Losing control is not desirable.
Especially not when you are at the head of a public broadcaster and are responsible for many employees, for the use of high contributions and thus citizen money as well as for a credible and relevant program in terms of content.
From a sociological point of view, however, avoiding a loss of control can lead to a “Wagenburg mentality”.
Such an attitude reduces complexity, but at the same time it is highly dangerous.
Structures and processes can suffer as a result of control being viewed as a value in itself.
When the avoidance of subjective loss of control is then accompanied by the loss of independent control, a dilemma arises in which corruption can happily thrive.
Those who shy away from transparency, no matter how understandable the reasons, always expose themselves to the danger of relationships becoming independent.
Sometimes that's just morally dubious, sometimes it's even punishable.
The case is unique
As far as we know, the "RBB case" is unique in public broadcasting in this country.
It is therefore not fair to use this as an opportunity to propose radical cuts.
This undermines the trust and credibility that broadcasters need to fulfill their mission of serving society.
After all, nobody would think of calling for the merger of federal states, the reduction of state tasks and cuts in politicians' salaries just because individuals have behaved incorrectly.
Nevertheless, the broadcasters, which are paid for by the citizens, need more transparency.
Structures and processes must be put to the test, especially with regard to compliance.
You can't wait too long, it has to be specific!
The various ARD stations have so far been positioned quite differently when it comes to compliance.
Some have quite extensive departments that support the supervisory boards, which are staffed by volunteers.
For others, especially the RBB, it looks rather clear.
In addition, such assistants, like the internal audit, must be independent of the respective directorship and management level.
It would now make sense to bundle the relevant competencies centrally.
Lawyers, corruption experts and managers could train and advise committees and, if in doubt, be entrusted with expert opinions.
Even a whistleblower system that could be addressed independently of the house concerned is conceivable.
Now critics will object that central institutions for the ARD as a more or less loose working group are organizationally unthinkable.
Something like this has existed for a long time: a media academy in Nuremberg successfully takes care of journalistic and technical education.
Why not training in terms of transparency and avoiding corruption?
If the containment of human misconduct is to be effective,
It would be conceivable, for example, to set up a compliance department at the existing media academy central facility.
That would be quick and would prevent the approach from being “talked to pieces”.
It doesn't have to be in Nuremberg.
One could, for example, deliberately go to Brandenburg with such a "branch".
That would also be an expression of appreciation for the East German federal states.
If you want to have debates about the editorial content of public broadcasters, you're welcome to do so.
However, such discourses should not be mixed up with the scandalous individual case RBB.
Above all, the thousands of employees in the editorial offices of the broadcasters didn't deserve that.
They suffer from the generalized allegations, even though they do their independent and incorruptible work day after day.
When it comes to compliance on their executive floors, they too can expect (even) more professionalism to be shown here.
Otherwise there is a risk of loss of control.
Frank Überall
is Federal Chairman of the German Association of Journalists (DJV).
He is a professor at the University of Media, Communication and Economics (Cologne/Berlin) and sits on the advisory board of the German section of Transparency International.
He has been reporting as a journalist for WDR and ARD, among others, for 25 years.