What is freedom worth to us?

“What is freedom worth to us?” I didn’t choose the topic, but you can imagine that I was immediately hooked. Because freedom is the compass that guides me through my life. Freedom, freedom of the media, freedom of expression, free trade, free market economy, free thought, the rule of law and human rights – much of what makes our society, our democracy worth living in, is based on them.

But freedom is in danger. The non-governmental organization “Freedom House” sees the decline of democracy for the sixteenth year in a row. More and more countries are being downgraded from free to partially free and from partially free to non-free. Over the past year, 60 countries have worsened and only 25 have improved.

The Democracy Index of the “Economist” states for the year 2021: Only 45.7 percent of the world’s people live in a democracy. Freedom is objectively on the retreat worldwide. This is alarming.

The British philosopher and state theorist Thomas Hobbes understood freedom as arbitrary freedom: you are free if you can do what you want and are not prevented from doing so by others. For me, freedom means above all protection from autocracy and dictatorship. So just arbitrariness. And of course, adult freedom always comes with responsibility. And that also means in concrete terms: the responsibility of every citizen to work for an open and liberal society.

We often only realize what freedom is worth to us when it is no longer there. Freedom is shy and easy to drive away. First, the measures against the pandemic meant extensive interventions in our lives. It’s less extreme here than in China, for example. Or also in Hungary. And yet: The pandemic was something of a booster for the enemies of freedom here too.

Much more obvious were and are the attacks on freedom in Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin is waging a war of conquest. The worst consequences of this war are of course the suffering and death of the people there. Our sympathy goes to the victims, but also our hopefully continued solidarity. An entire people is fighting bravely for their own survival and for our freedom. And Germany in particular should not shirk its responsibility when it comes to providing support. We must learn from history never to look away again when nationalism and demagogy are spreading, and to intervene when they lead to violence and genocide.

Putin is also reminding us, once again, that tanks and missiles are not the only means of fighting. But also with the weapon of propaganda. Despots hate free media, they hate our free lifestyle. Putin’s war is not only a war against Ukraine. It is a war against open societies and, last but not least, a war against our self-image that freedom of opinion and the media are a foundation of democracy.

Vladimir Putin and the Russian leadership are undermining them. Attempting to play their own people and the West off against each other with propaganda and fake news. Journalists in Russia are in grave danger if they label this war of aggression as such. Journalists die in wars because they say and write what is. Foreign websites will be blocked. In war, the truth dies first. As publishers and journalists, we have a special responsibility these months.

The current developments are a great danger, but also a huge opportunity to demonstrate the responsibility and relevance of our profession. Especially since the threats to freedom are not only lurking in war zones. Perhaps the most dangerous poison to freedom and democracy is “alternative facts”. And they are on the rise almost everywhere.

It is the destruction of reliability and fairness and thus of trust. Alternative facts are the stylistic device of autocracies and dictatorships. They are based on the means of targeted disinformation, manipulation and propaganda. When facts are no longer a reliable foundation in a democracy, not only does trust dwindle, conspiracy theories flourish.

At some point, democratic decisions and elections become a farce. On what basis should one discuss, vote and vote when everything can be true or false at the same time, because each side has its own version of the facts? One can and should interpret facts differently in a free society, and one can and should occasionally argue about whether a fact is really a fact.

But at a certain point, a fact must be accepted by all as fact and thus as a basis for debate, decision, or compromise. If this does not happen, because facts are treated as opinions, then an attitude emerges that is a reversal of the Enlightenment idea. Faith is again above knowledge. In the end, this attitude is the opposite and therefore the end of democracy and freedom.

Good, responsible journalism is the antidote that helps to prevent this development. It is the foundation and protective power of democracy. That always applies, but especially in these times. Where the state does not allow free media, there is autocracy and dictatorship. Our freedom is being attacked by a dictator. 1200 kilometers as the crow flies from here.

Critical research and words are what we as press publishers have to rebel against attacks on our freedom. words are powerful. “Give freedom of thought”, our constitution or “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. Words change the world.

Words of contradiction are particularly important. Journalism is well known: showing the other side of the coin. If almost everyone agrees, it makes sense as a matter of principle to shed light on the opposite. Free and economically independent, well-fortified media and independent journalism are indispensable for opinion-forming, social participation and cohesion. In this sense they are allies of freedom.

Now the commitment and courage of our industry are particularly important. I think we are in a historic situation. We all know that freedom does not come by itself and it does not come for free. Above all, the defense of freedom costs strength – and often a lot of money.

As a country, but also as an industry, we are learning this again in a bitter way. The energy crisis will lead to enormous upheavals in society, endanger our economic model and call into question the existence of many companies. If we don’t find any answers, so will the existence of many media houses.

Some of our members are much more affected by the crisis than other commercial enterprises. Advertising sales collapse in all areas. Many subscribers are having to cut their budgets because of high inflation. The paper prices have risen in a way that is far above the cost developments of other industries and that I have never experienced in the last 20 years of my professional life. In addition, like the rest of the economy, we are being hit hard by electricity prices. The risk of a gas and thus paper shortage is real.

The current cost explosion meets previously determined, government-imposed cost increases that will become relevant in the coming month. Our valuable press delivery infrastructure is on the brink of collapse in many parts of Germany due to the almost unimaginable wage costs.

This weakens social cohesion and local opinion-forming from reliable sources, especially in the area, regionally and locally. Not everyone wants or can read newspapers digitally. Without the printed newspaper, the financing of digital journalism in the ongoing transformation will hardly be possible.

An exaggerated horror scenario? Since 2004, 2,000 newspapers have been shut down in the USA – and tens of thousands of journalist jobs have been lost. The many newspaper deserts in the motherland of democracy are one reason for the massive polarization and dangerous social divisions in the United States.

Newspaper dying is dangerous. A study by the journalism school at Northwestern University shows that where there are no newspapers or digital newspaper services, the poverty rate is higher than the national average. And there is more corruption in journalistically isolated areas, both in companies and in authorities. Where there are no analogue or digital newspapers, democracy loses, freedom loses.

If our industry is not only burdened by pressures such as war and inflation, not only by the structural challenges of the digital transformation – which we are happy to face and in many institutions also very successfully – but also by political decisions, then journalism becomes like we imagine him suffer. In the end, the free, open society in which we are fortunate enough to live will be weakened.

The members of the BDZV, the digital publishers and newspaper publishers in Germany, are caught in a dangerous storm. But journalism will exist and we can grow with this challenge. Why? Because – and I never want to stop emphasizing this – the best of journalism is still ahead of us. And that’s not just a hope, there are some good reasons for it.

In 2021, for the first time, newspaper publishers generated sales of more than one billion euros with their digital offerings. This shows that we are well on the way to establishing the digital business as a pillar for financing journalism. The message is clear: the digital subscription has become established worldwide. Also because we can design journalistic products in the digital world with all the freedom. Text, audio and video – maybe soon metaverse and blockchain – will contribute to making journalism more attractive because it is more diverse, more interesting and smarter. We will use this chance.

At the same time, a serious and fundamental discussion is finally beginning as to what kind of public media system we need. In addition to the question of supervision, financing of public service broadcasting and ensuring that the state is remote, it must also be about the overall mandate.

Negotiations with the platforms also give us impetus. In Brussels, there is a growing realization that gatekeeper platforms are essential facilities – also for opinion-forming. Media freedom and diversity cannot exist where there is only one or very few essential platforms that decide who reads which news, what is right and what is wrong.

It was clear to everyone that the enormous power of Google would also be reflected in the enforcement of the press ancillary copyright. We all expect fair compensation for our valuable content, not squire-style handing out crumbs. And we are confident that we will ultimately succeed in enforcing the law, from which journalists also benefit directly.

We can also be encouraged that worldwide – from Canada to Australia, from the USA to India, from the EU to Latin America – more and more legislators are recognizing the importance of independent journalism for freedom and democracy – and are creating regulations that ensure a fair and reasonable Ensure remuneration for the use of our content. The most important prerequisite for our success here is community and unity.

A lot of what comes out of Brussels and the EU member states is definitely helpful. Unfortunately, based on everything we hear, this does not apply to the planned ‘European Media Freedom Act’. In concrete terms: If the EU actually wants to place the work and organization of the publishers under European media supervision, it will not only jeopardize press freedom in Germany and Europe, but will hit the core. In this way, the Media Freedom Act becomes the opposite of what it was intended to be: a law that endangers press freedom, a Media Unfreedom Act.

Overall, however, it can be clearly stated that there is a lot of tailwind for journalists. And this tailwind must not blow past us unused. And that brings me to my last point: crises are always great moments for courageous and responsible entrepreneurs – especially for the media. We’re already seeing that in the US. Yes, there are structural problems with local newspapers there. But at the same time, we’re watching media company after media company being launched – Axios, Morning Brew, Semafor, Puck – to name a few. A new digital founding era begins. That’s very encouraging.

I think we’re at a fork in the road. The current developments can be the beginning of the end of a good time – both for society itself, but above all very specifically for our industry. Or the beginning of an even better future. Of course, this is also due to politics and the regulatory framework, but it is mainly up to us.

If we let ourselves be divided, newspaper publishers from magazine publishers, small houses from large, local from national publishers, advanced digitized from less digitized companies – then it will be difficult.

If we let the historic opportunity of a reformed copyright law and a legally anchored right to appropriate remuneration for our content through the platforms pass by – instead of acting confidently together – we let ourselves be played off against each other, if we instead of relying on fair conditions for a sustainable business model on state grants and subsidies, it won’t be long before a wave of insolvencies hits the industry.

And it will then be very quick until concerned politicians offer aid packages and state foundations in order – as it will then be called – to maintain journalistic quality and diversity. It will start out in a friendly, polite, helpful, and unsuspicious manner. And it will end horribly. In politics, we need fair framework conditions for an attractive business model, not journalism subsidies. For me, this is the red line that must never be crossed. This has been my nightmare for many years: instead of a dual system, there is a monistic construct made up of text, audio and video, analog and digital offerings, all of which have one thing in common: they are dependent on drips from the respective government. Instead of being remote from the state, we will then have state media. Public press.

But if we do it differently, if politicians concentrate on smart, lean regulation of future issues and spare us further additional burdens, if above all we focus together on innovation and digitization and, more importantly: on independence and journalistic quality, then then An era for founders begins – and publishing becomes a dream job again. Critical, unpredictable, responsible and clever journalism is needed more than ever. Someone will deliver. We have it in our own hands whether it is us or someone else.

We have achieved a lot as an association and as an industry. The last ten years have been characterized by our fighting for a business model for digital journalism. That was always my most important concern – also during my time as BDZV President. The question of whether digital journalism works no longer arises. Those who have consistently backed it have proven that it works. Digital subscription models, restrictions for the dominant platforms and European copyright have made a decisive contribution to this.

Anyone who is still discussing the raison d’être of the “digital journalism” business model is leading the debates of the past. The next ten years will be about defining WHICH journalism we want to do. And if we get it right – here, too, I think the word freedom plays the decisive role – the best is really still ahead of us. Journalism will be more important than ever in the next few years.

It’s about a lot. Therefore, even if I am no longer available as president of our association, I will continue to fight for our interests. Let us use the dramatic developments and the current threats to democracy as a wake-up call. Each day, let us boldly embrace our shared responsibility to defend our freedom.

What is our freedom worth to us? I hope everything.

My most important advice and wish for the future is: unity! Particular interests will tear us apart. Integration and integrity, community and unity will make us strong. Maybe even stronger than ever. I wish that. Thank you very much!