The TV viewer pays his TV fee for 100,000 a month to finance Markus Lanz's year. Even after the increase in 2024, the annual income of the ZDF talk show man will be equivalent to the civil allowance of 281 unmarried people – a whole year.

And with respect to Ricarda Lang of the Green Party: this amount could also be used to transfer the average monthly pension to 1,226 pensioners in Germany. So dear ZDF has its late-night talk three nights a week. At least for the TV viewer, it is costly through his subscription fee.

Dear? Oh well. The number of spectators is decreasing. “Markus Lanz” was watched by an average of 1.56 million viewers on three nights from Tuesday to Thursday in 2023. Last year, the average was 1.65 million.

Life on screen and dull life outside

Of course, the comparisons are not fair. No one would want to oblige an experienced talk show host like Markus Lanzi to speak for minimum wage – by the way, no one would want to see that for 153,102 hours. And yet it is the view of real life that makes it clear how and why there is so much crunch in the cogs of public television's colorful image world.

1.9 million euros per year for Lanz. Horst Lichter 1.7 million, most recently Oliver Welke 1.18 million. These income figures have become public in ZDF, especially for the highest income earners.

The published merits for the raised finger of Maybrit Illner (480,000 euros), the good mood guarantee of Giovanni Zarella (300,000 euros) and Andrea Kiewel, the moderating faux pas from “ZDF-Fernsehengarten” (400,000 euros) are almost modest.

And all this money is collected by 46 million contributors in Germany – millions of people who are increasingly plagued by fears about the future of their lives. Life on the screen no longer has so much to do with life for nothing.

Reform or reform?

Cultural criticism of television is probably almost as old as television itself. Hans-Joachim Kulenkampff, the great TV personality who died a quarter of a century ago, lamented:

“People are not as stupid as we make them out to be on television.” What is new for television, however, is that the old sense of entitlement collides with the new replaceability.

More and more classes of society are saying goodbye to public television, but people are still paying – the system is literally outdated when only the over-60 generation benefits from the screens. And within the system, Lanz, Illner & Co. So changes are necessary.

A small reform is enough for the National Broadcasting Commission, as it recently stated after a two-day meeting. The “Future Council” convened by the federal states needs reform – a reform that is pleasantly comprehensive.

The performance should be worth it – and on TV!

“We see ARDs that are hardly capable of strategy,” said council member Peter M. Huber, a former federal constitutional judge and former Thuringian interior minister. “Changes are needed not in the system, but in the system,” colleague Julia Jäkel confirmed the basics.

They are united by the concern that “public broadcasters should become more public broadcasters” – And they also mean that they should move more into the center of society again. What hurts about the Future Council proposal: It involves very specific money.

Television fees should be measured against criteria such as truthfulness and credibility, diversity and comprehensibility, innovation and transparency. Performance should be worthwhile, non-performance should be punished: this appeal to television is essential. Anyone who does not have the courage to change now risks losing in the near future. And that would be good.