the franchise affair in 1981, when three incumbents were also replaced, the 1991 round only added the holder of the breakfast licence to the list of replacements. Apart from Thames, the other three would also have been ‘prime candidates for a fall under the old rules’ (Goodwin 1998: 115). 7. Carlton had been prevented by the IBA from taking over Thames in 1985 and engaged in negotiations to do so again in 1991 (Bonner and Aston 1998: 455). 8. Over 60 per cent of ITV’s regional output is made up of news, news maga- zines and weather forecasts (Bonner and Aston 1998: 139). 9. In 1991/2 licences were awarded subject to the rule that no one person could control two large and contiguous licences. Once the licences were granted, the contiguity rule lapsed. At the end of 1993, the government decreed that one person may hold up to two licences regardless of size (except in London) (ITC 1995: 4). 10. Interview with the author, 2007. 11. Before shifting responsibility to the DNH Kenneth Baker, Home Secretary (1990–2), had pressed ahead with the draft of a Green Paper which reinves- tigated the possibility of putting advertising on the BBC (Birt 2002: 343). Notes 275

Largely ignoring Baker’s draft, the DNH’s Green Paper had been rewritten in favour of the BBC by David Mellor, Secretary of State of the DNH (Horrie and Clarke 1994: 215). Mellor was friendly with John Birt and critical towards the right-wing think tanks. The noncommittal 1992 Green Paper lacked proposals for radical reforms, e.g. a replacement of the licence fee by advertising or subscription. Its most ‘drastic’ recommendation was the adaptation of Peacock’s Public Service Broadcasting Council to distribute the licence-fee revenues. Characteristic of the good relations between Mellor and the BBC, Extending Choice had been prepared simultaneously with the Green Paper. 12. On 9 November 1997 the BBC launched News 24, an around-the-clock news channel available on analogue cable, as well as on BBC One at night-time. 13. Checkland had introduced efficiency measures, was committed to saving money and had been steadily tightening things up at the BBC. Still, for Hussey and Birt, the pace of reform appeared too slow and, as a consequence, Hussey enforced Checkland’s replacement 21 months before the end of his term (Horrie and Clarke 1994: 274). 14. According to von Sell: ‘The scheme involved decentralized planning of programme output with the money supply apportioned to radio drama, music and so on. These figures were sent to the central financial controlling department. I was then Finance Director and we checked the figures, coordinated the budget, but didn’t interfere in the allocation. Subsequently, when we sent the figures to the programme directorates, we also allocated controllers to check the expenditures. The programme directorates had to decide for themselves if they will produce a programme or if this can be done at a lower price and at better quality by an external company. Beyond their ideals of programme-making they, thus, needed to learn economic thinking. The initiative prevented programme-making from taking place in a closed circuit. Instead, there were vibrant contacts with the outer environment and society. My predecessor [Klaus von] Bismarck used the term “blood supply”. At the end of the year, we, together with the controllers at the programme directorates, drew up an account which led to the annual financial statement. During a two-day workshop in London we explained this scheme to the BBC’ (interview with the author, 20 January 2007). 15. Due to Producer Choice Birt was highly unpopular amongst BBC staff. His management was criticized as political appeasement and dictatorial. 16. In contrast to the citizen-centred language of public service-driven bodies such as the IBA and, to a lower degree, the ITC, the Director General of Fair Trading dignified BSkyB’s ‘high risk investment’ and its positive effects for ‘enhanced consumer choice’, stressing the importance of not sending ‘the wrong signals’ to companies as soon as they move into profit (Office of Fair Trading 1996: appendix A). This corroborates Dawes’ (2007) finding that the creation of Ofcom was preceded by a semantic shift of government language from citizens to consumers, framing the latter more favourable. The debate over terminology lies at the heart of the new regulatory regime for communications. It continued during and after the Communications Act 2003 (Livingstone et al. 2007). 17. The British Media Industry Group was founded by Associated Newspapers (owners of the Daily Mail), the Guardian Media Group, the Telegraph Group, and Pearson (owners of the Financial Times). 276 Notes

18. Apart from the acceptance of the market-driven economic and social restructuring under Thatcher and Major, a neutralization of the pro-Tory anti-Labour mass media formed an important element in the transformation process towards New Labour (Freedman 2003: 155). 19. ‘Share of voice’ meant that stakes of a single company in diverse media (television, radio, newspaper) in one particular area would be added up to assess the total ‘share of voice’ in that area. For example, one-third of the television audience, one-third of the radio audience and one-third of the newspaper audience in a particular area would add up to one-ninth of the total ‘share of voice’ there (Goodwin 1998: 147). 20. Whereas the ITC was put in charge of licensing and regulating DTT services, multiplex licences would be assigned by the Secretary of State. The ITC was enabled to grant one person up to three multiplex licences. 21. Furthermore, the Act dissolved the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council and replaced them with the Broadcasting Standards Commission. 22. The Broadcasting Act 1996 enabled the Secretary of State to produce a list of sporting or other events of national interest from which BSkyB and other companies, offering subscription services, were banned from obtaining exclusive rights. The list eventually included eight major sporting events, including the FA Cup and the Grand National. 23. Channel 5 Broadcasting successfully outbid News Corporation. Beforehand, the ITC had disqualified UKTV Developments, a bidding consortium, led by CanWest, the leading Canadian broadcaster, and SelecTV, a British independent producer. Originally, they had topped the bid. 24. Elstein became Channel 5’s Chief Executive while Greg Dyke, who had guided the consortium which created the channel, became its first Chairman. 25. In 1994 Labour had replaced the Shadow DNH Secretary Ann Clwyd, a left- winger, by Mo Mowlam, a principal organizer of Blair’s campaign for the Labour leadership and an advocate of far-reaching relaxations in concentration restrictions. 26. Hollick, a key Labour supporter and associate of Neil Kinnock, was Chairman of MAI and its succession media companies (Anderson and Mann 1997: 37). He has also been affiliated with ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG. 27. Embracing concentration and upsetting Labour’s left wing, Collins and Murroni (1996: 75) controversially noted that ‘large size tends to bring the resources required for comprehensive high quality reporting’. 28. In fact, the Annan Committee had already noted that broadcasting and other telecommunications services would become less distinct (Report 1977: para 25.1). The conclusion reached was that ‘there would be consider- able advantages in bringing the whole field of telecommunications, which includes broadcasting, within one Department’ (Report 1977: para 5.31). 29. Exclusive reliance on competition law for the regulation of the media and communications sectors was, however, deemed not sufficient due to its neglect of cultural and social objectives (Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport 1998: para 82). 30. Davies, whose wife worked in the private office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was ‘perhaps not the most obvious choice … [but] as a personal Notes 277

friend of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and a supporter of New Labour’s economic policies, he was at least a reliable person to turn to’ (Freedman 2003: 182–3). 31. The licence fee increase by the RPI plus 1.5 per cent would continue until 2006/7 and make for an additional income of £200 million to fund new television and radio channels. 32. Email to the author, 6 March 2006. 33. Apart from that, there would be a review of News 24, the BBC’s digital news channel launched in 1997 as the first competitor to Sky News. The need for a review had been put in place when the government approved the launch of News 24, as part of the proper role of government in ensuring that it was performing as promised when the approval was first given. 34. The Communications Act 2003 was only the second bill on which pre- legislative scrutiny was applied, the first being financial services. 35. ‘Policy-making and Power’, Transcript of the Seminar, Session 2: Lessons from the 2003 Communication Act, 23 September 2005, London. 36. The government originally intended to leave the issue of whether consumer or citizen duties would take precedence in a conflicting situation to Ofcom (Doyle and Vick 2005: 77). 37. Another concession won by Puttnam was that the government agreed, for the first time, to underwrite legal fees the regulator would face if media conglomerates appealed its decisions because ‘the rhetorical commitment to the conception of “light touch” could all-too-quickly become a catch-all excuse for judicial review, and thus an albatross around the regulator’s neck’ (Puttnam 2005).

10 Ofcom, Public Value and Beyond (2003 onwards)

1. According to the Communications Act 2003 the maximum penalty Ofcom may impose on the Corporation is £250,000; given a total income of £4.8 billion in 2009/10, a marginal sum. 2. In this regard, the Communications Act 2003 is widely based on the Competition Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002. 3. The change of rules that allowed US media companies to own ITV, although European companies are prevented from owning US American networks, was a Downing Street initiative (Dyke 2004: 175). 4. Peacock envisaged the establishment of a Public Service Broadcasting Council (Report 1986: para 685). The Council was quite similar to Anthony Smith’s OBA model, referred to in the Annan Report (Report 1977: recommendation 99). More recently, competitive funding was also suggested by the Broadcasting Policy Group chaired by David Elstein (Ofcom 2004: para 5.20). 5. Ofcom’s main objectives for the Second PSB Review include assessing how effectively PSB is delivered and to outline future options for its funding, deliv- ery and regulation in order to allow Parliament ‘ultimately to decide whether and how public service would be re-invented in the digital age’ (Ofcom 2008a: 3). In phase one of its Second PSB Review, Ofcom (2008a: section 7.37) had set out four illustrative models for the future. Due to its lack of public support, the BBC-only model was then discarded. 278 Notes

6. The BBC/Channel 4 model involves either the auctioning of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, or the transfer of spectrum rights and other regulatory assets directly to the BBC and Channel 4. In this case, Channel 5 would be completely relieved of PSB obligations. It could, however, compete for government funding to provide national and regional news (Ofcom 2008b: sections 1.27, 1.28). 7. M. Sweney, ‘Government curbs Ofcom’s Powers’, The Guardian, 14 October 2010. 8. ONdigital initially offered a line-up of eighteen channels, many of these in- house channels by Carlton and Granada. 9. At a time when advertising revenues, after ten years of strong growth, were falling rapidly, BSkyB forced ONdigital to match its free giveaway of set-top boxes, which the company failed to bear (Fitzwalter 2008: 214). 10. ONdigital’s rebranding into ITV Digital constituted ‘one of the worst brand- ing decisions of all time’ (Dyke 2004: 184). Furthermore, ITV Digital overbid for football rights, making for a variety of profound management mistakes. Ironically, the platform’s failure was a prerequisite for the BBC’s build-up of Freeview, which turned out to be a tremendous success. 11. D. Elstein, ‘ITV’s “vision of failure”’, The Guardian, 27 August 2002. 12. The remaining licences are held by Scottish Media Group, Ulster Television and Channel Television. 13. Interview with the author, 2007. 14. If handing back its PSB licences before the expiry date in 2014, ITV would face a fine of up to £80 million annually by Ofcom (M. Brown, ‘ITV faces Ofcom fines of £80m a year if it surrenders PSB licences’, The Guardian, 20 October 2008). 15. In 2010 BSkyB had 10.1 million subscribers, who paid at least £19.50 a month each for a TV package. 16. Viewers who purchased Freeview set-top boxes for a one-off-payment of initially £99 received 30 channels. (Nowadays, boxes are available from £18.) To Dyke’s surprise even BSkyB joined the platform (Dyke 2004: 186). 17. In 2011 eighteen million homes used DTT, compared with eleven million homes relying on satellite and four million cable homes (see Figure 10.1). 18. Interview with the author, 4 July 2006. 19. The twelve BBC English regions are North East and Cumbria, Yorkshire, North West, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, East Midlands, West Midlands, East, West, South, South East, South West and London. The latest change to the structure was in 2004 when BBC North was split into BBC Yorkshire and BBC Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. 20. Interview with the author, 4 July 2006. 21. After a BBC news report which asserted that the government had improp- erly exaggerated (‘sexed up’) the threat of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and which, at least partially, had served as a justification for the war in Iraq, David Kelly, Britain’s leading expert on biological weapons and the Ministry of Defence’s senior adviser on biological defence was accused of having served as a source to the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. After Kelly committed suicide, Lord Hutton was appointed to inquire into the case. The Hutton Report assigned the blame to the BBC and caused the resignation of Dyke and the BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies. It was regarded by many as a one-sided whitewash for the government. Notes 279

22. According to Lee, Oakley and Naylor (2011: 193) the notion of public value is flawed whereas PSB and competiton regulation are clearly defined concepts. 23. In that various Governors became Trust members there was some continuity of staffing. 24. Greg Dyke notes: ‘I think the Trust is a mistake. They should have been replaced by an outside regulator. The Chairman of the Trust is also the Chairman of the BBC. How can that be? … What you are now going to have is a situation where you will have an in-built conflict inside the BBC. It’s a ludicrous solution … I was not in favour of Ofcom in regulating the BBC. A regulator of commercial broadcasting should not be regulating the BBC. That would damage the BBC … I bet the problem at the moment is that the Chairman of the BBC has no idea if you are the spokesperson of the BBC or the spokesperson of the regulator. It was always confusing but it’s much more confusing under this scheme’ (interview with the author, 4 July 2006). 25. On the BBC website the Executive’s 64-page report is attached as an appendix to the Trust’s outline of its strategy review. The heading ‘The Trust’s challenge to the BBC Executive’ suggests certain tensions between Trust and Executive. 26. The BBC will meet £25 million of the costs of local TV infrastructure. Additionally, for three years, £5 million of licence-fee money will be spent on local content. 27. Meeting the costs of broadband rollout can already be regarded as top-slicing the licence fee.

11 From the Origins of Broadcasting to the Post-war Period (1920–45)

1. Hugenberg, party Chairman of the extreme right-wing Deutschnationale Volkspartei, was appointed Minister of Economics and Minister of Food and Agriculture in the first Nazi Cabinet in 1933, though forced to resign only five months later when the Nazis turned against their nationalist allies (Sandford 1976: 12). 2. Specific legislation for broadcasting did not exist before it was decreed on behalf of the occupying powers after World War Two (Fessmann 1973: 90). 3. The RPM had taken over responsibility for broadcasting from the Reichspostamt in February 1919 (Pabst 1984: 52). 4. These regions were: 1. North German Region (transmitter based in Berlin), 2. Silesian Region (Breslau), 3. South West German Region (Frankfurt/Main), 4. Low German Region (Hamburg), 5. East German Region (Königsberg), 6. Mid German Region (Leipzig), 7. West German Region (Münster; later Cologne), 8. Bavarian Region (Munich), and 9. South German Region (Stuttgart) (Lerg 1980: 80).

12 From Partial Sovereignty towards Independence (1945–55)

1. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 2. Since France strove for economic and political annexation of the Saarland, the French broadcasting policy towards this region was extremely restrictive and 280 Notes

the SWF did not cater for the Saarland (Heinrich 1991: 39). Finally, in 1957 the Saarland was integrated into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). 3. When appointed Chief Controller Greene famously used the phrase that his task was to make himself redundant (Greene 1965). By contrast, France, used to a broadcasting system which featured extensive state control, was the last country (apart from the Soviet Union) to later retransfer full responsibility for broadcasting to the Germans. 4. See, for example, H. Bredow, Letter to Hugh Greene, 27 June 1947, DRA, A06, 1–325. 5. The Post Office was confined to providing technical services (e.g. to de-jam receptions) and to collect the licence fees and forward 75 per cent thereof to the broadcast stations (Bausch 1980b: 24–5; Heinrich 1991: 29). 6. With regard to Greene and the NWDR case, it would be more precise to use the term Director-General instead of Intendant. However, to simplify matters the head of each public broadcasting corporation in the FRG is referred to as Intendant. 7. In fact, the Steering Committee (Hauptausschuss) was the body originally established by the British. It would later become the Administrative Council. 8. C. Siepmann, [1951: 3–4] Der Rundfunk in Westdeutschland, DRA, ARD 7–32.01. 9. By 1951, North Rhine-Westphalia had a population of 13 million and 57 per cent of the total NWDR listeners (Bausch 1980b: 204). 10. Given the Länder autonomy, the specifications for the appointment of members of the Broadcasting Council, Administrative Council and the Intendant varied from corporation to corporation. In the South German Länder the ständisches Modell prevailed (Sandford 1976: 78). 11. However, as the system developed, the appointees from the relevant social groups increasingly conceptualized themselves as party agents, fostering the political parties to gain dominant positions. In other cases, the controlling sway by government appointees was already settled in the Länder broadcasting laws (Möller 2001). 12. The treaty about the NWDR liquidation only enacted that WDR and NDR would independently engage in radio programmes but failed to mention television. As a consequence, a common body, the Nord- und Westdeutscher Rundfunkverband, was founded to provide television services during a tran- sitional period. The Rundfunkverband ceased to exist in 1961. Subsequently, WDR and NDR directly adopted responsibilities for television broadcasting within their transmission areas. 13. While the British Military Government encouraged cooperation between the broadcasting corporations the French hindered it by decreeing that the SWF was not allowed to found common organizations with other broadcasters. These, it was feared, would constrain its independence (Brack 1961: 6). 14. On 5 August 1950 the Intendanten of NWDR, BR, HR, RB, SDR and SWF held the constituent meeting (Bausch 1980b: 259). 15. The alphabetical rotation of the ARD chairmanship was a concession to the small and medium-sized corporations which aimed to stand up to the huge NWDR. It was abolished in 1958/9 (Brack 1961: 6). 16. C. Siepmann, [1951: 3–4] Der Rundfunk in Westdeutschland, DRA, ARD 7–32.01. 17. Interview with the author, 7 December 2006. Notes 281

18. In 1958 the SR joined the ARD, which then combined nine independent broadcasters. 19. However, within the ARD the shifts appear moderate compared with the radical consolidation of the ITV network.

13 Federal Government vs. Länder: The Battle for Broadcasting (1955–69)

1. CDU media policy from the foundation of the FRG until 1969, when Adenauer’s term ended, followed a unitaristic concept, undermining federalism (Grünewald 2005). 2. In 1949, when the German Basic Law was passed, the Länder as well as the Länder broadcasting laws were already put in place (Hesse 2003: 15). 3. Though the DFG ought to be organized under private law, the Federal Government did not intend to set it up as a commercial company following the US example (Holzamer 1988: 87). 4. Interview with the author, 7 December 2006. 5. With regard to the distribution of the licence fee between ARD and ZDF a distribution rate of 70 (ARD) to 30 (ZDF) was settled. Over time this ratio has shifted slightly in favour of the ARD. 6. The ZDF establishment in fact meant Adenauer’s third partial success in broadcasting policy. First, he had opposed the NWDR by reason of its alleged SPD bias and greeted its division into NDR and WDR. Subsequently, in 1960 the Bund had established two radio stations: Deutschlandfunk and Deutsche Welle. Subordinated to NDR and then WDR, Deutsche Welle had already engaged in radio broadcasts since 1953. In 1960, however, the Bund established Deutsche Welle as an independent federal agency. In 1962 Deutsche Welle joined the ARD. 7. Apart from that, the Television Council included four representatives of the churches, four representatives of the Local Government Association, three representatives of the Bund, three representatives of the trade unions and 29 representatives of the educational world, science, arts and other relevant social groups, such as the German Journalists’ Union or the Central Council of Jews (Grosser 1979: 124–5; Wehmeier 1979: 69–72). 8. Interview with the author, 25 October 2006. 9. These five members shall not belong to any government or legislative body. 10. Interview with the author, 8 November 2006. 11. Interview with the author, 8 November 2006. 12. Bausch (1980a: 67) contrasts post-war cooperative federalism with governmental federalism during the Weimar Republic, stressing that broadcasting regionalization in centralized nations (e.g. Britain and France) cannot be equated with federalism at all. 13. In order to clarify the distinction between television programme and broadcaster, the term Third Channel is used throughout this volume. 14. On 4 January 1965, NDR, SFB and RB launched the ‘III. Fernsehprogramm der Nordkette’ (renamed ‘N3’ in 1989) for the Länder Hamburg, West Berlin and Bremen. 15. Interview with the author, 25 October 2006. 282 Notes

16. For the two actors involved, Der Spiegel and Strauß, the implications of the affair could not have been more different. Whereas, by 1957, Der Spiegel featured an average weekly circulation of 267,000 copies, in 1966 727,500 copies were sold. On the other hand, Strauß, by 1957 a possible candidate for the chancellorship, had lost this chance by means of the affair (Greiwe 1994: 50). 17. A key event, representative of the end of the ‘development and experimen- tal phase’, which fundamentally changed German politics, occurred on 13 August 1961 when the GDR officially closed its borders and built the wall which separated West from East Germany (Kopper 2002: 2719–20). 18. Advertising airtime in Germany was strictly limited, though first voluntarily. The ZDF Treaty then provided for a compulsory constriction of advertising airtime to 20 minutes per working day. 19. The publishers themselves feared that Axel Springer, should he control the second television organization, could be a much more fierce competitor than the public corporations (Koordinierungskommission Einführung Werbefernsehen, Aktennotiz, 28 November 1956. DRA, A06, ARD Akten 1950–62, 11/1954–11/1957). 20. Later, in another unsuccessful venture, the publishers aimed for a 50 per cent share in the ZDF (Leiling, Aktennotiz, 30 October 1959. DRA, A06, ARD Akten 1950–62, 12/1957–11/1962). 21. Walter Schütz notes: ‘The publishers were well-aligned with the CDU, which was then the party in government. All BDZV presidents were close to the CDU’ (interview with the author, 7 December 2006). 22. In fact, the Report provided the first detailed study of its kind in the post- war period. It was heavily criticized by Springer who complained the inquiry ‘failed to reach the necessary conclusion’ (E. Hofsähs, Letter to Elmar Michel, 30 September 1966. BArch B102/Anh. I 69). 23. Interview with the author, 7 December 2006. 24. The Kommission zur Untersuchung der Gefährdung der wirtschaftlichen Existenz von Presseunternehmen und der Folgen der Konzentration für die Meinungsfreiheit in der Bundesrepublik, named after its Chairman, the director of the Federal Cartel Office Günther, ‘Günther Commission’, dealt exclusively with issues of press concentration in connection with freedom of opinion. 25. Schütz goes on to note: ‘We held meetings in Kornwestheim on the premises of the Salamander company. There was a substantial budget available, paid for by the Federal Ministry of Economics. It was also the Ministry of Economics that had appointed Michel, who was a director there before becoming executive chairman of Salamander … The Günther Commission held meetings in Bonn and was appointed by the Federal Cartel Office. The key conflict was between Bucerius and Springer’ (interview with the author, 7 December 2006).

14 From Public Oligopoly to Commercial Competition (1970–82)

1. Eberhard Witte notes: ‘The BDZV always played a much bigger role than they actually had power. This tradition goes back to the 1920s. In contrast to the [public] broadcasters, newspapers always paid great attention to their Notes 283

survival and their finances because they were all private. It was always their own money which was at risk’ (interview with the author, 16 April 2007). 2. The FBT repeated the arguments put forward to the Michel Commission in stressing that television advertising economically endangers the publishers and, therefore, they should be allowed to conduct broadcasts. 3. Schnitzler maintained intensive contacts with the CSU representatives Erich Schlosser and Erwin Stein. Both publicly advocated the licensing of private broadcasters (Heinrich 1991: 75). 4. In fact, since 1985 in Bavaria private broadcasters were licensed by the Bavarian Land media authority which functions under public law. 5. Jobst Plog notes: ‘It was quite a disaster. During the NDR crisis the administration was filled with four ministers, or high ranking politicians, red [SPD] and four black [CDU]. Politics had completely captured the station’ (interview with the author, 30 January 2007). 6. In this regard, Peacock’s phrase of the ‘comfortable duopoly’ also applied to the German case. Schwarz-Schilling notes that the Länder in general opposed competition: ‘Each Land had its own public service corporation and the Länder governments had delegated politicians to the respective administrative and broadcasting councils. Any change to this system would have curtailed their power and, therefore, the Länder stood together. This worked until Lower Saxony under Albrecht and then [Schleswig-Holstein under] Stoltenberg said: “We can’t go on like this”’ (interview with the author, 5 March 2007). 7. In 1976, the building works for the nuclear power plant in Brokdorf began and caused massive protests. The NDR covered the issue. The Schleswig- Holstein Land government and its head Gerhard Stoltenberg (CDU) felt unfairly treated in NDR reporting. The ARD series Der Betriebsrat, dealing with unionization, was widely regarded as biased towards the left. 8. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 9. The key event which changed the CDU’s party position from apathy towards actively striving for competition was Schwarz-Schilling’s speech ‘Ist das öffentlich-rechtliche System zu retten?’, presented during a conference at the Evangelical Academy, Tutzingen, 26–28 November 1976 (Schwarz- Schilling 2002a: 182). As a consequence of the speech, Schwarz-Schilling was criticized by Peter Glotz (SPD) for terminating the media policy consensus between both mass parties (Schwarz-Schilling 2002a: 182). However, there were intra-party conflicts. Claus Detjen notes: ‘Kohl wasn’t in favour of opening up broadcasting. It needed intra-party efforts to convince him. In most cases Kohl tended to wait and see. Then, when the Ludwigshafen project started, I personally sold him a cable connection. Beforehand, however, he didn’t support the project as was done by Schwarz-Schilling, Dieter Weirich and Bernhard Vogel’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). The SPD went on to oppose the introduction of private broadcasters. 10. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 11. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 12. Using regionalization critique as a smokescreen Albrecht and Stoltenberg aimed to achieve the establishment of autonomous Länder broadcasting studios in order to transmit ‘their own’ (more conservative) Länder programmes instead of the ‘superordinate’ NDR programme (Herres and Plog 1991: 271). 284 Notes

13. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 14. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 15. At that time, Witte was noticed by Uwe Thomas, the personal assistant to Ehmke. Witte notes: ‘Whenever the process stalled it was Dr Uwe Thomas, head of a division in the Ministry of Research and Technology under Ehmke, who gave it a fresh impetus and set something new or exhibited something in Cabinet. It was also Thomas who gave the impulse for the KtK’ (interview with the author, 16 April 2007). 16. The Commission Deutsche Bundespost (1969), the KtK (1974–6) and the Government Commission for Telecommunications (1985–7) were all sub- steps to the first, second and third Postreform (1989, 1994, 1996), which privatized and divided the Deutsche Bundespost into Bundespost (postal services), Postbank (banking services) and Deutsche Telekom (telephone and telecommunications) (Witte 2002). The whole process of broadcasting reform towards a competitive multi-channel environment involving public and private commercial broadcasters has thus to be seen in a wider longitu- dinal context, ranging over more than three decades. In some sense it is a by-product of the Postreform. 17. At about the same time, RB filed an application with Ehmke that they might test cable television in a local part of the city of Bremen. In order to avoid creating a precedent Ehmke declined and pointed to the KtK (Witte 2002: 11). 18. Members of the KtK were Klaus-Jürgen Hoffe (FDP), Peter Glotz (SPD), Oskar Lafontaine (SPD), Richard Stücklen (CDU), Willibald Hilf, Harald Schulze, Bruno Werinberger, Professor Karl F. Hagenmüller, Wolfgang Schmidt, Karl Edmund Michel, Dieter von Sanden, Günther Stephan (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund), Fritz Weise, Hans Bausch (ARD), Professor Karl Holzamer (ZDF), Johannes Binkowski (BDZV), Werner Ernenputsch, Professor Wolfgang Kaiser, Professor Bernd-Peter Lange, Professor Wolfgang Langenbucher, Professor Peter Lerche and Professor Eberhard Witte (KtK 1976: 15–17). According to Humphreys (1994: 194) 51 per cent of these members were drawn from industry and commerce. 19. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 20. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 21. The costs for the installation of a broadband cable network were estimated to amount to DM25 billion (KtK 1976: F40). Running costs per subscriber were estimated to amount to DM200 annually (KtK 1976: F41). The costs for end devices were estimated between DM2,000 and DM3,000 per connection (KtK 1976: F42). 22. Witte notes: ‘In any case we had been appointed by the wrong part of the political system. The Bund isn’t in charge to change broadcasting’ (interview with the author, 16 April 2007). 23. Following Proporz, it was agreed to launch two pilot projects in Länder with SPD governments and two in Länder with CDU/CSU governments. 24. Interview with the author, 18 December 2006. 25. Detjen originally had aimed for a separate BDZV stand. ‘The organizers, however, got cold feet when they realized how politically explosive the issue was and declined, stressing there needed to be an allowance from the heads of the Länder governments. As a consequence we had a common stand with Notes 285

the British GEC’ (Claus Detjen, interview with the author, 9 February 2007). General Electric already technically supported the BBC’s videotext service. 26. Interview with the author, 9 February 2007. 27. Even though the right to freedom of opinion as set out in the Basic Law is regarded as a ‘classic’ civil right, the Court interprets the freedom of the media as an objective guarantee, regarding broadcasting as a medium and a factor in the formation of public opinion in democracy. It is intended to ensure this by negative protections (e.g. freedom from state interference) and positive pluralism guarantees. With regard to the latter, internal pluralism (Binnenpluralismus) describes reflexive pluralism within separate organizations. Media organizations thus have to avoid close ties to political groups and individually maintain neutrality and balance in their content. On the other hand, external pluralism (Außenpluralismus) is achieved at the level of the media system as a whole through a range of media outlets or organizations which reflect the views of different groups in society. Internal pluralism requirements apply to the public broadcasters whose boards are composed of representatives of socially relevant groups. External pluralism requirements, manifest in the existence of a plurality of different operators, apply to the commercial broadcasters.

15 The Start of Commercial Broadcasters: Competition (1982–89)

1. In the words of Claus Detjen: ‘The CDU/CSU fought most vigorously for the opening of the broadcasting system to private operators. However, it took quite a while to reach intra-party agreement on this position. There were close ties to the public corporations. The conservative politicians in the boards of the public broadcasters campaigned for the status quo and, therefore, there was an intra-party debate. “Are we indeed in favour of commercial competition or are we, in fact, against it, but use this tactically to build up some pressure on the public corporations?” By then, I was a member of the coordination panel for CDU/CSU media policy where both opinions were represented. Within the SPD the fear prevailed that any opening would be equivalent to a loss of influence. They preferred to oppose it’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). 2. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 3. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 4. D. Ratzke, ‘Experimente mit dem Kabelfernsehen lassen auf sich warten’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 January 1978. 5. Interview with the author, 18 December 2006. 6. Originally, it was intended to conduct the project in Ludwigshafen (Rhineland Palatinate) and Mannheim (Baden-Württemberg). When both Länder failed to reach agreement Baden-Württemberg dropped out (Vogel 2002: 170–1). 7. Interview with the author, 9 February 2007. 8. According to Detjen: ‘When the publishers decided against buying series and other content from [Leo] Kirch, Kirch reacted in founding another company: the PKS [Programmgesellschaft für Kabel- und Satellitenfunk]. 286 Notes

Following from the shareholders’ decision, two PKS directors were appointed, one was Jürgen Doetz and the other was me. However, when [Waldemar] Schreckenberger stressed the importance of me leading the Ludwigshafen project I decided on this one. One reason was that the PKS directorship would have meant a contraposition to the publishers while the position as project managing director allowed me to conciliate’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). With regard to the AKK Assembly Detjen notes: ‘[It] was composed following the model of the public broadcasting councils. As socially relevant groups, it included the churches, unions, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce and so on. The publishers were also included. This was, in fact, a violation of its integrity. The Assembly was envisaged as controlling the operators’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). 9. According to Detjen: ‘The BDZV had decided to concentrate all power and money on Ludwigshafen because this was the only project which allowed for the licensing of commercial companies [see Detjen 2002: 214–15]. The publishers discussed various models of how to cooperate with the public broadcasters. One model involved formal control of the Intendant but journalistic autonomy and freedom to publish whatsoever. It was considered having the ZDF providing the bulk of programming while the publishers would add local content. Another model we discussed was the one practised by the Südwestfunk. The SWF had contracted programme slots, lasting for hours, to an advertising marketer. I was in progress of negotiating conditions for rights to films, series and so on with Leo Kirch but this was strongly rejected by the publishers whose key concern was news journalism not entertainment’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). 10. Interview with the author, 9 February 2007. 11. Claus Detjen notes: ‘A large organization, such as the Bavarian Land media authority, offers plenty of opportunities to capture it politically. Many people can be appointed to an office and that is intrinsic to the Bavarian texture’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). Similar to Ludwigshafen, with only 500 initial subscribers, the respective rate in Bavaria fell far short of expectations. 12. By 1984, instead of the envisaged 30,000 households only 5,000 were connected in Rhineland-Palatinate (Humphreys 1994: 219). 13. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 14. The break-even point of 4.4 million connected households was reached in 1989 (Witte 1993: 746). 15. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 16. In the Ministry for Post and Telecommunications a series of ministers, including Horst Ehmke (1972–4), Kurt Gscheidle (1974–82), Christian Schwarz-Schilling (1982–92) and Wolfgang Bötsch (1993–7), were open- minded, if not enthusiastic, about the new technologies. Whereas the ministers ‘were always ahead of their time, the apparatus of civil servants could not be won over [for the reform agenda]’ (Eberhard Witte, interview with the author, 16 April 2007). According to Claus Detjen: ‘The Bundespost fiercely aimed to prevent the new technologies. The change of government in 1982 made a difference, but even then civil servants in the Bundespost ministry strived to outwit politics’ (interview with the author, 9 February 2007). Christian Schwarz-Schilling remembers one incident: ‘When I asked Notes 287

the civil servants about the capacity of the car-phone network and its utiliza- tion I was told that the network was used by 22,000 people and had a capacity of up to 25,000. When I heard that, I immediately thought the ultimate capacity will be reached in a few months. I was shocked and asked how far progress towards implementation of a new structure was. The answer was revealing: “Minister, this isn’t that dramatic. When we come close to 23,000 users we’re going to raise tariffs drastically and then the demand curve will become flatter and we won’t reach the ultimate capacity in the near future.” I thought this was extraordinary. The need for reform was overwhelming … The mentality of the civil servants was not to ask: “How can we foster new technologies? What is the best way to create employment?” We had fantastic engineers but the administration by jurisprudents and people working in the area of finance was more concerned to avoid any fuss. Commissioning orders were contracted once a year without questioning how processes can be improved and speeded up’ (interview with the author, 5 March 2007). 17. Post and telecommunications as well as communications infrastructure are sovereign territories of the Bund (BVerfGE 12, 205). Since the transmissions of DBS satellites can be received directly by viewers by means of satellite dishes, responsibility for broadcasting via DBS lies with the Länder. 18. Schwarz-Schilling goes on to note: ‘I was in conflict with nearly everybody. The publishers opposed commercial television because they profited from the then present system … The public corporations attacked me, as did the unions. Stubbornly following their ideology, the unions did not even rec- ognize that their position prevented the creation of new jobs. The churches opposed me because, by means of diversity, I undermined the occident culture, Christian values and so on. At that time [Helmut] Thoma was on my side and the two of us were isolated’ (interview with the author, 5 March 2007). 19. In principle, the approach pursued followed the processes in the beginnings of German broadcasting when Deutsche Stunde was given a monopoly (Dussel 2004: 277). 20. 3Sat and Eins Plus could not be received via terrestrial installations. Eins Plus ceased to exist in 1993. Subsequently, the ARD started contributing to 3Sat (Dussel 2004: 271–2). 21. Duties of the Länder media authorities also include the encouragement of regional citizen initiatives in broadcasting (Bürgerfunk), and the realization of media-pedagogical projects. The Länder media authorities tackle a great number of issues that require nationwide decisions in cooperative efforts. The Federal Working Group of the Länder Media Authorities (ALM) serves as an umbrella organization of the media authorities in the Länder. 22. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Sell notes: ‘I had the idea to form a limited company which should include the public broadcasters, the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and the group of freelancers employed by the public corporations. The group of freelancers was represented by [Alexander] Kluge. This would have been an alternative to the regulation of private broadcasters by the Land broadcasting law. What still remains is the DCTP. The private operators have certain minimum programme requirements in the area of information and the DCTP produces programmes for these slots’ (interview with the author, 20 January 2007). The Development Company for Television 288 Notes

Programme (DCTP) serves as a platform for independent third parties in German commercial television. It is led by Kluge. 23. According to Jobst Plog: ‘The process [of licensing commercial broadcasters], fostered by [Ernst] Albrecht and [Klaus von] Dohnanyi, failed to improve the North’s competitiveness as a location of business. These pioneers obviously weren’t clever enough to secure positive effects for regional economic policy … How many jobs were created in Hamburg? The answer is none; maybe some in the beginning – Premiere was based in Hamburg; Sat.1, although based in Rhineland-Palatinate, was strongly represented in Hamburg – but these all migrated’ (interview with the author, 30 January 2007). 24. Interview with the author, 2007. 25. Broadly, this system is still prevalent today. RTL and Sat.1 are obliged to deliver a daily regional programme between 5.30 and 6 p.m. Initially designed for terrestrial frequencies, regional obligations continued in the amendments of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty. 26. For the bargaining processes leading to the Treaty see Glotz and Kopp (1987) as well as Porter and Hasselbach (1991: 18–25). 27. The Treaty contains general provisions applying to both public service and commercial broadcasting, as well as provisions exclusively applicable to public service broadcasters, and provisions applying only to commercial broadcasting. Up to now it has been amended fifteen times. The Twelfth Amendment expanded the remit of the Treaty from broadcasting to telemedia. This involved changing its official title from Interstate Broadcasting Treaty to Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia. (To simplify matters, the Treaty is always referred to as Interstate Broadcasting Treaty.) Only the newest amendment of the Treaty, passed by all Länder parliaments, is the legally binding working text. At the time of writing this is the Thirteenth Amendment. Three separate pieces of legislation apply alongside the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty: Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Finance (Rundfunkfinanzierungsstaatsvertrag), Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Fees (Rundfunkgebührenstaatsvertrag) and Interstate Broadcasting Treaty on the Protection of Minors (Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag). 28. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 29. Shortly after the deal the ZDF, under Intendant Dieter Stolte (1982–2002), negotiated a large-scale film package deal with Kirch, reinvigorating his market position (Radtke 1996: 136). 30. Whereas, before 1975, the public corporations submitted a finance plan once in four years, after the KEF establishment such a plan was due every second year. This ‘permanent vindication’ was criticized as an attack on the federal character underlying the ARD organization (Von Sell 1978: 26). For the politicization of the KEF and the incompatibility of independent regulatory agencies with the German legal tradition and administrative culture see the excellent account of Meier (2008). 31. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 32. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 33. Historisches Archiv des WDR, Unverzeichneter Bestand Friedrich-Wilhelm von Sell, Aktentitel: ‘ARD Allgemein: Ausländische Rundfunkanstalten A–F’. 34. As the files of the WDR archive suggest, there were vivid and extremely cordial contacts between Klaus von Bismarck (WDR Intendant 1961–76) and Notes 289

Hugh Greene. Under von Sell exchanges with the BBC became much more rare (Historisches Archiv des WDR, Unverzeichneter Bestand Klaus von Bismarck, Aktentitel: ‘Korrespondenz mit ausländischen Rundfunkanstalten in Europa’; Unverzeichneter Bestand Friedrich-Wilhelm von Sell, Aktentitel: ‘Dienstreisen von Sell/Deetz’). 35. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 36. According to von Sell, ‘[t]he cable pilot project in Dortmund formed the basis for studio Dortmund which the WDR enlarged in the course of regionalization’ (interview with the author, 20 January 2007). 37. In 2010 the WDR simultaneously broadcast eleven regional opt-outs. For the year 2009, this accumulated to 1,831 hours of first-aired Lokalzeit programmes and 2,332 hours of Lokalzeit repeats. The Lokalzeit audience rating for the first half-year in 2010 amounts to 21.1 per cent, securing the WDR first place on the list of audience ratings between 7.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. Particular regional news is valued highly by the broadcaster and amounts to more than one third of the total WDR broadcasting hours (Seidl 2006: 9). 38. However, in contrast to the WDR, in some cases commercial broadcasters failed to find their market niche. Drawing on the example of the news channel NTV, Schwarz-Schilling notes: ‘I think that the failure of some of these broadcasters is a consequence of our obsolete quota system which ignores the fact that specific groups need to be addressed in more distinct ways. That’s more effective than large-scale advertising. Quota calculations need to apply different standards in this regard’ (interview with the author, 5 March 2007). 39. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007.

16 Reunification and Consolidation (1990–2004)

1. The point of departure for the Sixth Broadcasting Judgement (BVerfGE 83, 238) were the complaints of the CDU and FDP against the WDR Treaty as well as the 1987 broadcasting law of North Rhine-Westphalia. CDU and FDP criticized the approval to allow the WDR the engagement in public–private partnerships, which enabled the WDR to realize substantial advertising revenues that were assumed to give commercial broadcasters a competitive disadvan- tage. The point at issue was to clarify which services fell under the remit of public service broadcasters. Apart from that, the complainants criticized the, according to their view, too-excessive requirements commercial broadcasters needed to fulfil. In the ruling the Court was concerned with ‘the degree of legislative discretion individual Länder might exercise to organize the rela- tionship between private and public in the new “dual” system’ (Humphreys 1994: 341). The decision, announced on 5 February 1991, reconfirmed the public broadcasters’ guarantee for existence and development. The Court’s dynamic interpretation of ‘basic service’ also meant that the public broadcasters were entitled to make use of new transmission technologies in order to fulfil their PSB remit. Furthermore, the Court approved public–private partnerships and mixed financing schemes, though ruling out advertising as the main source of funding. With the decision the Court reconfirmed Länder competence for enacting their respective broadcasting laws. 290 Notes

2. The Seventh Broadcasting Judgement (BVerfGE 87, 181) was concerned with the finance of public broadcasting, in particular advertising on the Third Channels. With the exception of the Third Channel of the HR, the Third Channels were not allowed to transmit advertisements. This exceptional rule ceased to exist with an amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Staatsvertrag über den Rundfunk im vereinten Deutschland), effective from 1 January 1992. The HR, however, complained against the amendment. In the decision, announced on 6 October 1992, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the complaint, stressing that the legislator may ban advertisements as a supplementary revenue source, given that the finance of the broadcasting corporation(s) is sufficient to enable the public broadcaster(s) to fulfil their special remit. 3. The Treuhandanstalt (1990–4) was installed by the FRG with the remit to privatize the nationalized industries following principles of the free market economy. In the majority of cases, large West German businesses took over GDR firms for a fraction of their value, receiving state subsidies on top. This also involved the closure of businesses, resulting from the low productivity rate in the centrally planned economy. The Treuhandanstalt was criticized for widespread malpractice, fraud and corruption (see Dale 2004: 314–32). When negotiating with the Treuhandanstalt for a site for the Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg (ORB), the newly founded PSB organization for the Land Brandenburg, von Sell notes: ‘The Treuhand didn’t appear as an independent authority but acted as a conduit for various interests to flow throughout the organization. The management permanently changed, due to fraud, intrigues and so on. It felt like the Wild West. Negotiations, hence, were extremely difficult’ (interview with the author, 20 January 2007). 4. According to von Sell, ‘[w]hen Mühlfenzl, following orders from Kohl, took over the GDR broadcasting system, it was unconstitutional. The whole operation was at odds with article 5 of the German Basic Law. The freedom of the press was flouted’ (interview with the author, 30 January 2007). 5. In the beginning, leading MDR posts were almost exclusively staffed with Conservative personnel from the old Länder (Streul 1999: 907). In 1991 the MDR joined the ARD. Currently, 52 per cent of the MDR Broadcasting Council members are government appointees. This composition suggests that it is at odds with the constitutional requirement of broadcasting freedom from state interference (Hahn 2010: 188–9). 6. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 7. In fact, there was some division of labour between von Sell and Gerhard Hirschfeld, formerly chief editor of Vorwärts. Whereas Hirschfeld was mainly responsible for negotiations with the SFB, dealing with frequencies and the exchange of programme material, von Sell sometimes negotiated with the Land parliament and Treuhandanstalt. 8. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 9. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 10. In order to reach agreement Lower Saxony made concessions which divorced it from its privilege to overrule the other Länder in the Administrative Council (Streul 1999: 914). 11. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 12. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. Notes 291

13. Apart from the majority vote, one member voted for the status quo and another two members favoured a solution in which each of the three Länder concerned would have a single broadcasting corporation (Report 1970: 259–71). 14. The large number of branches and regional studios follows from the SWR’s requirement to be considerate of ‘the interests of the Rhinelander from Remagen, near Bonn, and the Upper Swabian from Wengen, Allgaeu. Such large regional culture differences exist neither in the case of the NDR nor WDR, both in size comparable to a three-Länder corporation [in South West Germany]’ (Report 1970: 260). 15. Interview with the author, 7 December 2006. 16. After reunification the SFB catered for the whole of Berlin (West and East). 17. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 18. Von Sell notes: ‘One prerequisite [for an ORB/SFB merger] was that both corporations needed to negotiate on a par with each other. The SFB was arrogant and socialized by the long-standing sway of politics. First, therefore, the ORB needed to evolve into a similarly strong corporation’ (interview with the author, 20 January 2007). For example, the SFB had the habit of charging other ARD corporations for the use of its own programme material at exorbitant cost, undermining the cooperative federal arrangement within the ARD. This attitude possibly derived from the fact that Berlin had been the former seat of the GDR Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED) government and was now the capital of the FRG. 19. The RegTP assumed federal responsibilities for telecommunications. In 2003 energy markets also fell under its regulatory umbrella (Gilardi 2008: 128). In 2005 the RegTP expanded into the Federal Cartel Office and was given com- petences over all network industries (telecommunications, postal services, gas, electricity and railways) (Müller 2006: 278). 20. The case history of the Eighth Broadcasting Judgement (BVerfGE 90, 60) is a complaint against an extra fee of DM0.20 (Kabelgroschen) which had been added since 1982 to the licence fee in order to finance the cable pilot projects. The fee was criticized as not being part of the public service remit, bringing up the question of whether the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting Fees of 1982 was legitimate and whether the complainants were authorized to assess redemptions. The Federal Constitutional Court had to deal with the questions of whether the process of settling the licence fee via an interstate broadcasting treaty, which eventually needed to be accepted by the Länder parliaments, meant an interference in the freedom of broadcasting as determined by article 5 of the German Basic Law. In the decision, announced on 22 February 1994, the Court defined that the process of settling the licence fee must enable the public broadcasters to cater for their ‘basic service’ remit. It must also guarantee freedom from the state and independence with respect to programming. Acting on the assumption that the then current proceeding was not sufficient for these requirements, the Court developed a three-stage cooperative proceeding, presenting a workable constitutional finance mechanism, insulated from political interference. In the ruling the Court also made new provisions for the composition of the KEF, enlarging its independence from the state. The KEF was initially composed of four representatives of the Länder chancelleries (Staatskanzleien), four representatives 292 Notes

of the Länder accounting offices (Landesrechnungshöfe), four independent experts as well as one chairman without voting power. As a consequence of the judgement, the composition changed as follows: five representatives of the Länder chancelleries, five representatives of the Länder accounting offices, six independent experts as well as one chairman without voting power. 21. Dörr (1998), furthermore, notes the appeals procedure contradicts the ideal of freedom from state intervention. 22. Jobst Plog regards the establishment of the KEK as a means to push the issue of media concentration away from parliament, noting: ‘The legislator has not dared to deal with the problem of concentration in the media. Who is going to take on the major actors in the media? The political will to fight such large lobbies is not developed’ (interview with the author, 30 January 2007). 23. Premiere Digital initially offered three digital channels whereas DF1 included far more channels but offered less premium content. Initial DF1 services were only available via the Astra satellite. However, fairly soon the channels were also fed into the cable network. 24. The following digital public broadcasting channels were launched in 1997: EinsExtra, EinsFestival, EinsMuXx, ZDFinfokanal and ZDFdokukanal. 25. Following a German particularity that content providers pay carriers for feeding in their channels and not the other way around, the box which set the technical standard would also generate royalties. 26. Certainly helpful in this regard was Leo Kirch’s friendship with Helmut Kohl. The d-box technology was also supported by Wolfgang Bötsch (CDU), Minister for Post and Telecommunications (1993–7). D-box decoders originally cost DM890 and could be rented for a monthly charge. 27. The history behind the Tenth Broadcasting Judgement (BVerfGE 97, 228), delivered in 1998, was a complaint by the Federal Government under Kohl (CDU) against the WDR law and the broadcasting law in North Rhine- Westphalia. Both settlements allowed the public broadcasters and free-to- air stations short coverage (90 seconds) of events of public interest free of charge. Beforehand, in some cases exclusive rights were given to pay-TV providers which, however, when the action was filed, did not feature nationwide availability and thus failed to provide for universal coverage. The right of coverage, free of charge, undermining pay-TV channel’s exclusivity and economy, stand vis-à-vis the public interest for comprehensive information. In the decision, delivered on 17 February 1998, the Federal Constitutional Court stressed the importance of free access to information for the public and cautioned against monopolies of information which are fostered by the increasing commercialization of information and the media. At the same time, the Court turned against the ‘free of charge’ rule and declared a rea- sonable fee justified. This ruling is not necessarily included in the canon of major broadcasting freedom decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (see Witteman 2010: 120–1). 28. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 29. In 1998, after 16 years in power, Helmut Kohl lost the General Election to Gerhard Schröder (SPD). Not a single broadcasting decision of the Federal Constitutional Court fell within the time of the SPD/Green Party coalition government (1998–2005). Notes 293

30. Whereas the US company Liberty Media had offered Telekom a5.5 billion for the sale of the networks, the deal was prohibited on competition grounds by the European Commission. In 2003, a consortium led by Goldman Sachs eventually bought the networks. 31. According to Eberhard Witte the sell-off occurred ‘far too late and one would have needed to force the Telekom to sell much earlier’ (interview with the author, 16 April 2007).

17 Centralized Governance, the Three-Step Test and Beyond (2004 onwards)

1. In order to permit the takeover the KEK demanded that Springer divide ProSiebenSat.1 and, subsequently, sell off one of the two broadcasters. 2. Interview with the author, 2007. 3. Whereas Saban had taken over the company in spring 2003 for a525 million it was sold three and a half years later for a3.1 billion. 4. After reunification the FRG featured fifteen Länder media authorities. When the Länder Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein reached agreement about a common authority, on 1 March 2007, they established the Medienanstalt Hamburg Schleswig Holstein, reducing the total number of Länder media authorities to fourteen. 5. Interview with the author, 2007. 6. The KEF delivers its recommendations about the amount of the future licence fee and the actual date of the settlement once in four years. It delivers an interim report after two years. 7. Interview with the author, 30 January 2007. 8. ARD and ZDF started to run advertisements on their services in the mid-1950s and continuously increased their respective revenues. 9. The Twelfth Broadcasting Judgement (BVerfGE 119, 181) was the last judgement that Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, a strong advocate of the public service ethos, accounted for before he retired as judge of the Federal Constitutional Court. 10. Whereas the BBC’s website is not only domestically one of the most visited websites but also globally, the ARD’s website records only about one-third of the page views of its commercial competitor http://www.spiegel.de and no more than one-sixth of the page views which http://www.bild.de records (Woldt 2011: 75). 11. The telemedia concept, as used in German-speaking cyberlaw terminology, comprises all electronic information and telecommunication services, including (almost) all online activities. It currently excludes internet TV and internet telephony. Apart from the Three-Step Test, the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty stipulates that the PSB organizations may not provide content similar to that of the press, except if it is programme-related. The Treaty specified that the public corporations may only make programmes available online for a limited time: between 24 hours and up to seven days. Coverage of major sporting events may only be made available online for 24 hours. Another key concern of the Treaty is that commercial activities of the public broadcasters must be in line with the market in order not to 294 Notes

undermine commercial operators and distort competition. Compliance with this requirement is checked by the Länder audit courts. 12. As Löblich’s (2011) qualitative content analysis of press coverage of the Twelfth Amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty exemplifies, the publishers regard unlimited PSB online expansion with mistrust because it affects their own business models. 13. Responding to the increasing migration of advertising budgets into internet businesses and online ventures, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty, signed on 30 October 2009 and coming into effect on 1 April 2010, implements further EU specifications. As laid out in the Treaty, public broadcasters may only show product placements in bought-in programmes, but not in their own productions, nor in contracted productions. Commercial broadcasters may also engage in product placements in their own productions. The Länder media authorities are in charge of monitoring these specifications. 14. For example, on 1 January 2011 MTV Germany migrated from a free-to-air programme into pay-TV. 15. Interview with the author, 2007.

18 Interdependencies between Public and Private Sector

1. Beforehand, the BBC became the first nationalized industry and as such a role model for those ‘concerned with planning the extension of public ownership into wider fields’ in the UK (Kinchin Smith 1978: 32). 2. The Home Office held responsibility for broadcasting policy issues and the DTI for radio frequency and telecommunications matters (MacDonald 2003: 4). 3. Länder media laws, for example, contain Länder-based production quotas for the commercial broadcasters licensed in their jurisdictions. 4. Alongside the Treaty, three separate pieces of legislation apply that make provisions for broadcasting finance, broadcasting fees and the protection of minors. 5. By May 2011 the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty has been amended fifteen times. However, the Fourteenth Amendment has not been ratified in North Rhine-Westphalia and thus failed. The BBC is currently in its ninth Charter period which will end on 31 December 2016. 6. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty completes the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive into domestic media law in Germany. 7. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 8. In 2009 the licence fee was supported by 43 per cent of the population, against 24 per cent who think advertising should foot the bill. Another 30 per cent favour subscription (J. Glover, ‘Public rejects Murdoch view of BBC, says ICM poll’, The Guardian, 5 September 2009). 9. Interview with the author, 20 January 2007. 10. However, as noted by Alan Peacock: ‘The BBC’s attitude to the market is very simple. If it is impossible for them to dominate it, they will oppose it. In cases where they dominate it anyway they exploit their monopoly power. Notes 295

The most astonishing thing about the BBC is that they advertise themselves; and that is not regarded by them as advertising. They also cross-subsidize, which is again anti-competitive. In areas where they are in competition, like orchestras and music, they cross-subsidize publication. So they are acting highly anti-competitively but they can get away with it. We do not want to have somebody dictating to the BBC in detail what they should do. What we should be doing is to create a market situation where the BBC has to meet consumer demand more directly’ (interview with the author, 26 April 2006). 11. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006.

19 Centralization vs. Federalism: Implications and Responses

1. In fact, it was left to the ITA to translate the requirements outlined in the Television Act 1954. A regional structure per se, however, was inevitable. 2. Interview with the author, 11 October 2006. 3. Interview with the author, 11 July 2006. 4. The early development of London-centric media is rooted in the British railways development in the early to mid-nineteenth century, which allowed the London press to rapidly dominate what had previously been regional centres of newspaper production. The broadcasting structure, hence, follows the historic press development towards nationalism (Lee 1978: 119).

20 The Market and the State

1. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 2. In a way, the practice of appointing committees of inquiry was phased out with the rise of independent regulatory agencies which favour economic over social regulation. 3. Interview with the author, 2007. 4. While, for example, about 5,000 people followed the invitation to respond to the first phase of the BBC Charter review in 2004, the BBC’s decision to broadcast the programme Jerry Springer the Opera (2005) provoked as many as 65,000 people to contact the Corporation (Freedman 2006: 15). 5. Richard Cockett (1995: 6) argues that the key distinction between bodies of political thought in the UK has been the divide between ‘ideological cycles of liberalism vs. collectivism’. The first cycle, lasting from the 1760s to the 1880s, comprised the ‘triumph of liberalism over feudalism and mercantil- ism’ (Cockett 1995: 6). ‘The second cycle began in the 1880s and ended in the mid-1970s, and can be divided into the period 1880 to the 1930s when the ideological battle against liberalism was fought and won, and the periods of the 1940s to the 1970s when collectivism, premised on Fabianism and Keynesianism, was the ruling orthodoxy of all parties and governments. The third cycle began in the 1930s and is still in progress. The first part of this cycle … was the period of the 1930s to the 1970s when the ideological battle for liberalism against collectivism was, again, fought and won; the second 296 Notes

part of the cycle, the period of the late 1970s to the early 1990s, when the new political economy became the ruling orthodoxy of all parties and governments, is still extant’ (Cockett 1995: 6). 6. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 7. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 8. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 9. Besides the increase of television channels and new programmes, which followed from the licensing of commercial operators, the second similarly apparent example for the overall good of telecommunications liberaliza- tions was phone tariffs. Until 1995 dictated by the monopolist Deutsche Bundespost, and after the second Postreform (1994) by Deutsche Telekom, prices substantially drifted down after competition was allowed in the field. 10. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 11. Interview with the author, 26 April 2006. 12. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 13. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 14. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 15. Interview with the author, 16 April 2007. 16. Interview with the author, 5 March 2007. 17. For example, the evolution of the present PSB finance system complemented by competition for (licence fee) funding draws on the concept of consumer sovereignty (Potschka 2011b: 117). Bibliography

Interviews and correspondence

Benn, Tony, interview with the author, 21 March 2006, London. Detjen, Claus, interview with the author, 9 February 2007, Schwäbisch Hall. Doetz, Jürgen, interview with the author, 4 April 2007, Berlin. Dyke, Greg, interview with the author, 4 July 2006, London. Elstein, David, email to the author, 12 May 2006. Hurd, Douglas, interview with the author, 11 May 2006, London. Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang, letter to the author, 16 April 2007. Hoggart, Richard, interview with Jim McGuigan, 8 December 2003, Norwich. Isaacs, Jeremy, interview with the author, 12 April 2006, London. Kaufman, Gerald, interview with the author, 11 July 2006, London. Krönig, Jürgen, interview with the author, 19 March 2007, London. MacDonald, Barrie, interview with the author, 21 June 2006, London. Peacock, Alan, interview with the author, 26 April 2006, Edinburgh. Plog, Jobst, interview with the author, 30 January 2007, Hamburg. Schütz, Walter, interview with the author, 7 December 2006, Berlin. Schwarz-Schilling, Christian, interview with the author, 5 March 2007, Büdingen. Smith, Anthony, interview with the author, 23 May 2006, London. Smith, Chris, email to the author, 6 March 2006. Stein, Eckart, interview with the author, 8 November 2006, Mainz. Thomson, George, interview with the author, 11 October 2006, London. Vogel, Bernhard, interview with the author, 18 December 2006, Berlin. Von Hase, Karl-Günther, interview with the author, 25 October 2006, Bonn. Von Sell, Friedrich-Wilhelm, interview with the author, 20 January 2007, Berlin. Witte, Eberhard, interview with the author, 16 April 2007, Munich.

Archival sources

Files from BArch, BBC WAC, DRA, Historisches Archiv des WDR, State Provision for Social Need (Beveridge Collection).

Newspaper articles

Die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, The Guardian, The Observer, The Sunday Times, The Times.

Official documents

Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

297 298 Bibliography

Government publications and other official documents

Broadcasting Policy (1946) (White Paper), London: HMSO, Cmnd. 6852. Cabinet Office (1982) Cable Systems (ITAP Report), London: HMSO. Commission of the European Communities (2007) ‘Services of General Interest, including Social Services of General Interest: A new European Commitment’. COM (2007) 725 final. Council of the European Communities (1989) Council Directive of 3 October, 89/552/EEC, in Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 298/23. DCMS (2006) Royal Charter for the Continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation, London: HMSO, Cm. 6925. DCMS (2011) Local Media Action Plan, 19 January, London: DCMS. DCMS/Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2009) Digital Britain. Final Report, June, Norwich: The Stationery Office. DCMS/DTI (1998) Regulating Communications in the Information Age (Green Paper), London: DCMS/DTI, Cm. 4022. DCMS/DTI (2000) A New Future of Communications (White Paper), London: HMSO, Cm. 5010. DNH (1992) The Future of the BBC: A Consultation Document (Green Paper), London: HMSO, Cm. 2098. DNH (1994) The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation, Competing World-wide (White Paper), London: HMSO, Cm. 2621. DNH (1995a) Media Ownership: The Government’s Proposals, London: HMSO, Cm. 2872. DNH (1995b) Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting, London: HMSO, Cm. 2946. European Commission (1997) Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, and the Implications for Regulation, COM(97)623, Brussels. European Commission (2009a) ‘State aid: Commission updates rules for state funding of public broadcasters’, 2 July, IP/09/1072, Brussels. European Commission (2009b) ‘Communication from the Commission on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting’, Official Journal of the European Union, C 257/01: 1–14. Home Office (1981) Direct Broadcasting by Satellite, London: HMSO. Home Office (1988) Broadcasting in the 90s: Competition, Choice and Quality, London: HMSO, Cm. 517. KtK (1976) Telekommunikationsbericht, Bundesministerium für das Post und Fernmeldewesen (ed.), Bonn: Hans Heger. Memorandum (1952) Memorandum on the Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949, London: HMSO, Cmd. 8550. Office of Fair Trading (1996) Review of BSkyB’s Position in the Wholesale Pay TV Market, London: Office of Fair Trading. Peacock, A. T. (1993b) ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before the National Heritage Committee’, 19585 C6 7/93 118277, 25 May, London: HMSO, pp. 36–41. Post Office (1926) ‘Historical Summary of the Broadcasting Service in Great Britain’. In: Report (1926), Appendix II, London: HMSO, Cmd. 2599. Report (1923) Broadcasting Committee: Report (Sykes Report), London: HMSO. Cmd. 1951. Report (1926) Report of the Committee on Broadcasting 1925 (Crawford Report), London: HMSO, Cmd. 2599. Bibliography 299

Report (1935) Report of the Television Committee (Selsdon Report), London: HMSO, Cmd. 4793. Report (1936) Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1935 (Ullswater Report), London: HMSO, Cmd. 5091. Report (1951) Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949 (Beveridge Report), London: HMSO, Cmd. 8116. Report (1962) Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960 (Pilkington Report), London: HMSO, Cmnd. 1753. Report (1967) Report of the Michel Commission I (Bericht der Kommission zur Untersuchung der Wettbewerbsgleichheit von Presse, Funk/Fernsehen und Film), Drucksache V/2120 Deutscher Bundestag, 5. Wahlperiode. Report (1977) Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting (Annan Report), London: HMSO, Cmnd. 6753. Report (1982) Report of the Inquiry into Cable Expansion and Broadcasting Policy (Hunt Report), London: Home Office. Report (1986) Report of the Committee on the Financing of the BBC (Peacock Report), London: HMSO, Cmnd. 9824. Report (1999) Report of the Independent Review Panel, The Future Funding of the BBC (Davies Report), London: DCMS. Report (2002) Report of the Puttnam Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, Volume I, HMSO London, HL Paper 169-I, HC876-I. Report (2010) First Report of the House of Lords Communications Committee: The British Film and Television Industries. Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport (1998) The Multi-Media Revolution, Fourth Report, London: HMSO, HC 520-I. Zwischenbericht (1983) Zwischenbericht der Enquete-Kommission ‘Neue Informations- und Kommunikationstechniken’, Drucksache 9/2442, Deutscher Bundestag, 9. Wahlperiode.

Reports of broadcasters and regulators

BBC (1992) Extending Choice: The BBC’s Role in the New Broadcasting Age, London: BBC. BBC (1995) Report and Accounts 1994/95, London: BBC. BBC (1996) Extending Choice in the Digital Age, London: BBC. BBC (2004) Building Public Value: Renewing the BBC for a Digital World, London: BBC. BBC (2010) Putting Quality First: The BBC and Public Space, Proposals to the BBC Trust, March, London: BBC. BBC Trust (2010) The BBC’s Strategy: Putting Quality First, December. IBA (1988) Independent Television Now – and in the ’90s, London: IBA. ITC (1995) Media Ownership. ITC Response to the Government’s Proposals, London: ITC. ITA (1957) Annual Report and Accounts, London: HMSO. KEF (2009) 17. KEF-Bericht, Mainz: KEF. Ofcom (2004) Ofcom Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting. Phase 2: Meeting the Digital Challenge, London: Ofcom. Ofcom (2005) Ofcom Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting. Phase 3: Competition for Quality, London: Ofcom. 300 Bibliography

Ofcom (2008a) Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review. Phase 1: The Digital Opportunity, London: Ofcom. Ofcom (2008b) Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review. Phase 2: Preparing for the Digital Future, London: Ofcom. Ofcom (2009) Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review: Putting Viewers First, London: Ofcom. Ofcom (2010a) Review of ITV Networking Arrangements, 16 December, London: Ofcom. Ofcom (2010b) The Communications Market: Digital Progress Report, Digital TV, Q3 2010, London: Ofcom.

Other broadcasting reports

Adam Smith Institute (1984) Communications Policy (Omega Report), London: Adam Smith Institute. Bericht (1987) Bericht der Projektkommission Kabelpilotprojekt München (Berichterstatter Eberhard Witte), München: J. Jehle. Deloitte (2010) The Economic Impact of the BBC: 2008/09. A Report for the BBC, London: Deloitte LLP. Kirchhof, P. (2010) Gutachten über die Finanzierung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks, Erstattet im Auftrag der ARD, des ZDF und D Radio, Heidelberg. Report (1970) Report of the Michel Kommission II (Bericht der Kommission zur Untersuchung der rundfunkpolitischen Entwicklung im südwestdeutschen Raum), Kornwestheim. Report (2004) Report of the Independent Review of BBC Online (Graf Report). Von Sell, F. W. (2001) Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zu der Frage, ob das Prüfungsrecht des Landesrechnungshofs Brandenburg gegenüber dem ORB erweitert werden soll, Bezug: Beschluss des Landtages Brandenburg, Drucksache 3/2160-B.

Secondary sources

Albarran, A., Chan-Olmsted, S. and Wirth, M. (eds.) (2006) Handbook of Media Management and Economics, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alexander, J. C. (1981) ‘The Mass News Media in Systemic, Historical, and Comparative Perspective’, in E. Katz and T. Szecskö (eds.) Mass Media and Social Change, London: Sage, pp. 17–51. Altes, B. (2000) ‘Paradigmenwechsel in der europäischen Fusionskontrolle?’, Media Perspektiven 11: 482–90. Anderson, P. and Mann, N. (1997) Safety First: The Making of New Labour, London: Granta Books. Annan, N. (Lord) (1981) ‘The Politics of a Broadcasting Enquiry’, The 1981 Ulster Television Lecture, 29 May, Queen’s University of Belfast. Armstrong, M. and Weeds, H. (2007) ‘Public Service Broadcasting in the Digital World’, in P. Seabright and J. von Hagen (eds.) The Economic Regulation of Broadcasting Markets, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–149. Aufderheide, P. (1999) Communications Policy and the Public Interest, New York: Guildford Press. Bibliography 301

Bagdikian, B. H. (2004) The New Media Monopoly, Boston: Beacon Press. Baker, E. C. (1998) ‘The Media that Citizens Need’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 147(2): 317–408. Baker, E. C. (2002) Media, Markets and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, E. C. (2007) Media Concentration and Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press. Balfour, M. (1979) Propaganda in War 1939–1945: Organisations, Policies and Publics in Britain and Germany, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Baring, A. (1969) Außenpolitik in Adenauers Kanzlerdemokratie, München: Oldenbourg. Barnett, S. (2009) ‘Media Ownership Policy in a Recession. Redefining the Public Interest’, Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture 1(2): 217–32. Barnett, S. and Curry, A. (1994) The Battle for the BBC, London: Aurum Press. Bausch, H. (1956) Der Rundfunk im politischen Kräftespiel der Republik 1923–1933, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Bausch, H. (1980a) ‘Föderalismus in Rundfunkgeschichte und Rundfunkpolitik’, in W. Hoffmann-Riem and D. Roß (eds.) Strukturfragen des Rundfunks in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Hamburg: Hans-Bredow Institut, pp. 66–76. Bausch, H. (1980b) Rundfunk in Deutschland, Band 3, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Bausch, H. (1980c) Rundfunk in Deutschland, Band 4, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Benn, T. (1987) Out of the Wilderness: Diaries 1963–67, London: Hutchinson. Benneworth, P. et al. (2006) ‘The Rise of the English Regions: An Introduction’, in I. Hardill, P. Benneworth, M. Baker and L. Budd (eds.) The Rise of the English Regions?, London: Routledge, pp. 3–21. Berg, K. (1987) ‘The Fourth Broadcasting Judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court’, EBU Review 38(3): 37–43. Berg, K. (1988) ‘The Inter-Land Treaty on the Reform of the Broadcasting System in the FRG, and the fifth decision of the Constitutional Court’, EBU Review 39(2): 40–9. Betzel, M. and Ward, D. (2004) ‘The Regulation of Public Service Broadcasters in Western Europe’, Trends in Communication 12(1): 47–62. Beveridge, W. H. (1953) Power and Influence, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Birt, J. (2002) The Harder Path, London: Time Warner. Blumler, J. G. and Gurevitch, M. (1995) The Crisis of Public Communication, London: Routledge. Blumler, J. G. and Hoffmann-Riem, W. (1992) ‘New Roles for Public Service Television’, in J. G. Blumler (ed.) Television and the Public Interest, London: Sage, pp. 202–17. Bonner, P. and Aston, L. (1998) Independent Television in Britain, Vol. 5, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Born, G. (2004) Uncertain Vision, London: Secker & Warburg. Böttger, J. (1994) Der NDR – Ein Programm zwischen Kulturauftrag und Medienalltag, Berlin: Pro Universitate. Brack, H. (1961) ‘NWDR, NWRV, WDR – Der Rundfunk zwischen Bund und Ländern 1948 bis 31.03.1961’, in WDR Jahrbuch 1960/61, Köln: WDR. 302 Bibliography

Brandt, W. (1969) ‘Regierungserklärung vom 28. Oktober 1969’, in K. von Beyme (ed.) Die großen Regierungserklärungen der deutschen Bundeskanzler (1998), München: Carl Hanser, pp. 251–81. Briggs, A. (1961) The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Vol. 1, London: Oxford University Press. Briggs, A. (1965) The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Vol. 2, London: Oxford University Press. Briggs, A. (1979) The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Vol. 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briggs, A. (1995) The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Vol. 5, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briggs, A. and Spicer, J. (1986) The Franchise Affair, London: Century. Brittan, S. (1991) ‘Towards a Broadcasting Market: Recommendations of the British Peacock Committee’, in J. Blumler and T. J. Nossiter (eds.) Broadcasting Finance in Transition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–58. Budge, I., Crewe, I., McKay, D. and Newton, K. (2007) The New British Politics, Harlow: Pearson, 4th edition. Burk, K. and Cairncross, A. (1992) ‘Good-bye’ Great Britain’: The 1976 IMF Crisis, New Haven: Yale University Press. Burns, T. (1977) The BBC: Public Institution and Private World, London: Macmillan. Cain, J. (1992) The BBC: 70 Years of Broadcasting, London: BBC. Caine, S. (1963) Prices for Primary Producers, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Caine, S. (1968) Paying for TV?, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Catterall, P. (ed.) (1999) The Making of Channel 4, London: Frank Cass. Cave, M. and Williamson, P. (2000) ‘The Reregulation of British Broadcasting’, in M. Bishop, J. Kay and C. Mayer (eds.) The Regulatory Challenge, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–90. Chakravartty, P. and Sarikakis, K. (2006) Media Policy and Globalization, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Clayton, D. (2010) ‘Advertising Expenditure in 1950s Britain’, Business History 52(4): 651–5. Coase, R. H. (1947), ‘The Origin of the Monopoly of Broadcasting in Great Britain’, Economica 14(53–56): 189–210. Coase, R. H. (1948) ‘Wire Broadcasting in Great Britain’, Economica 15(57–60): 194–220. Coase, R. H. (1950) British Broadcasting: A Study in Monopoly, London: Longman. Cockett, R. (1995) Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931–83, London: Fontana. Collins, R. (2007) ‘The BBC and “Public Value”’, Medien- und Kommunikations- wissenschaft 55(2): 164–84. Collins, R. (2009) ‘Die BBC, das Internet und Public Value’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 9–10: 32–8. Collins, R. and Murroni, C. (1996) New Media, New Polices, London: Polity Press. Collins, R. and Purnell, J. (1996) ‘The Future of the BBC’, Javnost – The Public 3: 71–80. Collins, R., Garnham, N. and Locksley, G. (1988) The Economics of Television: The UK Case, London: Sage. Bibliography 303

Conservative Party (1979) ‘General Election Manifesto 1979’, in I. Dale (ed.) Conservative Party General Election Manifestos 1900–1997 (2000), London: Routledge, pp. 265–82. Couldry, N. (2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism, London: Sage. Courts, G. (1969) ‘Aus dem Lande – für das Land. Die Fernsehregionalprogramme’, in ARD-Jahrbuch, Frankfurt am Main: ARD, pp. 143–51. Crisell, A. (2002) An Introductory History of British Broadcasting, Abingdon: Routledge, 2nd edition. Crone, M. (1975) ‘Freiheit und Kontrolle. Die Auseinandersetzung um die Novelle zum Bayerischen Rundfunkgesetz von 1972–73’, in W. B. Lerg and R. Steininger (eds.) Rundfunk und Politik 1923–1973, Berlin: Volker Spiess, pp. 439–61. Croteau, D. and Hoynes, W. (2001) The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Crouch, C. (2008) Postdemokratie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Curran, J. (2005) ‘Mediations of Democracy’, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society, London: Hodder Arnold, pp. 122–49. Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (2010) Power without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain, London: Routledge, 7th edition. Dale, G. (2004) Between State Capitalism and Globalisation: The Collapse of the East German Economy, Bern: Peter Lang. Darlow, M. (2004) Independents Struggle, London: Quartet Books. Davis, J., Fletcher, A., Goodwin, P. and Koboldt, P. (1998) ‘Industriepolitische Wunschvorstellungen bei Kabel und Satellit gescheitert’, Media Perspektiven 6/98: 298–310. Dawes, S. (2007) ‘Reducing the Difference between Citizens and Consumers: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Communications White Paper 2000’, Networking Knowledge 1(2): 1–14. Deacon, D. et al. (1999) Researching Communications, London: Bloomsbury. Denham, A. and Garnett, M. (2001) Keith Joseph, Chesham: Acumen. Detjen, C. (2002) ‘Das Schwanken der Zeitungsverleger: Zwischen Ablehnung und Engagement’, Historisch-Politische Mitteilungen 9: 209–16. De Vaus, D. (2001) Research Design in Social Research, London: Sage. Diller, A. (1980) Rundfunkpolitik im Dritten Reich, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Donders, K. (2010) ‘The Benefits of Introducing European Competition Principles into National Public Broadcasting Policy’, Info 12(6): 56–68. Donders, K and Pauwels, C. (2008) ‘Does EU Policy Challenge the Digital Future of Public Service Broadcasting?’, Convergence 14: 295–311. Donders, K. and Pauwels, C. (2010) The Introduction of an ex ante Evaluation for New Media Services: Is “Europe” asking for it, or does Public Service Broadcasting need it?’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 6(2): 133–48. Donges, P. (2007a) Von der Medienpolitik zur Media Governance?, Köln: Halem. Donges, P. (2007b) ‘The New Institutionalism as a Theoretical Foundation of Media Governance’, Communications 32: 325–30. Dörr, D. (1998) ‘Die KEK – ein taugliches Instrument zur Bekämpfung der Medienkonzentration?’, Media Perspektiven 2: 54–60. Doyle, G. (2002) Understanding Media Economics, London: Sage. 304 Bibliography

Doyle, G. and Vick, D. W. (2005) ‘The Communications Act 2003: A New Regulatory Framework in the UK’, Convergence 11(3): 75–94. Dürr, E.W. (1954) Wesen und Ziele des Ordoliberalismus, Winterthur: Keller. Dussel, K. (2001) ‘Rundfunk in Baden und Württemberg – Rundfunk für Baden und Württemberg? Regionalität als Herausforderung’, in W. Klinger and E. Lersch (eds.) Regionalisierung im Rundfunk, Konstanz: UVK, pp. 111–23. Dussel, K. (2004) Deutsche Rundfunkgeschichte, Stuttgart: UTB. Dyke, G. (2004) Inside Story, London: HarperCollins. Eckersley, P. P. (1941) The Power Behind the Microphone, London: Jonathan Cape. Eifert, M. (2007) ‘Gebührenurteil: Die Bedeutung liegt in der Kontinuität. Anmerkungen zum Rundfunkgebührenurteil des BVerfG’, Media Perspektiven 12: 602–7. Elstein, D. (1999a) ‘Lecture Two: Pilkington’, in The Political Structure of UK Broadcasting, 1949–1999 (Oxford Lectures), 25 February. Elstein, D. (1999b) ‘Lecture Four: Hunt’, in The Political Structure of UK Broadcasting, 1949–1999 (Oxford Lectures), 4 March. Elstein, D. (1999c) ‘Lecture Five: Peacock’, in The Political Structure of UK Broadcasting, 1949–1999 (Oxford Lectures), 9 March. Elstein, D. (1999d) ‘Lecture Seven: Davies and the Digital Licence Fee’, in The Political Structure of UK Broadcasting, 1949–1999 (Oxford Lectures), 25 November. Erk, J. (2003) ‘Federalism and Mass Media Policy in Germany’, Regional and Federal Studies 13(2): 106–26. Esser, F. and Brüggemann, M. (2010) ‘The Strategic Crisis of German Newspapers’, in D. A. Levy and R. Kleis Nielsen (eds.) The Changing Business of Journalism and its Implications for Democracy, Oxford: Reuters Institute, pp. 39–54. Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1987) National Broadcasting under Siege: A Comparative Study of Australia, Britain, Israel and West Germany, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Feigenbaum, H., Henig, J. and Hamnett, C. (1999) Shrinking the State: The Political Underpinnings of Privatization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fenton, N. (2007) ‘Bridging the Mythical Divide: Political Economy and Cultural Studies Approaches to the Analysis of Media’, in E. Devereux (ed.) Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, London: Sage, pp. 7–31. Fenton, N. (ed.) (2010) New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age, London: Sage. Ferguson, M. and Golding, P. (1997) ‘Cultural Studies and Changing Times: An Introduction’, in M. Ferguson and P. Golding (eds.) Cultural Studies in Question, London: Sage, pp. xiii–xxvii. Fessmann, I. (1973) Rundfunk und Rundfunkrecht in der Weimarer Republik, Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht. Feyerabend, E., Heidecker, H., Breisig, F. and Kruckow, A. (eds.) (1929) Handwörter- buch des elektrischen Fernmeldewesens, Erster Band, Berlin: Julius Springer. Fitzwalter, R. (2008) The Dream that Died: The Rise and Fall of ITV, Leicester: Matador. Forsthoff, E. (1938) Die Verwaltung als Leistungsträger, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Forsthoff, E. (1958) Die Daseinsvorsorge und die Kommunen, Köln: Sigillum-Verlag. Forsthoff, E. (1959) Rechtsfragen der leistenden Verwaltung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Bibliography 305

Fraser, R. (1970) ‘Independent Television: The First Fifteen Years’, in ITA Notes 21, London: ITA. Freedman, D. (1999) ‘How Her Majesty’s Opposition grew to like Commercial Television: The Labour Party and the Origins of ITV’, Media History 5(1): 19–32. Freedman, D. (2001) ‘Modernising the BBC: Wilson’s Government and Television 1964–66’, Contemporary British History 15(1): 21–40. Freedman, D. (2003) Television Policies of the Labour Party 1951–2001, London: Frank Cass. Freedman, D. (2006) ‘Neoliberalism and the Making of UK Media Policy’, paper presented at the MeCCSA conference, 13–15 January, Leeds Metropolitan University. Freedman, D. (2008) The Politics of Media Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press. Freedman, D. (2009) ‘The Public Service Publisher: An Obituary’, Journal of British Cinema and Television 6(1): 103–21. Frost, D. (1994) An Autobiography: Part One, London: HarperCollins. Fuge, J. and Wagner, H. U. (2005) ‘Das Gute liegt so nah? Föderalismus, Dezentralisierung und Regionalisierung in der NWDR-Zeit’, in P. von Rüden and H. U. Wagner (eds.) Die Geschichte des Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunks, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, pp. 207–23. Galperin, H. (2004a) ‘Beyond Interests, Ideas, and Technology: An Institutional Approach to Communication and Information Policy’, The Information Society 20: 159–68. Galperin, H. (2004b) New Television, Old Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garnham, N. (1978) Structures of Television, London: British Film Institute. Garnham, N. (1990) Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and the Economics of Information, London: Sage. Garnham, N. (2011) ‘The Political Economy of Communication Revisited’, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 41–61. Garrett, C. S. (2001) ‘Towards a New Model of German Capitalism? The Mannesmann–Vodafone Merger and its Implications’, German Politics 10(3): 83–102. Gellner, W. (1990) Ordnungspolitik im Fernsehwesen: Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Grossbritannien, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Gerlach, F. (2011) ‘Wozu (noch) föderale Medienpolitik?’, Funkkorrespondenz 22–23: 8–12. Gibbons, T. (2005) ‘Competition Policy and Regulatory Style: Issues for Ofcom’, Info 7(5): 42–51. Gilardi, F. (2008) Delegation in the Regulatory State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gledon, M. A., Carozza, P. G. and Picker, C. B. (2008) Comparative Legal Traditions, St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 3rd edition. Glotz, P. and Kopp, R. (1987) Das Ringen um den Medienstaatsvertrag der Länder, Berlin: Volker Spiess. Golding, P. and Middleton, S. (1982) Images of Welfare: Press and Public Attitudes to Poverty, Oxford: Martin Robertson. Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (2005) ‘Culture, Communications and Political Economy’, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds.) Mass Media and Society, London: Hodder Arnold, 4th edition, pp. 60–83. 306 Bibliography

Golding, P. and Van Snippenburg, L. (2005) ‘Government, Communications and the Media’, in O. Borre and E. Scarbrough (eds.) The Scope of Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 283–312. Goodwin, P. (1991) ‘The Road from Coronation Street’, Sight and Sound (Aug.): 26–8. Goodwin, P. (1998) Television under the Tories: Broadcasting Policy 1979–1997, London: British Film Institute. Gordon, L. (1937) ‘The Port of London Authority’, in W. A. Robson (ed.) Public Enterprise, London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 13–72. Gosewinkel, D. (1991) Adolf Arndt, Bonn: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf. Greene, H. C. (1965) ‘Rundfunkerfahrungen in Deutschland’, Rundfunk und Fernsehen 13(2): 119–28. Greenleaf, W. H. (1983) The British Political Tradition, Vol. 1, London: Routledge. Greiwe, U. (1994) Augstein: Ein gewisses Doppelleben, Berlin: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Grosser, A. (1979) ‘Federal Republic of Germany: From Democratic Showcase to Party Domination’, in A. Smith (ed.) Television and Political Life, London: Macmillan, pp. 114–41. Grube, S. (1975) ‘Die staatliche Programmüberwachung bei der Süddeutschen Rundfunk AG 1926–1933’, in W. B. Lerg and R. Steiniger (eds.) Rundfunk und Politik 1923 bis 1973, Berlin: Volker Spiess, pp. 19–26. Grünewald, R. (2005) Medienordnung und Bundesstaat, Berlin: Vistas. Gundlach, H. (ed.) (2011) Public Value in der Digital- und Internetökonomie, Köln: Halem. Gunther, R. and Mughan, A. (2000) ‘The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment’, in R. Gunther and A. Mughan (eds.) Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 402–48. Hahn, C. (2010) Die Aufsicht des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Halefeldt, H. O. (1997) ‘Sendegesellschaften und Rundfunkordnungen’, in J. F. Leonhard (ed.) Programmgeschichte des Hörfunks in der Weimarer Republik, Band 1, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, pp. 23–352. Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(5): 936–57. Hallin, D. C. (2009) ‘State Size as a Variable in Comparative Research’, International Communication Gazette 71(1–2): 101–3. Hallin, D. C. and Mancini, P. (2004) Comparing Media Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harcourt, A. (2002) ‘Engineering Europeanization: The Role of the European Institutions in Shaping National Media Regulations’, Journal of European Public Policy 9(5): 736–55. Harcourt, A. (2005) The European Union and the Regulation of Media Markets, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hardy, J. (2008) ‘Ofcom, Regulation and Reform’, Soundings 39: 87–97. Harris, M. and Wegg-Prosser, V. (1998) ‘The BBC and Producer Choice: A Study of Public Service Broadcasting and Managerial Change’, Wide Angle 20(2): 150–63. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bibliography 307

Harvey, S. (2006) ‘Ofcom’s First Year and Neo-liberalism’s Blind Spot: Attacking the Culture of Production’, Screen 47(1): 91–105. Harvey, S. and Robins, K. (1994) ‘Voices and Places: The BBC and Regional Policy’, The Political Quarterly 65(1): 39–52. Harvie, C. (1991) ‘English Regionalism: The Dog that Never Barked’, in B. Crick (ed.) National Identities, Cambridge: The Political Quarterly, pp. 105–18. Hasselbach, S. and Porter, V. (1988) The Re-Regulation of West German Broadcasting: Recent Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, Politics and Society in Germany, Austria and Switzerland 1(2): 48–65. Heinrich, H. (1991) Deutsche Medienpolitik, Nauheim: Verlag R. Koch. Heinrich, J. and Kopper, G. G. (eds.) (2006) Media Economics in Europe, Berlin: Vistas. Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. (2002) Manufacturing Consent, New York: Pantheon Books. Herres, V. and Plog, J. (1991) ‘Die Jahre der Krise’, in W. Köhler (ed.) Der NDR: Zwischen Programm und Politik, Hannover: Schlütersche Verlagsanstalt, pp. 257–305. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) ‘Media and Cultural Policy as Public Policy: The Case of the British Labour Government’, International Journal of Cultural Policy 11(1): 95–109. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007) The Cultural Industries, London: Sage. Hesse, A. (2003) Rundfunkrecht, München: Franz Vahlen, 3rd edition. Hickethier, K. (1998) Geschichte des deutschen Fernsehens, Stuttgart: J. M. Metzler. Hill, C. (Lord) (1974) Behind the Screen, London: Sidgwick & Jackson. Hobsbawm, E. (1994) Age of Extremes, London: Michael Joseph. Hoffmann, R. (1975) Rundfunkorganisation und Rundfunkfreiheit, Berlin: Volker Spiess. Hoffmann-Riem, W. (1991) ‘The Road to Media Unification: Press and Broadcasting Law Reform in the GDR’, European Journal of Communication 6(4): 523–43. Hoffmann-Riem, W. (1996) Regulating Media, New York: Guildford Press. Hoffmann-Riem, W. (2009) ‘Nachvollziehende Medienregulierung als Media- Governance’, in W. Hoffman-Riem (ed.) Wandel der Medienordnung, Baden- Baden: Nomos, pp. 147–59. Hoggart, R. (1957) The Uses of Literacy, London: Chatto & Windus. Hoggart, R. (1961) ‘Mass Communications in Britain’, in B. Ford (ed.) The Modern Age, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 450–65. Hoggart, R. and Morgan, J. (eds.) (1982) The Future of Broadcasting, London: Macmillan. Hohmann, L. and Unger, J. (1999) Die Brandenburger: Chronik eines Landes, Berlin: Bebra. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2006) Medienpolitik für Europa, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Holzamer, K. (1988) ‘Konrad Adenauer und das Fernsehen’, in K. G. von Hase (ed.) Konrad Adenauer und die Presse, Bonn: Bouvier, pp. 84–126. Hood, S. and O’Leary, G. (1990) Questions of Broadcasting, London: Methuen. Horne, A. (1989) Macmillan 1957–1986, Volume II, London: Macmillan. Horrie, C. and Clarke, S. (1994) Fuzzy Monsters: Fear and Loathing at the BBC, London: Heinemann. Horsman, M. (1998) Sky High, London: Orion Business Books. 308 Bibliography

Hume, D. (1992a) ‘Of Commerce’, in T. H. Green and T. H. Grose (eds.) David Hume: The Philosopical Works, Vol. 3, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, pp. 287–99. Hume, D. (1992b) ‘Of the Balance of Trade’, in T. H. Green and T. H. Grose (eds.) David Hume: The Philosopical Works, Vol. 3, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, pp. 330–45. Humphreys, P. J. (1990) ‘The International Political Economy of the Com- munications Revolution: The Case for a Neo-pluralist Approach’, Government and Opposition 25(4): 497–518. Humphreys, P. J. (1991) ‘Political Structures and Broadcasting Marketisation: A Comparison of Britain and West Germany’, in M. Moran and M. Wright (eds.) The Market and the State, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 200–18. Humphreys, P. J. (1994) Media and Media Policy in Germany, Oxford: Berg. Humphreys, P. J. (1996) Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Humphreys, P. J. (2009a) ‘Globalization, Regulatory Competition and Audiovisual Regulation: The French, German and UK Cases’, paper presented at the ICA conference, 21–25 May, Chicago. Humphreys, P. J. (2009b) ‘EU State Aid Rules, Public Service Broadcasters’ Online Media Engagement and Public Value Tests: The German and UK Cases Compared’, Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture 1(2): 171–84. Humphreys, P. and Lang, M. (1998) ‘Regulating for Media Pluralism and the Pitfalls of Standortpolitik: The Re-Regulation of German Broadcasting Ownership Rules’, German Politics 7(2): 176–201. Hurd, D. (1986) Speech to the Royal Television Society Convention Dinner, 8 November. Hurd, D. (2003) Memoirs, London: Little, Brown. Isaacs, J. (1979) ‘Signposting Television in the 1980s: The Fourth Television Channel’, in B. Franklin (ed.) Television Policy: The MacTaggart Lectures, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 61–9. Isaacs, J. (1989) Storm over 4, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Jakobson, A. J. and Schlink, B. (eds.) (2000) Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis, Berkeley: University of California Press. Jankus, A. (2002) ‘Franz-Josef Strauß und sein Verhältnis zu dem Hamburger Nachrichtenmagazin Der Spiegel’, Publizistik 47(3): 295–308. Jay, P. (1981) ‘The Day after Tomorrow: The Future of Electronic Publishing’, in B. Franklin (ed.) Television Policy: The MacTaggart Lectures, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 79–89. Jay, P. (1984) The Crisis of Western Political Economy and other Essays, London: André Deutsch. John, A. (1941) ‘The B.B.C. in Wartime’, The Political Quarterly 12(2): 190–201. Johnson, C. and Turnock, R. (2005) ‘From Start-up to Consolidation: Institutions, Regions and Regulation over the History of ITV’, in C. Johnson and R. Turnock (eds.) ITV Cultures, Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 15–35. Jones, J. (2009) ‘PSB 2.0 – UK Broadcasting Policy after Peacock’, in T. O’Malley and J. Jones (eds.) The Peacock Committee and UK Broadcasting Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 187–206. Junne, G. (1989) ‘Competitiveness and the Impact of Change: Applications of “High Technologies”’, in P. J. Katzenstein (ed.) Industry and Politics in West Germany, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 249–74. Bibliography 309

Just, N. and Latzer M. (2011) ‘Medienpolitik durch Europäische Wettbewerbspolitik: Druck auf öffentlichen Rundfunk durch Beihilfepolitik – Public-Value-Konzepte als Lösungsansatz’, in H. Gundlach (ed.) Public Value in der Digital- und Internetökonomie, Köln: Halem, pp. 79–100. Kaserer, C. and Lahr, H. (2008) ‘Fallstudien Deutschland’, in W. Schulz, C. Kaserer and J. Trappel (eds.) Finanzinvestoren im Medienbereich. Berlin: Vistas, pp. 117–203. Kinchin Smith, M. (1978) ‘The BBC: A Pioneer Public Corporation’, Public Administration 56(1): 25–34. Klaus, E. and Thiele, M. (2007) ‘Spannungsfelder zwischen Kritischer Politischer Ökonomie und Kritischen Cultural Studies’, in C. Steininger (ed.) Politische Ökonomie der Medien, Wien: LIT Verlag, pp. 137–59. Kleinsteuber, H. J. (2004) ‘Comparing Mass Communication Systems’, in F. Esser and B. Pfetsch (eds.) Comparing Political Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–86. Köcher, R. (1986) ‘Bloodhounds or Missionaries: Role Definitions of German and British Journalists’, European Journal of Communication 1(1): 43–64. Kopper, G. G. (2002) ‘Medienpolitik in Deutschland’, in J. F. Leonhard, H. W. Ludwig, D. Schwarze and E. Straßner (eds.) Medienwissenschaft, Band 3, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 2714–26. Küsters, H. J. (1988) ‘Konrad Adenauer, die Presse, der Rundfunk und das Fernsehen’, in K. G. von Hase (ed.) Konrad Adenauer und die Presse, Bonn: Bouvier, pp. 13–31. Kutsch, A. (1991) ‘Unter britischer Kontrolle’, in W. Köhler (ed.) Der NDR: Zwischen Programm und Politik, Hannover: Schlütersche Verlagsanstalt, pp. 83–148. Kvale, S. (2007) Doing Interviews, London: Sage. Langewiesche, D. (1988) Liberalismus in Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Lee, A. (1978) ‘The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1855–1914’, in G. Boyce, J. Curran and P. Wingate (eds.) Newspaper History, London: Constable, pp. 117–29. Lee, D. J., Oakley, K. and Naylor, R. (2011) ‘“The Public Gets what the Public Wants”? The Uses and Abuses of “Public Value” in Contemporary British Cultural Policy’, International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(3): 289–300. Lees, C. (2001) ‘Social Democracy and Structures of Governance in Britain and Germany: How Institutions and Norms Shape Political Innovation’, in L. Martell (ed.) Social Democracy: Global and National Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 160–78. Lerg, W. B. (1965) Die Entstehung des Rundfunks in Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht. Lerg, W. B. (1980) ‘Rundfunkpolitik in der Weimarer Republik’, in H. Bausch (ed.) Rundfunk in Deutschland, Band 1, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Lersch, E. (2010) ‘Regional Television in Germany’, Media History 16(1): 109–13. Levy, D. A. (1999) Europe’s Digital Revolution, London: Routledge. Leys, C. (2001) Market-Driven Politics, London: Verso. Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’, American Political Science Review 65(3): 682–93. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press. 310 Bibliography

Livingstone, S., Lunt, P. and Miller, L. (2007) ‘Citizens and Consumers: Discursive Debates during and after the Communications Act 2003’, Media, Culture & Society 29(4): 613–38. Löblich, M. (2008) ‘Michel-Kommission und Günther-Kommission. Medienpolitische Entscheidungen über die Zusammensetzung von Kommissionen in den 1960er Jahren’, in H. Böning, A. Kutsch and R. Stöber (eds.) Jahrbuch für Kommunikationsgeschichte, 10. Band, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 107–33. Löblich, M. (2011) ‘Frames in der medienpolitischen Öffentlichkeit. Die Presseberichterstattung über den 12. Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag’, Publizistik 56(4): 423–39. Locke, J. (1952) The Second Treatise of Government, New York: Liberal Arts Press. Lührs, M. (2005) ‘Aus eins mach’ zwei: Die Auflösung des NWDR’, in P. von Rüden and H. U. Wagner (eds.) Die Geschichte des Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunks, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, pp. 390–443. Lunt, P. and Livingstone, S. (2012) Media Regulation: Governance and the Interest of Citizens and Consumers, London: Sage. Lutz, H. (1956) ‘Werbefernsehen – aber wie?’, Der Markenartikel 18(10): 1–5. MacDonald, B. (2001) ‘Independent Television from ITV to Channel 3’, in J. Ballantyne (ed.) The Researcher’s Guide, London: BUFVC, 6th edition, pp. 21–34. MacDonald, B. (2003) An Administrative History of the Independent Television Authority/Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1954–1990, London: ITC. Mackay, R. (2006) ‘No Place in the Corporation’s Service: The BBC and Conscientious Objectors in the Second World War’, Media History 12(1): 37–46. Mai, M. (2005) ‘Das duale Rundfunksystem in Deutschland – Erwartungen und Enttäuschungen der Medienpolitik’, in M. Mai (ed.) Medienpolitik in der Informationsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 41–52. Majone, G. (1997) ‘From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance’, Journal of Public Policy 17(2): 139–67. Mancini, P. (2005) ‘Is there a European Model of Journalism?’, in H. de Burgh (ed.) Making Journalists, London: Routledge, pp. 77–93. Mayhew, C. (1953) Dear Viewer…, London: Lincolns Prager. Mazzocco, D. W. (1999) Networks of Power: Corporate TV’s Threat to Democracy, Boston: South End Press. McChesney, R. W. (1993) Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press. McChesney, R. W. (2002) Global Media Policy in the New Millennium, Luton: University of Luton Press. McKay, J. (1996) ‘Berlin-Brandenburg? Nein danke! The Referendum on the Proposed Länderfusion’, German Politics 5(3): 485–502. McKendrick, N., Brewer, J. and Plumb, J. H. (1983) The Birth of a Consumer Society, London: Hutchinson. McQuail, D. (1992) Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McQuail, D. (2005a) Mass Communication Theory, London: Sage, 5th edition. McQuail, D. (2005b) ‘Book Review: D. C. Hallin and P. Mancini (2004) Comparing Media Systems’, European Journal of Communication 20(2): 266–8. Bibliography 311

McRobbie, A. (1998) British Fashion Design, London: Routledge. Medhurst, J. (2004) ‘Wales Television – Mammon’s Television? ITV in Wales in the 1960s’, Media History 10(2): 119–31. Medhurst, J. (2010) A History of Independent Television in Wales, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Meier, H. E. (2008) ‘Independent Regulatory Bodies and Impossible Jobs: The Failure of German Public Service Broadcasting Regulation’, Public Administration 86(1): 133–48. Merritt, R. L. (1994) ‘Normalizing the East German Media’, Political Communication 11(1): 49–66. Michalis, M. (2010) ‘EU Broadcasting Governance and PSB: Between a Rock and a Hard Place’, in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 36–48. Mill, J. S. [1882] (1973) A System of Logic, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Milland, J. (2004) ‘Courting Malvolio: The Background to the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting, 1960–62’, Contemporary British History 18(2): 76–102. Milland, J. (2005) ‘Paternalists, Populists and Pilkington: The Struggle for the Soul of British Television, 1958–1963’, PhD dissertation, Bristol: University of Bristol. Milland, J. (2009) ‘The Pilkington Report: The Triumph of Paternalism?’, in M. Bailey (ed.) Narrating Media History, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 95–107. Milne, A. (1970) ‘Regional Devolution and Standards of Excellence’, in E. G. Wedell (ed.) Structures of Broadcasting, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 52–61. Milne, A. (1988) DG: The Memoirs of a British Broadcaster, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Moe, H. (2008a) ‘Public Service Media Online? Regulating Public Broadcasters’ Internet Services: A Comparative Analysis’, Television & New Media 9(3): 220–38. Moe, H. (2008b) ‘Commercial Services, Enclosure and Legitimacy: Comparing Contexts and Strategies for PSB Funding and Development’, in G. F. Lowe and J. Bardoel (eds.) From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 51–69. Moe, H. (2010a) ‘Defining Public Service beyond Broadcasting: The Legitimacy of Different Approaches’, International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(1): 52–68. Moe, H. (2010b) ‘Governing Public Service Broadcasting: “Public Value Tests” in Different National Contexts’, Communication, Culture & Critique 3(2): 207–23. Möller, H. (2001) ‘Die Stellung der gesellschaftlich relevanten Gruppen im öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk’, AfP – Zeitschrift für Medien und Kommunikationsrecht 32(4): 275–80. Moorhead, C. (1984) Sidney Bernstein: A Biography, London: Jonathan Cape. Moran, M. (2007) The British Regulatory State, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morgan, A. (1992) Harold Wilson, London: Pluto Press. Mosco, V. (1996) The Political Economy of Communication, London: Sage. Müller, M. M. (2001) ‘Reconstructing the New Regulatory State in Germany: Tele- communications, Broadcasting and Banking’, German Politics 10(3): 37–64. Müller, M. M. (2002) The New Regulatory State in Germany, Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press. 312 Bibliography

Müller, M. M. (2006) ‘Consolidating the New Regulatory State in Germany? The New Energy Regime of 2005’, German Politics 15(3): 269–83. Müller-Sachse, K. H. (2001) ‘Mediale Konstruktion des Regionalen und Regionalisierung als medienpolitisches Konzept’, in W. Klingler and E. Lersch (eds.) Regionalisierung im Rundfunk, Konstanz: UVK, pp. 15–29. Mundy, J. (2008) ‘Spreading Wisdom: British Post-War Light Entertainment, the BBC and the Emergence of Television’, Media History 14(1): 53–71. Murdoch, R. (1989) ‘Freedom in Broadcasting’, in B. Franklin (ed.) Television Policy: The MacTaggart Lectures, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 131–8. Murdock, G. (1982) ‘Large Corporations and the Control of the Communications Industries’, in M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Wollacott (eds.) Culture, Society and the Media, London: Routledge, pp. 118–50. Murdock, G. (1994) ‘Money Talks: Broadcasting, Finance and Public Culture’, in S. Hood (ed.) Behind the Screens, London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 155–83. Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1973) ‘For a Political Economy of Mass Communication’, in R. Milliband and J. Saville (eds.) Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, pp. 205–34. Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1978) ‘The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1914–76’, in G. Boyce, J. Curran and Pauline Wingate (eds) Newspaper History, London: Constable, pp. 130–48. Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1999) ‘Common Markets: Corporate Ambitions and Communication Trends in the UK and Europe’, Journal of Media Economics 12(2): 117–32. Napoli, P. M. (2001) Foundations of Communications Policy, Cresskill: Hampton Press. Negrine, R. (1998) Television and the Press since 1945, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Nerone, J. C. (ed.) (1995) Last Rights: Revisiting Four Theories of the Press, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Nowotny, B. (1982) Rundfunk Bürgernah, Hameln: Adolf Sponholtz. Odendahl, T. and Shaw, A. M. (2002) ‘Interviewing Elites’, in J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (eds.) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 299–316. O’Malley, T. (1994) Closedown? The BBC and Government Broadcasting Policy 1979–92, London: Pluto Press. O’Malley, T. and Jones, J. (eds.) (2009) The Peacock Committee and UK Broadcasting Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Owers, J., Carveth, R. and Alexander, A. (1998) ‘An Introduction to Media Economics Theory and Practice’, in A. Alexander, J. Owers and R. Carveth (eds.) Media Economics: Theory and Practice, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–43. Pabst, K. (1984) ’Kulturlandschaften als Alibi’, in W. Först (ed.) Rundfunk in der Region, Köln: Kohlhammer – Grote, pp. 51–86. Parker, D. (2009). The Official History of Privatisation, Vol. 1, London: Routledge. Paulu, B. (1956) British Broadcasting, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Peacock, A. T. (1993a) Paying the Piper, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Peacock, A. T. (1997) The Political Economy of Economic Freedom, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bibliography 313

Peacock, A. T. (2004) Public Service Broadcasting without the BBC?, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Peacock, A. T. (2010) Anxious to do Good, Exeter: Imprint Academic. Picard, R. G. (1989) Media Economics: Concepts and Issues, London: Sage. Pimlott, B. (1992) Harold Wilson, London: HarperCollins. Pohle, H. (1955) Der Rundfunk als Instrument der Politik, Hamburg: Hans Bredow Institut. Pollard, S. (1992) The Development of the British Economy, 1914–1990, London: Edward Arnold. Porter, V. and Hasselbach, S. (1991) Pluralism, Politics and the Marketplace, London: Routledge. Potschka, C. (2010) ‘The Liberal Tradition and Communications Policy-Making in the UK and Germany’, paper presented at the 3rd European Communication Conference (ECREA), 12–15 October, University of Hamburg. Potschka, C. (2011a) ‘Rundfunkarchive und Informationsquellen in Großbritannien: ITV, die ITC Sammlung und Aktenbezug von Ofcom nach dem Freedom of Information Act’, Info 7 26(1): 7–10. Potschka, C. (2011b) ‘Broadcasting Licence Fee Settlements in the UK and Germany’, Economic Affairs 31(1): 115–17. Potschka, C. (2011c) ‘Global Media Policy Platform as a Source for Research: Financing Public Service Broadcasting’, presentation at the IAMCR conference, 13–17 July, Kadir Has University, Istanbul. Priebs, N. (2004) ‘Learning from Abroad: Regulating Public Service Broadcasting in Germany, Japan and the UK’, in D. Tambini and J. Cowling (eds.) From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Communications, London: IPPR, pp. 115–29. Prosser, T. (2005) ‘Public Service Broadcasting: A Special Case’, in T. Prosser (ed.) The Limits of Competition Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207–34. Ptak, R. (2008) ‘Soziale Marktwirtschaft und Neoliberlismus: Ein deutscher Sonderweg’, in C. Butterwegge, B. Lösch and R. Ptak (eds.) Neoliberalismus: Analysen und Alternativen, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 69–89. Puppis, M. (2010) ‘Media Governance: A New Concept of the Analysis of Media Policy and Regulation’, Communication, Culture & Critique 3(2): 134–49. Puppis, M., d’Haenens, L., Steinmaurer, T. and Künzler, M. (2009) ‘The European and Global Dimension: Taking Small Media Systems Research to the Next Level’, International Communication Gazette 71(1–2): 105–12. Puttnam, D. (2005) ‘A Speech to Witness Seminar on Policy-Making Issues’, Goldsmiths College, University of London, 23 September. Raboy, M. (1990) Missed Opportunities: The Story of Canada’s Broadcasting Policy, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Radtke, M. (1996) Ausser Kontrolle: Die Medienmacht des Leo Kirch, Zürich: Unionsverlag. Ravenstein, M. (1988) Modellversuch Kabelkommunikation, München: K. G. Saur. Reding, V. (2008) ‘Europa contra ARD und ZDF? Welche Perspektive lässt die EU-Kommission dem gebührenfinanzierten öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk in Deutschland?’, speech of 10 November. Reichardt, E. H. (1984) Grundzüge der Rundfunkpolitik in Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main: Haag & Herchen. Reith, J. (1924) Broadcast over Britain, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Reith, J. (1949) Into the Wind, London: Hodder & Stoughton. 314 Bibliography

Robson, W. A. (ed.) (1937) Public Enterprise, London: Allen & Unwin. Robson, W. A. (1962) Nationalized Industry and Public Ownership, London: Allen & Unwin. Röper, H. (2006) ‘Formationen deutscher Medienmultis 2005. Teil 1: ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG und Axel Springer AG’, Media Perspektiven 3: 114–24. Rüttgers, J. (2003) ‘Mehr Wettbewerb wagen! Medien zwischen Markt und Staat’, epd medien 44: 31–4. Sandbrook, D. (2006) Never Had It So Good, London: Little, Brown. Sandford, J. (1976) The Mass Media of the German-Speaking Countries, London: Oswald Wolff. Sarikakis, K. (2004) Media and Communications Policy: A Definition, online: http:// ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=ks&requesttimeout=500&folder=4& paper=25, accessed: 10 Oct. 2011. Scannell, P. (1993) ‘The Origins of BBC Regional Policy’, in S. Harvey and K. Robins (eds.) The Regions, The Nations and the BBC, London: British Film Institute, pp. 27–38. Scannell, P. and Cardiff, D. (1991) A Social History of British Broadcasting: Volume 1, 1922–1939: Serving the Nation, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Schiller, H. I. (2003) Living in the Number One Country, New York: Seven Stories Press. Schöps, J. (1983) Die Spiegel Affäre des Franz Josef Strauß, Reinbek: Rowohlt. Schulz, W. (2009) ‘The Legal Framework for Public Service Broadcasting after the German State Aid Case: Procrustean Bed or Hammock?’, Journal of Media Law 1(2): 219–41. Schütte, W. (1971) Regionalität und Föderalismus im Rundfunk, Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht. Schwarz, H. P. (1983) Die Ära Adenauer 1957–1963, Stuttgart: Epochenwechsel. Schwarzkopf, D. (1999) Rundfunkpolitik in Deutschland, Band 1, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Schwarz-Schilling, C. (1989) ‘Pay-TV – und doch kein Rundfunk’, Zeitschrift für Urheber-und Medienrecht 11: 487–92. Schwarz-Schilling, C. (1999) ‘Eine überfällige Reform in der Bewährung’, in L. M. Büchner (ed.) Post und Telekommunikation, Heidelberg: R. v. Decker’s Verlag, pp. 87–148. Schwarz-Schilling, C. (2002a) ‘Vom öffentlich-rechtlichen Monopol zum Privatfunk’, in R. Appel (ed.) Sternstunden des Fernsehens, Köln: Derby, pp. 176–93. Schwarz-Schilling, C. (2002b) ‘Der Neuerer hat Gegner auf allen Seiten: Eine Bilanz’, Historisch-Politische Mitteilungen 9: 177–93. Seidl, N. (2006) ’Regionalisierung und Dezentralisierung – Schätze und Quellen der Region erschließen’, in WDR (ed.) Rundfunk ist Eigentum aller Bürger, Köln: WDR, pp. 8–9. Sendall, B. (1982) Independent Television in Britain, Vol. 1, London: Macmillan. Sendall, B. (1983) Independent Television in Britain, Vol. 2, London: Macmillan. Seufert, W. (2007) ‘Politische Ökonomie und Neue Politische Ökonomie der Medien – ein Theorienvergleich’, in C. Steininger (ed.) Politische Ökonomie der Medien, Wien: LIT Verlag, pp. 23–42. Seymour-Ure, C. (1996) The British Press and Broadcasting since 1945, Oxford: Blackwell. Bibliography 315

Sheehan, J. J. (1978) German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shulman, M. (1973) The Least Worst Television in the World, London: Barrie & Jenkins. Siebert, F., Peterson, T. and Schramm, W. (1963) Four Theories of the Press, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Siegert, G. (ed.) (2002) Medienökonomie in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, Münster: LIT Verlag. Sigerist, H. E. (1956) Landmarks in the History of Hygiene, London: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. (1904) The Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen. Smith, A. (1973) The Shadow in the Cave: The Broadcaster, His Audience, and the State, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Smith, A. (ed.) (1974) British Broadcasting, Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Smith, J. A. (1995) ‘Semi-Structured Interviewing and Qualitative Analysis’, in J. A. Smith, R. Harré and L. van Langenhove (eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 9–26. Smith, P. (2006) ‘The Politics of UK Television Policy: The Making of Ofcom’, Media, Culture & Society 28(6): 929–40. Spangenberg, J. (1997) The BBC in Transition, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts- Verlag. Starks, M. (2007) Switching to Digital Television, Bristol: Intellect. Steemers, J. (1997) ‘Broadcasting is Dead, Long Live Digital Choice: Perspectives from the United Kingdom and Germany’, Convergence 3(1): 51–71. Steemers, J. (2001) ‘In Search of a Third Way: Managing Public Purpose and Commerce in German and British Public Service Broadcasting’, Canadian Journal of Communications 26(1): 69–87. Steemers, J. (2003) ‘Public Service Broadcasting is Not Dead Yet: Strategies in the 21st Century’, in G. Ferrel Lowe and T. Hujanen (eds.) Broadcasting and Convergence: New Articulations of the Public Service Remit, Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 123–36. Steininger, R. (1975) ‘Rundfunkpolitik im ersten Kabinett Adenauer’, in W. B. Lerg and R. Steininger (eds.) Rundfunk und Politik 1923–1973, Berlin: Volker Spiess, pp. 341–83. Steinmetz, R. (2005) ‘Die Bundesregierung und der NWDR’, in P. von Rüden and H. U. Wagner (eds.) Die Geschichte des Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunks, Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, pp. 322–36. Storsul, T. and Syvertsen, T. (2007) ‘The Impact of Convergence on European Television Policy’, Convergence 13(3): 275–91. Streul, I. C. (1999) ‘Rundfunk und Vereinigung der beiden deutschen Staaten’, in D. Schwarzkopf (ed.) Rundfunkpolitik in Deutschland, Band 2, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, pp. 874–926. Sura, R. (1987) ‘Entstehungsgeschichte eines Kabelpilotprojektes’, in S. Ory and R. Sura (eds.) Der Urknall im Medienlabor: Das Kabelpilotprojekt Ludwigshafen, Berlin: Vistas, pp. 9–42. Syvertsen, T. (2006) ‘Television and Multi-Platform Media Hybrids: Corporate Strategies and Regulatory Dilemmas’, in F. Marcinkowski, W. A. Meier and J. Trappel (eds.) Media and Democracy, Bern: Haupt, pp. 253–73. Thatcher, M. (1998) ‘Institutions, Regulation, and Change: New Regulatory Agencies in the British Privatised Utilities’, West European Politics 21(1): 125–47. 316 Bibliography

Thatcher, M. (1993) The Downing Street Years, London: HarperCollins. Towse, R. (ed.) (2003) A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Towse, R. (2005) ‘Alan Peacock and Cultural Economics’, The Economic Journal 115(504): 262–76. Tracey, M. (1982) ‘Das unerreichte Wunschbild: Ein Versuch über Hugh Greene und die Neugründung des Rundfunks in Westdeutschland nach 1945’, in Annalen des Westdeutschen Rundfunks, Band 5, Köln: WDR, pp. 11–139. Tracey, M. (1983) A Variety of Loves: A Biography of Sir Hugh Greene, London: Bodley Head. Tracey, M. (1998) The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tracey, M. and Morrison, D. (1979) Whitehouse, London: Macmillan. Trappel, J. (2008) ‘Online Media within the Public Service Realm? Reasons to Include Online into the Public Service Mission’, Convergence 14(3): 313–22. Tunstall, J. (1996) Newspaper Power: The New National Press in Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tunstall, J. (2010) ‘The BBC and UK Public Service Broadcasting’, in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145–57. Urwin, D. W. (1982) ‘Germany: From Geographical Expression to Regional Accomodation’, in S. Rokkan and D. W. Urwin (eds.) The Politics of Territorial Identity, London: Sage, pp. 165–249. Van Cuilenburg, J. and McQuail, D. (2003) ‘Media Policy Paradigm Shifts: Towards a New Communications Policy Paradigm’, European Journal of Communication 18(2): 181–207. Van de Walle, S. (2008) ‘What Services are Public? What Aspects of Performance are to be Ranked? The Case of “Services of General Interest”’, International Public Management Journal 11(3): 256–74. Veljanovski, C. G. and Bishop, W. D. (1983) Choice by Cable, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Vennebusch, A. (1998) Die Neugliederung der deutschen Fernsehlandschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Vogel, B. (2002) ‘Der Kampf um die neue Medienordnung: Initiativen und Innovationen’, Historisch-Politische Mitteilungen 9: 169–75. Volpers, H., Salwiczek, C. and Schnier, D. (2000) Regionalfenster im Programm von RTL und SAT.1, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Von Hase, K. G. (1980) ‘Das Rundfunksystem in Großbritannien – Beispiel für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland?’, in K. G. von Hase (ed.) Stellungnahmen zur Medienpolitik, Mainz: ZDF, pp. 63–71. Von Hayek, F. A. (1944) The Road to Serfdom, London: Routledge. Von Mises, L. (1922) Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus, Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Von Mises, L. (1949) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. Von Sell, F. W. (1978) ‘Rundfunkfreiheit und Programmauftrag – Perspektive 1979’, in Rundfunk ist Eigentum aller Bürger, Köln: WDR (2006), pp. 23–9. Von Sell, F. W. (1990) ‘Konturen einer neuen DDR-Rundfunklandschaft’, in Rundfunk ist Eigentum aller Bürger, Köln: WDR (2006), pp. 105–8. Bibliography 317

Von Sell, F. W. (1996) ‘Rede anlässlich der Präsentation des Frankfurter Aufrufs der Initiative für einen unabhängigen öffentlichen Rundfunk’, 20 December, in Rundfunk ist Eigentum aller Bürger, Köln: WDR (2006), pp. 44–9. Von Sell, F. W. (2006) Mehr Öffentlichkeit!, Springe: zu Klampen. Wallace, J. (2004) ‘A Sense of Region? Independent Television in the Midlands, 1950–2000’, PhD dissertation, Leicester: University of Leicester. Wallace, W. (1992) ‘Die britische Haltung zu Europa’, in W. J. Mommsen (ed.) Der lange Weg nach Europa, Berlin: Edition Q, pp. 123–57. Weber, H. J. (2001) ‘Die Produktionssteuerung des WDR: Zielorientierte Steuerung nach dem Zwei-Budget-Modell’, Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis 4: 326–33. Weber, M. [1911] (1988) ‘Zu einer Soziologie des Zeitungswesens’, in W. R. Langenbucher (ed.) Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Wien: Braumüller, 2nd edition, pp. 18–24. Wedell, E. G. (1968) Broadcasting and Public Policy, London: Michael Joseph. Wehmeier, K. (1979) Die Geschichte des ZDF, Teil I, Mainz: v. Hase & Koehler. Wheeler, M. (2010) ‘The European Union’s Competition Directorate: State Aids and Public Service Broadcasting’, in P. Iosifidis (ed.) Reinventing Public Service Communication, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–62. Whitelaw, W. (1989) The Whitelaw Memoirs, London: Aurum Press. Wilcox, C. (1972) ‘Regulation of Industry’, in D. L. Sills (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Vol. 13, New York: Macmillan/Free Press, pp. 390–6. Willgerodt, H. (2006) ‘Der Neoliberalismus – Entstehung, Kampfbegriff und Meinungsstreit’, in ORDO – Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Band 57, pp. 47–89. Williams, A. (1976) Broadcasting and Democracy in West Germany, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Williams, K. (2010) Read all about it! A History of the British Newspaper, Abingdon: Routledge. Williams, K., Williams, J. and Haslam, C. (1990) ‘The Hollowing Out of British Manufacturing and its Implications for Policy’, Economy and Society 19(4): 457–90. Wilson, H. H. (1961) Pressure Group: The Campaign for Commercial Television, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Witte, E. (1966) Die öffentliche Unternehmung im Interessenkonflikt, Berlin: Allgemeine Verlagsgesellschaft. Witte, E. (1968) ‘Die Organisation komplexer Entscheidungsverläufe – Ein Forschungsbericht’, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 20: 581–99. Witte, E. (1993) ‘Entscheidung zu neuen Medien – Pathologie eines Innovationsprozesses’, in P. Badura and R. Scholz (eds.) Wege und Verfahren des Verfassungslebens, München: C. H. Beck, pp. 737–51. Witte, E. (ed.) (1996) Regulierung und Wettbewerb in der Telekommunikation, Heidelberg: R. v. Deckers’s Verlag. Witte, E. (1997) ‘Bleibt das Gemeinwohl auf der Strecke? Zur Deregulierung der Telekommunikation’, Zeitschrift für öffentliche und gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen 20(4): 434–48. Witte, E. (2002) ‘Telekommunikation. Vom Staatsmonopol zum privaten Wettbewerbsmarkt’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 3: 1–50. 318 Bibliography

Witteman, C. (1983) ‘West German Television Law: An Argument for Media as Instrument of Self-Government’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 7(1): 145–210. Witteman, C. (2010) ‘Constitutionalizing Communications: The German Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence of Communications Freedom’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 33(1): 95–201. Woldt, R. (2011) ‘Öffentlich-rechtliche Online-Angebote: Keine Gefahr für den Wettbewerb’, Media Perspektiven 2: 66–79. Wythenshawe, S. (Lord) (1953) ‘Broadcasting in Other Countries’, The Political Quarterly 14(4): 376–86. Yergin, D. and Stanislaw, J. (1998) Staat oder Markt, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Index

3Sat, 191, 287 ARD, 113, 153, 172, 179, 196, 198, ’68 Movement, 29, 175, 176 201, 260, 280, 281, 287 audience share, 214, 217, 242 accountability, 13, 18, 80, 132, 133, digital bouquet, 191, 210, 292 172, 222, 224, 231, 232, 246, 255 establishment, 15, 154, 157, 240 Adam Smith Institute, 96, 112, 117, financial compensation scheme, 270 155, 205–6, 241 Adenauer, Konrad, 15, 153, 157, future, 4, 13, 14, 257 158–61, 162–3, 166, 169, 170, income, 234 238, 281 and the KEF, 195, 288 advertising, 4, 33, 57, 58, 60, 117, left-wing bias, 170, 178, 198, 252, 120, 126, 167, 188, 198, 207, 217, 283 223–4, 264, 278 legal basis, 230, 232 on ARD and ZDF, 167–8, 191, 218, MGM film package deal, 194–5 219, 221, 234, 241, 252, 286, and the NDR crisis, 175, 177 289–90, 293 online expansion, 220, 221, 222, on the BBC, 17, 30, 46, 58, 79, 224, 231, 293 96–100, 102, 107, 108, 221, 233, politicization, 15, 164 265, 270, 271, 272, 295 post-reunification enlargement, on Channel 4, 89, 100, 104, 273 204, 205, 212, 290 industry, 23, 43–4, 62, 63, 85, 87, RBB foundation, 206–7, 212, 291 94, 96, 160, 239, 241, 247, 267, regionalization, 196, 203, 240 272 remit, 12, 221, 262 on ITV, 38, 65, 67, 71–3, 75, 96, SWR foundation, 205, 212, 242 101, 111–12, 128, 136, 167, 229, thoughts on privatization, 253 239, 241, 256 and ZDF, 163 and publishing businesses, 140–1, see also advertising; Kirchhof 158, 167–71, 283 Report; licence fee; Mediatheken; regulation, 105–6, 108, 192, 194, Tagesschau-app; telemedia; 201, 209, 213, 214, 219, 274, 282 Three-Step Test shift to the internet, 12, 128, 132, ARD Third Channels, 156, 187, 281 294 advertising on, 290 on Sky, 92 audience share, 214, 217, 242 Advertising Standards Authority, 86, establishment, 164–5, 166, 171, 240 106, 260, 261 Arndt, Adolf, 161, 172 Albrecht, Ernst, 175, 176–7, 191, 283, Arnold, Karl, 152, 153 288 Arts Council, 97, 132 ALM, 216, 224, 287 Associated-Rediffusion, 64, 266 Altmeier, Peter, 161 Associated Television (ATV), 64, 74–5, Anglia Television, 62, 66, 75, 92, 111, 266, 269, 273 242 Attenborough, Richard, 164, 269 Annan Committee, 12, 80–4, 87, 93, Attlee, Clement, 50, 54–6, 63, 159, 126, 267, 268, 269, 276, 277 265, 266

319 320 Index

Augstein, Rudolf, 166 programmes, 68, 70, 74, 79, 83–4, Authority for Cable Communication 103, 273, 295 (AKK), 187, 258, 286 pro-Labour bias, 59, 78, 272 Axel Springer, 195 regional structure and services, 49, and 1960s student protest, 166 50, 63, 66, 72, 73, 83, 84, 111, and Michel Commission, 167, 171, 112, 122, 124, 131, 136, 239, 282 240–1, 256, 278 ProSiebenSat.1 takeover attempt, remit, 12, 262 214–15, 216, 223, 293 in wartime, 51, 52, 55 stake in Sat.1, 208 see also advertising; Freeview; licence fee; must-carry rules; Basic Law of the FRG, 153, 159, 161, Ofcom; Producer Choice; public 281, 285 value; Public Value Test article 5 (Freedom of Expression), BBC1 (after 1997 BBC One), 111, 112, 161–2, 193, 195, 218, 290, 291 116, 130, 131, 275 Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), 98, 147, BBC2 (after 1997 BBC Two), 72, 80, 154, 155, 156, 173, 188, 201, 202, 111, 112, 116, 130, 131 253, 280 BBC Charter, 14, 47, 48, 50, 55, 58, advertising on, 167 60, 69, 71, 72, 90, 113, 114, 123, Kirch and MGM film package deal, 125, 132, 133, 144, 229, 256, 294, 194–5 295 Third Channel, 165 BBC General Advisory Council, 55, BBC, 107, 113 70, 266 apps, 131 BBC News, 24, 131, 262, 275 audience share, 67, 68, 74, 130 BBC Trust, 132, 133,134, 136, 231, Board of Governors, 48–9, 57, 61, 279 79, 90, 101, 120, 121, 132, 231, BBC World Service, 114, 134, 234 265, 269, 279 BBC Worldwide, 120, 233 DBS services, 91–2, 269 BBC Written Archives Centre (WAC), digital services, 114, 130, 131 9, 265, 266, 267 foundation, 37, 44–9, 229, 239 Benn, Tony, 57, 77, 78, 79, 80, 97, future, 4, 14, 114, 136, 234, 236, 120, 258, 267 257 Berlusconi, Silvio, 212 government relations/politicization, Bernstein, Sidney, 62 34, 36, 49, 51, 55, 63, 78, 84, 90, Bertelsmann, 191, 208, 209, 210, 211, 100, 102, 232, 265, 273 213, 214, 215, 217 income, 58, 96, 100, 129, 233 Beveridge Collection, 9, 266 independent productions, 82, 87, Beveridge Committee, 7, 70 104, 109, 268 report, 56–8, 69, 249 and ITV, 62, 67, 68, 72, 73, 88, 89 Beveridge, William, 9, 54, 55, 59, 63, monopoly, 37, 53–4, 57, 59, 60, 265–6 250, 264–5, 294 Biedenkopf, Kurt, 202 Online, 131, 132, 134, 222, 293 Bild, 167, 214, 215, 293 and the Peacock Committee, 17, 30, see also Axel Springer 98, 101 Birt, John, 17, 96, 103, 113, 123, 129, and post-war German broadcasting 273, 274, 275 reorganization, 30, 148, 150, Blair, Tony, 18, 117, 120, 121, 276, 156 277 production costs, 268, 270 Border Television, 75, 111, 129 Index 321

Brandt, Willy, 170, 177, 178 in Germany, 189, 190, 191, 193, Bredow, Hans, 140, 142, 143, 144, 194, 197, 198, 199, 201, 209, 211, 145, 146, 150, 151, 154, 157, 280 212, 220, 221, 248, 284, 292 Bretton Woods system, 16 in the UK, 83, 87, 91, 92, 93–6, 98, Briggs, Asa, 5, 49–50, 55, 59, 65, 66, 99, 100, 103, 107, 108, 116, 118, 69, 70, 72, 74, 265, 267 119, 130, 269, 270, 275, 278 British Media Industry Group, 115, Cameron, David, 133 275 Canal Plus, 210, 211 British Telekom (BT), 17, 19, 95, 100, Carlton Communications, 111, 112, 117 119, 120, 122, 127, 128, 133, 136, Brittan, Leon, 96–7, 102, 253, 272 241, 274, 278 Brittan, Samuel, 89, 97, 98, 99, 270, Cave, Martin, 8, 97 271 CDU, 29, 152, 161, 164, 169, 172, Broadcasting Act 1980, 88, 91 175, 176, 178, 183, 185, 186, 193, Broadcasting Act 1990, 106, 108, 109, 198, 202, 204, 212, 214, 248, 253, 111, 122, 125, 270, 273 260, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 289 Broadcasting Act 1996, 116, 276 Central (Central Independent Broadcasting Complaints Television), 110, 111, 269 Commission, 82, 268, 276 Channel 3 see ITV Broadcasting in the 90s (White Paper), Channel 4, 12, 38, 71, 80, 82, 87, 103, 104–5 88–91, 96, 107, 116, 122, 124, Broadcasting in the American Sector 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 135, (RIAS), 152 164, 236, 259, 260, 268, 269, 272, Broadcasting Standards Council, 104, 273, 278 124, 276 see also advertising see also standards of broadcasting Channel 5, 105, 116, 117, 122, 124, BSB, 92, 93, 95, 108 125, 127, 258, 276, 278 BSkyB, 93, 115, 116, 119, 120, 127, Channel Television, 66, 278 128, 129, 130, 136, 209, 210–11, Checkland, Michael, 103, 113, 114, 213, 275, 276, 278 269, 275 Bundesarchiv (BArch), 9, 282 Churchill, Winston, 51, 53, 54, 58, Bundesliga, 210 59, 77 Bundesverband Deutscher Citizen Committee for Broadcasting Zeitungsverleger (BDZV), 167, Freedom, 174–5, 187 168, 171, 183, 220, 258, 262, 181, citizen/consumer divide, 13, 21, 121, 282–3, 284 125–6, 235, 236, 275, 277 civil service, 70, 79, 183, 190, 248, Cable Authority, 103, 269, 270, 272, 251, 265, 286–7 274 Clement, Wolfgang, 212 Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, 95, Coase, Ronald, 37, 45, 93, 249–50, 269, 270 263, 264–5 cable pilot projects Commission Deutsche Bundespost, in Germany, 19, 30, 180, 181–9, 178, 284 191, 192, 198, 247, 248, 251, 258, Committee of Inquiry into New 261, 283, 289, 291 Information and Communication in Japan, 186 Technologies, 185–6 in the UK, 93–4 Communications Act 2003, 21, 121, in the US, 186 122, 123, 124–7, 128, 136, 224, cable television, 11 230, 231, 245, 256, 275, 277 322 Index

Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Department for Culture, Media and Télédiffusion, 191, 210 Sport (DCMS), 18, 118, 119, 120, comparative method, 5, 9, 28, 37, 38, 126, 127, 133, 135, 136, 229, 236 257 Department of National Heritage see also comparing media systems (DNH), 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, comparing media systems, 8, 32–6, 126, 136, 229, 274, 275, 276 37, 38–9, 257 Department of Trade and Industry Competition Commission, 125, 236 (DTI), 80, 81, 87, 97, 103, 107, Conservative Party, 18, 29, 30, 53, 54, 119, 120, 126, 259, 270, 294 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 76, 77, 78, 80, Detjen, Claus, 258 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 96, as AKK director, 187, 188, 191, 198, 107, 116, 117, 122, 127, 133, 135, 283, 285–6 136, 266, 270 as director of the BDZV division convergence Electronic Media, 181–2, 284–5 of industries and infrastructures, 3, Deutsche Bundespost, 19, 30, 160, 4, 114–15, 116, 118, 122 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 190, 191, and the policy-making process, 246 207, 209, 210, 213, 248, 284, 286, and PSB, 119, 255 296 and the public interest, 237 see also Postreform of regulators, 13, 19, 123, 124, 230 Deutsche Stunde, 141–2, 146, 287 copyright, 135 Deutsche Telekom, 19, 207, 209, 210, Coronation Street, 66, 306 212, 213, 247, 284, 293, 296 Crawford Committee, 47, 52, 239 Deutsche Welle, 160, 258, 281 critical political economy, 22, 23, Deutscher Fernsehfunk, 201 24–6, 27, 39, 263–4 Deutsches Rundfunkarchiv (DRA), 9, CSU, 29, 166, 169, 170, 172, 188, 280, 282 260 Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH (DFG), amendment of the Bavarian 160–1, 162, 163, 170, 172, 281 broadcasting law, 173–5, 283 DF1, 210, 211, 292 and cable pilot projects, 284 Die Zeit, 263 and Leo Kirch, 194 Digital Britain, 134–5 and the licensing of private Digital Economy Act 2010, 129, 135, broadcasters, 178, 183, 285 136, 230 and the MDR, 201–2, 212 digitalization, 6, 12, 20, 118, 207, Springer’s projected takeover of 244, 255 ProSiebenSat.1, 214 digital compression, 115 cultural economics, 22 digital supplement, 119–20 and the policy-making process, Daily Express, 62 246 Daily Mail, 44, 62, 275 and the public interest, 237 Daseinsvorsorge, 21 switchover, 4, 211, 223, 241 Das Kleine Fernsehspiel, 38, 90, 164, Doetz, Jürgen, 188, 258, 286 260, 269 Dörr, Dieter, 208, 215, 292 Davies Committee, 119–20, 123, DTT, 114, 115, 116, 119, 130, 135, 276–7 276, 278 d-box, 210, 292 DVB-H, 216 DBS, 87, 91–3, 94, 95, 100, 107, 108, DVB-T, 13, 211 118, 191, 197, 269, 287 Dyke, Greg, 76, 110, 129, 130, 131, Death on the Rock, 103, 104, 273 258, 276, 277, 278, 279 Index 323

Ehmke, Horst, 178, 179, 284, 286 Sixth Broadcasting Judgement Eins Plus, 191, 287 (BVerfGE 83, 238), 201, 289 elite interviewing, 8–9, 297 Seventh Broadcasting Judgement Elstein, David, 67, 68, 69, 70, 90, 102, (BVerfGE 87, 181), 201, 290 113, 117, 120, 269, 270, 271, 272, Eighth Broadcasting Judgement 276, 277, 278 (BVerfGE 90, 60), 207, 216, 217, encryption, 4, 12, 130, 223, 224, 246, 224, 291–2 272 Ninth Broadcasting Judgement Erhard, Ludwig, 165, 166, 169 (BVerfGE 92, 203), 209, 213 European Broadcasting Union, 154 Tenth Broadcasting Judgement European Commission, 127, 209, 213, (BVerfGE 97, 228), 211, 292 293 Twelfth Broadcasting Judgement Audiovisual Media Services (BVerfGE 119, 181), 218, 221, Directive, 231, 294 224, 293 Beihilfekompromiss, 222, 231 Federal Network Agency, 245, 264 Green Paper on Convergence, 118 federalism, 15, 31, 37, 38, 57, 142, SGI, 20, 21, 232 153, 165, 176, 191, 203, 254, 281 state aid rules, 4, 12 132, 219–21, Fernsehgesellschaft Berliner 222, 224, 231, 234, 241, 262 Tageszeitungen (FBT), 173, 183, TWF Directive, 105–6, 108, 209, 283 213 Financial Times, 92, 97, 275 European Economic Community, 17, Forsthoff, Ernst, 21, 263 77, 270 Four Theories of the Press, 31–2, 38, Europeanization, 16, 36, 274 200 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 285 FDP, 29, 169–70, 174, 186, 202, 204, Fraser, Robert, 61–2 253, 284, 289 Free Television Company, 160, 164 Federal Administrative Court, 173, Freedman, Des, 7, 59, 72, 74, 79, 117, 177, 183 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 133, Federal Cartel Office, 214, 223, 264, 245, 246, 254, 266, 276, 277, 295 282, 291 Freeview, 13, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136, Federal Communications Commission 212, 278 (FCC), 244, 270 Federal Constitutional Court, 29, 30, Galperin, Hernan, 26, 95 158, 215, 219, 232, 237, 262, 245 Garnham, Nicholas, 25, 26, 264, 267 First Broadcasting Judgement General Electric, 92, 181, 265, 285 (BVerfGE 12, 205), 7, 15, 158, German Democratic Republic (GDR), 161–3, 170, 173, 191, 230, 238, 200, 201, 204, 205, 213, 260, 282, 287 290, 291 Second Broadcasting Judgement German Reichspost Ministry (RPM), (BVerfGE 31, 314), 172, 183, 238 140, 141–3, 144, 146, 279 Third Broadcasting Judgement Glos, Michael, 214 (BVerfGE 57, 295), 182–3, Golding, Peter, 4, 25, 38, 43, 263–4 184,189, 197, 285 Goldman Sachs, 119, 212, 293 Fourth Broadcasting Judgement governance, 4, 6, 13, 18, 27, 36, 48, (BVerfGE 73, 118), 193, 194, 198, 132, 166, 224, 231, 264 230 Grade, Michael, 89, 268, 273 Fifth Broadcasting Judgement Graf Report, 132 (BVerfGE 74, 297), 194, 199, 230 Grampian Television, 111 324 Index

Granada Television, 62, 65, 66, 71, 76, regional programmes, 74–5, 83, 84, 92, 111–12, 119, 120, 122, 127, 88, 103, 240, 269 128, 136, 241, 242, 266, 268, 278 related to the Bavarian Land media Greene, Hugh, 5, 30, 68, 70, 73, 79, authority, 188 148–50, 151, 152, 154, 156, 245, independent producers, 82, 84, 87, 280, 289 88–9, 90, 100, 107, 164, 276 Grimme, Adolf, 152 see also IPPA Grundversorgung, 21, 193, 230 independent production quota, Gscheidle, Kurt, 182, 286 104–5, 106, 107, 108, 109, 124 Günther Commission, 169, 282 Independent Programme Producers Association (IPPA), 87, Halloran, James, 80 88–9, 97 Hankey Committee, 54, 266 Independent Television Authority Harlech Television (HTV), 74 (ITA), 17, 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 84, HDTV, 222 163, 229 Hege, Hans, 215 development of the ITV system, Helmes, Manfred, 215 60–1, 63, 65, 73, 266 Hesmondhalgh, David, 22, 117 and regional programmes, 66–7, 73, Hessischer Rundfunk (HR), 147, 154, 74, 75, 84, 105, 240 155, 202, 280, 290 Independent Television Commission Third Channel, 165 (ITC), 18, 65, 103, 104, 105, 106, Hill, Charles, 79, 80, 84 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, Historisches Archiv des WDR, 9, 124, 126, 136, 229–30, 240, 259, 288–9 273, 274, 275, 276 Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang, 32, 188, Independent Television Companies 192, 202, 222, 235, 263, 264, 293 Association, 83 Hoggart, Richard, 29, 70, 71 Independent Television News (ITN), Hollick, Clive, 117, 276 62, 82, 90, 102, 266, 272 Hollywood, 194 Information Technology Advisory Holzamer, Karl, 160, 163, 281, 284 Panel (ITAP), 94 Home Office, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 90, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), 4, 91, 92, 93, 94, 103, 104, 107, 113, 96, 97, 112, 117, 122, 247, 270, 118, 229, 269, 270, 273, 294 271 Howe, Geoffrey, 104, 273 Institute of Public Policy Research Hugenberg, Alfred, 140, 146, 279 (IPPR), 117 Hume, David, 24, 246 International Monetary Fund (IMF), Hunt Committee, 94–5, 270 16 Hunt, Jeremy, 127, 133, 135 internet, 6, 12, 123, 126,135, 216, Hurd, Douglas, 76, 102, 103, 173, 218, 237, 293 259, 272, 273 see also advertising Hussey, Marmaduke, 269, 275 Interstate Broadcasting Treaty, 19, 20, Hutton Report, 131–2, 231, 278 159, 160, 163, 194, 198, 221, 230, 288, 290, 291 Independent Broadcasting Authority Third Amendment, 207 (IBA), 17–18, 62, 65, 90, 92, 93, Tenth Amendment, 215, 256 104, 106, 107, 109, 229, 259, 260, Twelfth Amendment, 20, 220, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275 221–2, 231, 288, 294 and Channel 4, 87–8, 89, 91, 268 Thirteenth Amendment, 288, 293, franchise auction, 103, 105 294 Index 325

Fourteenth Amendment, 20, 218, Kaufman, Gerald, 110, 118, 241–2, 225, 246, 294 259 Fifteenth Amendment, 219, 234 Keynesianism, 14, 16, 17, 30, 54, 87, iPlayer, 13, 131, 135 249, 253, 255, 295 IPTV, 135 KEF, 195, 208, 216, 217, 218, 224, Isaacs, Jeremy, 38, 87, 89, 164, 259, 233, 234, 288, 291, 293 268, 269, 273 KEK, 19, 208, 213, 214, 215, 216, 223, ITV, 38, 62, 64, 79, 92, 116, 127, 128 224, 292, 293 audience share, 67, 74, 130 Kelly affair, 131, 231, 278 and the BBC, 68, 72, 88, 113 Kiesinger, Kurt Georg, 170, 172 ‘big five’, 64, 65, 67, 73, 83, 155, Kirch Group, 194–5, 199, 208, 209, 241, 266 210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 288 and Channel 4, 87, 88–9, 90, 268, Kirch, Leo, 188, 194, 209, 285, 286, 273 292 consolidation, 109, 111–12, 115, Kirchhof Report, 219, 224 120, 122, 136, 241, 273, 277, KJM, 216, 224 281 Kleinstaaterei, 34, 140, 242, 256 expansion of the transmitter Kohl, Helmut, 18, 186, 210, 283 network, 65, 73 friendship with Leo Kirch, 194, 292 foundation, 60, 63 MDR foundation, 202, 290 franchise auction, 17–18, 100, 102, NDR enlargement, 204 103, 107, 108, 110–11, 122 privatization of Deutsche income, 73 Bundespost, 248 independent productions, 82, 87, KtK, 19, 177–81, 254, 261, 284 100, 104, 268 compared with the Peacock marketization, 15, 91, 104, 112, Committee, 30, 183, 184, 244, 122, 128, 239, 241, 274 249 political pressures to maintain the implementation of regional carve-up, 74–5, 84, 109, recommendations, 185, 186, 187, 129 244 programmes, 64, 67, 68, 71, 73, legacy, 253 83–4 and Postreform, 30, 178, 247–8, 284 regional structure and programmes, 65–6, 74–6, 83, 84, 103, 105, 109, Labour Party, 16, 53–4, 55, 56, 58, 59, 111, 122, 124–5, 128, 129, 131, 63, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 135, 136, 193, 239, 240, 241, 256, 86, 88, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 274, 278 123, 133, 135, 159, 258, 266, 276, see also advertising; Death on the 277 Rock; IBA; ITA, ITC; ITV Digital; see also New Labour Ofcom Länder media authorities, 19, 192, ITV Digital, 129, 136, 278 193, 230, 287, 294 in Bavaria, 188, 202, 214, 283, 286 Jay, Antony, 81–2, 267 common authority for Hamburg Jay, Peter, 20, 99, 271 and Schleswig-Holstein, 293 Joint Scrutiny Committee on the and KEK, 208, 215, 216, 223 Communications Act 2003, 21, in the new Länder, 204 120–1, 123, 245, 277 and ZAK, 216, 224, 230 Joseph, Keith, 87 see also ALM Jowell, Tessa, 133 Langheinrich, Thomas, 215 326 Index

Lawson, Nigel, 112, 273 Lijphart, Arent, 28, 33, 36, 264 legal traditions, 19, 20, 28–9, 223, 288 Lippmann, Walter, 263 Lerche, Peter, 187, 284 Local Media Action Plan, 135 Leys, Colin, 4, 20, 74, 89, 90, 91, 241 Locke, John, 246 Liberal Democrats, 18, 30, 117, 127, Lokalzeit, 289 133, 135, 136, 260 London Weekend Television (LWT), Liberal Party, 97 110, 111, 117, 258 liberal-pluralist tradition, 22, 23–4 licence fee, 114, 206 MacDonald, Barrie, 61, 62, 64, 65, 72, and the ARD, 153, 155, 201, 202, 74, 75, 110, 229, 259 211, 241, 242 Macmillan, Harold, 69, 77, 78, 84, ARD and ZDF income, 218, 234, 267 281 Major, John, 106, 112–13, 259, 276 and BBC income, 128, 129, 233 Mannesmann, 208 and broadcasting decisions of the Marconi, 44, 45, 92, 140, 265 Federal Constitutional Court, Maxwell, Robert, 167 163, 172, 183, 207–8, 216–18, Mediabox, 210 224, 291 media economics, 22–3, 263 development under New Labour Media Service Gesellschaft, 209 and Chris Smith, 119–20, 123, Mediatheken, 13, 221 133 Mellor, David, 110, 113, 275 and Eberhard Witte, 252 merit goods, 23, 235 future model considered in the UK, Merkel, Angela, 214 14, 126, 135, 236, 257 Merseburger, Peter, 176 German change to excise duty Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 195 (2010), 13, 219, 224, 234, 237, Michel Commission 257 I: 167–9, 171, 282, 283 German conflict with the II: 205–6, 212, 243 publishers, 168, 262 see also Schütz, Walter historical development in Germany, Mill, John Stuart, 24, 28, 250, 264 142, 151, 280 Milne, Alasdair, 50, 92, 94, 96, 103, indexation, 100, 102, 103, 107, 120, 269 218, 270, 277 Misc 128, 102, 103, 273 and the KEF, 195, 207–8, 216–18, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR), 233, 238, 293 202, 204, 212, 290 and the Peacock Committee, 100, Mont Pelerin Society, 16, 263 101, 102, 107, 236, 270, 272, 275, Mühlfenzl, Rudolf, 188, 201–2, 203, 296 290 public acceptance, 223, 232 multiplexes, 116, 119, 127, 276 settlement in the UK (2010), 13–14, Murdoch, Rupert, 92, 93, 96, 108, 133–4, 234, 257, 279 118, 122, 125, 135, 167, 194, 211, and state aid cases, 219–20, 221, 212, 223, 235, 269, 294 224, 234 see also BSkyB; News International and the Thatcher government, 17, must-carry rules, 13, 95, 116, 124, 269 96, 97, 103, 107, 108, 123, 273, 275 National Health Service (NHS), 54, in the UK before 1981, 46, 47, 50, 232 52, 65, 71, 79, 92 National Television Council, 60, 266 see also Kirchhof Report NATO, 64, 158, 166 Index 327 neoliberalism, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, ordoliberalism, 16, 18, 165–6, 247 26, 30, 86, 96, 107, 121, 122, 246, Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg 253, 255, 256, 263 (ORB), 203–4, 205, 206, 207, 212, new institutionalism, 26–7 243, 261, 290, 291 New Labour, 18, 29, 30, 115, 117–18, 121, 123, 124, 210, 213, 276, Panorama, 103, 176 277 pay-TV, 4, 12 News International, 115, 118, 123 in Germany, 209, 210–11, 213, 223, News of the World, 129, 135 224, 252, 292, 294 Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth, 248 in the UK, 72, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), 12, 115, 119, 127, 128, 130, 271 153, 154–5, 157, 165, 243, 259, Peacock, Alan, 22, 97, 98–100, 103, 280, 281, 291 274 crisis, 175–7, 183, 283 advertising, 101–2, 271–2 enlargement after reunification, analogy to Mr Maton, 93, 269 204–5, 212 and the BBC, 98, 231, 252, 271, Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk 294–5 (NWDR), 30, 148, 150, 154, 156, biography, 97, 259 280 broadcasting philosophy, 249–50, separation, 151–3, 157, 281 252 Northcliffe, Lord, 44 ‘comfortable duopoly’, 283 North East German Broadcasting committee proceedings, 270–1 Corporation, 203 compared with Eberhard Witte, 9, 30, 38, 249 Ofcom, 18, 31, 124–7, 135, 210, 213, composition of the inquiry, 270 245 consumer choice, 271 citizen/consumer divide, 21, 121, liberal theory, 272 126, 236, 275, 277 paradigm shift towards economic compared with the ZAK, 19, 216, regulation, 236, 253–4 256, 257 seminar on broadcasting policy, 273 and ITV, 128–9, 278 terms of reference, 272 Joint Scrutiny Committee, 120–2 Peacock Committee, 7, 92, 96–102, market impact assessment, 133, 107, 262 222, 231 and the BBC, 17, 231 PSB review, 126–7, 136, 277, 278 and Choice by Cable, 270 regionalization, 240 compared with the KtK, 30, 178, responsibility for the BBC, 13, 18, 183–4, 244, 249 121, 123, 125, 133, 230, 256, 277, franchise auction, 105, 110, 122, 279 241 Office of Fair Trading, 115, 119, 125, implementation of 136, 275 recommendations, 103, 105 Oftel, 119, 120, 124, 126, 136 independent production quota, 109 O’Malley, Tom, 90, 91, 96, 103, 126, legacy, 13, 253 262, 265, 270, 274 notion of the public interest, 235–6 ONdigital, 119, 127, 129, 136, 278 PSB review, 126 Open Broadcasting Authority (OBA), Public Service Broadcasting Council, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 101, 268, 277 101, 236, 275, 277 Open University, 71, 72, 80, 81, 82 Pearson, 92, 116, 118, 209, 258, 275 Ordinance No. 118, 150, 153 Permira, 211, 215 328 Index

Pilkington Committee, 68–73, 80 see also KJM Piratenpartei, 219 public interest, 4, 25, 26, 60, 101, Plog, Jobst, 195, 217, 259–60, 288, 104, 115, 121–2, 133, 234–7, 249, 292 253, 292 NDR crisis, 175–7, 283 public policy, 4, 52, 53, 96 NDR enlargement after Public Service Broadcasting Council, reunification, 204–5 101, 236, 277 pluralism, 4, 12, 17, 33, 35, 191, 197, Public Service Publisher, 126 222, 232, 256 public value, 4, 13, 132, 222, 223, and the Annan Report, 83 224, 231, 237, 279 and the cable pilot project in Public Value Test, 6, 132, 133, 222, Bavaria, 188 224, 231, 232, 237, 255, 257 and liberal-pluralist tradition, 24 Purnell, James, 109, 114, 117, 245 and the MDR Treaty, 202 Puttnam, David, 21, 120–1, 123, 245, and Ofcom, 125 277 and political parallelism, 34 as an underlying concept of Radio Authority, 18, 120, 124, 229, German broadcasting jurisdiction, 274 162, 170, 173, 182, 184, 189, 197, Radio Bremen (RB), 147–8, 151, 152, 285 154, 155, 165, 205, 241, 253, 280, policy-making process, 20, 107, 120, 281, 284 169, 218, 225, 245–6 Radiodiffussion Française, 148 Popular Television Association, 60 Reding, Viviane, 220, 221 Port of London Authority, 48 re-education policy, 148–9 Postal Workers’ Union, 183 RegTP, 207, 213, 264, 291 Post Office, 44–6, 49, 51, 55, 140, see also Federal Network Agency 149–50, 229, 264, 265, 269, 272, regulatory state, 4, 10, 11, 16–20, 21, 280 26, 36, 213, 236 Postreform, 19, 30, 177, 178, 207, 210, regulatory traditions, 232, 244–5, 256, 213, 247, 248, 249, 284, 296 288 Premier League, 116, 210 see also legal traditions Premiere, 209, 210, 211, 213, 223, Reich Broadcasting Company, 144, 288, 292 146, 154 Private Bayerische Rundfunk- und Reich Ministry of Public Fernseh AG, 174 Enlightenment and Propaganda, Producer Choice, 17, 113–14, 123, 145 196, 275 Reichspost Ministry (RPM), 140, product placement, 223, 294 141–2, 143, 144, 146, 279 Profumo, John, 59, 76–8, 84 Reith, John, 15, 45–8, 51–2, 55, 58, Programmgesellschaft für Kabel- und 79, 82, 90, 91, 98, 144, 150, 240, Satellitenfunk (PKS), 188, 191, 265, 266 258, 285–6 retail revolution, 43 propaganda, 15, 145, 146 reunification, 18, 200, 201, 203, 204, Proporz, 15, 34, 152, 157, 163, 165, 205, 206, 207, 212, 213, 243, 291, 175, 212, 284 293 ProSiebenSat.1, 208, 212, 213, 214, Richards, Ed, 245 215, 216, 223, 276, 293 Ring, Wolf-Dieter, 214, 215 protection of minors, 20, 192, 194, Rosenbauer, Hansjürgen, 203 209, 218, 288, 294 Royal Opera House, 132, 259 Index 329

RTL Group, 191, 192, 208, 209, 214, Select Committee on Culture, Media 217 and Sport, 110, 118, 119, 259, 276 encryption, 223 Selsdon Committee, 50, 240, 265 regional window programme, 198, Selwyn Lloyd, John, 57–9, 63 288 Sender Freies Berlin (SFB), 153, 154, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB), 155, 165, 205, 206–7, 212, 243, 205, 207, 212, 243 253, 261, 281, 290, 291 Rüttgers, Jürgen, 216–17 Services of General Interest (SGI) see European Commission Saarländischer Rundfunk (SR), 149, Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C), 124, 130, 155, 156, 165, 205, 241, 253, 281 134, 268 Saban, Haim, 212, 213, 214, 293 Siemens, 178 Sat.1, 188, 192 208, 217, 258, 288 Siepman, Charles, 151, 280 regional window programme, 193, Sky Channel/Sky Digital, 92, 95, 108, 198, 288 114, 116, 119, 127, 128, 223, 259, see also ProSiebenSat.1 277 Schäffer, Fritz, 160, 161 Smith, Adam, 16, 24, 250 Schmidt, Helmut, 181, 182, 184, 185, Smith, Anthony, 44, 76, 80–1, 82, 189, 197 101, 260, 266, 277 Schröder, Gerhard, 18, 212, 292 Smith, Chris, 118–20, 133, 260 Schütz, Walter, 155, 162–3, 168–9, social-democratic consensus, 54, 63 206, 260, 282 social market economy, 158, 165–6, Schwarzkopf, Dietrich, 5–6, 175, 177, 169 181, 195 socially relevant groups, 34, 162 Schwarz-Schilling, Christian, 9, 31, and AKK, 286 178, 254, 286, 289 and KEK, 208 appointment as Minister for Post and MDR, 202 and Telecommunications, 186 with regard to NDR and party biography, 260 patronage, 177 broadcasting philosophy, 198, and NWDR, 152, 280 251–2, 253 pluralism requirements, 170, 285 as Chairman of the Committee of and Third Broadcasting Judgement, Inquiry into New Information 182 and Communication and ZDF, 163, 281 Technologies, 185–6 Sound Broadcasting Act 1972, 74 on competition, 197 Southern Television, 269 large-scale cabling, 189, 190, 197–8, South West Germany’s broadcasting 212 set-up, 149, 151, 155, 205–6, 240, opposition to policies, 286–7 242, 243, 291 on pay-TV, 211 SPD, 18, 29, 30, 152, 153, 159, 160, Postreform, 178, 207, 248, 249 161, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, satellite transmissions, 190, 191, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 198 189, 190, 193, 198, 202, 204, 212, (termination of the) ‘post-war 214, 248, 281, 283, 284, 285, 292 public broadcasting consensus’, Spiegel affair, 166, 169, 175, 282 175, 176, 183, 283 standards of broadcasting, 60, 71 Scottish Enlightenment, 24, 31, 256 during the 1960s, 81, 84, 102–3, Scottish Television (STV), 67, 110, 122, 124, 133, 163, 192–4, 252, 111, 266 255, 267, 272, 273, 274 330 Index

Standortpolitik, 19, 192–3, 198, 214, and ITV, 109, 110 215, 216, 217, 224, 230, 238, 294 market-driven politics, 90, 96, 103, State Provision for Social Need 107, 108, 241, 276 (Beveridge Collection), 9, 266 and neoliberalism, 30 Stein, Eckart, 38, 90, 164, 260 privatizations, 87, 184, 247 Steinbrück, Peer, 217, 238 see also DTI; Home Office Stoiber, Edmund, 214, 217, 238 Thatcher, Margaret, 102, 106, 113 Stolpe, Manfred, 203, 206 and the BBC, 96, 98, 272 Stolte, Dieter, 164, 252, 288 and Death on the Rock, 104 Stoltenberg, Gerhard, 176, 283 and the ITV franchise auction, 110 Strauß, Franz Josef, 166, 172, 173, and Rupert Murdoch, 194, 269 174, 183, 282 seminar on broadcasting policy, subscription, 4, 92, 93, 95, 114, 127, 102, 273 130, 276, 294 Thatcherism, 17, 18, 87 and German cable pilot projects, The Guardian, 62, 97, 263, 268, 275, 188, 189 278, 294 and large-scale cabling, 190 The Observer, 266 and the Peacock Committee, 30, 99, The Sunday Times, 267 100, 101, 107, 236, 270, 271, 273, The Times, 96, 268, 269, 271 274, 275 Thoma, Helmut, 192 and the Pilkington Committee, 72 Thomson, George, 62, 65, 75, 76, 86, Süddeutscher Rundfunk (SDR), 148, 104, 106, 239–40, 260, 274 149, 154, 155, 156, 165, 194, 205, Thomson, Mark, 131, 135 206, 212, 242, 280 Three-Step Test, 6, 222–3, 224, 231, Südwest 3, 165 232, 237, 255, 257, 293 Südwestfunk (SWF), 148, 149, 151, Tracey, Michael, 5, 11, 79, 148, 149, 154, 155, 156, 160, 165, 194, 205, 152 206, 212, 242, 280, 286 Treuhandanstalt, 201, 290 Südwestrundfunk (SWR), 205, 206, TV-am, 90, 107, 258, 269, 274 212, 242, 291 TW3, 69, 77–8, 82, 84 Sykes Committee, 46–7, 55 TWF Directive see European Commission Tagesschau-app, 12, 220, 225 Tyne Tees Television, 75, 111, 129 Telefunken, 141, 144 Television Wales and the West, 66, 74 telemedia, 12, 20, 220, 222, 223, 231, 288, 293 Ullswater Committee, 50–1, 55, 265 Television Act 1954, 60–1, 62, 63, Ulster Television, 111, 278 230, 239, 295 UMTS, 216 Television South, 269, 274 United Artists, 195 Television South-West, 269 universal access, 4, 92, 119, 130, 235, Thames Television, 104, 111, 114, 237 259, 268, 274 Thatcher administration, 17, 92, 94, Veljanovski, Cento, 93, 94, 95, 97, 259 269, 270, 271 appointment of the Peacock Verband Privater Rundfunk und Committee, 96–7 Telemedien (VPRT), 216, 219, and the BBC, 36, 98, 120 258 end of social-democratic consensus, videotext, 180, 181–2, 285 54 Vodafone, 208 Index 331

Vogel, Bernhard, 181, 186, 258, 261, Westward Television, 269 283, 285 Whitehead, Philip, 81, 267 Von Bismarck, Klaus, 275, 288–9 Whitehouse, Mary, 79, 82, 84, 102, Von Bismarck, Otto, 34, 54, 139, 140, 267 242, 247 Whitelaw, William, 86, 87–9, 90, 91, Von Hase, Karl-Günther, 163, 166, 94, 96, 107, 269 261 Wilson, Harold, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, Von Hayek, Friedrich August, 16, 54, 93, 119, 258 250, 263 Witte, Eberhard, 9, 19, 31, 192, 293 Von Mises, Ludwig, 15, 24, 263 arguments against large-scale Von Papen, Franz, 144, 145 cabling, 189–90, 286 Von Sell, Friedrich-Wilhelm, 20, 113, on the BDZV, 282–3 147, 192, 243, 261, 275, 287, 288, biography, 178, 261 289, 290 broadcasting philosophy, 250–1, decentralization of budget 252–3, 254 responsibility, 195–6 compared with Alan Peacock, 30, MGM film package deal, 195 38, 184, 249 and the NDR crisis, 177 director of the Munich cable pilot and ORB/SFB combination, 291 project, 187, 188 and the ORB foundation, 203 and the KtK, 178, 179–80, 249, 253, RBB foundation, 206–7 254, 284 regionalization, 196–7 Postreform, 178, 207, 247–8, 284, resentment against the public 286 corporation, 233 regulatory traditions, 244–5

Wales (West & North), 65 Yorkshire Television, 111 Weber, Max, 263 Weimar Republic, 15, 34, 140, 143, ZAK, 19, 215, 216, 223–4, 230, 256, 146, 147, 154, 157, 159, 238, 247, 257 281 ZDF, 90, 198, 203, 205, 260, 261 concept of broadcasting, 170 and 3Sat, 191 welfare state, 14, 16, 18, 25, 33, 54, audience share, 214, 217 59, 166, 249, 255 and the BDZV, 168, 282, 286 West Country Television, 129, 274 digital bouquet, 210, 292 Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 192, and Dortmund cable pilot project, 287 188 Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), 113, foundation, 15, 37, 163–4, 170, 157, 203, 261, 291 281 decentralization of budget future, 4, 13, 14, 257 responsibility, 195–6 income, 218, 234 and Dortmund cable pilot project, and Leo Kirch, 194, 288 188, 289 MGM film package deal, 194–5 establishment, 152–3, 280, 281 online expansion, 220, 221, 224 law, 292 politicization, 164, 222, 232 as member of the ARD, 154, 155, remit, 12, 221, 262 177, 253 thoughts on privatization, 252–3 regionalization, 196–7, 199, 289 see also advertising; Kirchhof Third Channel, 165 Report; licence fee; Mediatheken; Treaty, 289 telemedia, Three-Step Test