In 2025, ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandradio received just under 5,000 formal complaints regarding their programming nationwide; the figure for the previous year was around 1,100. This increase was driven by a rise in specifically formulated submissions and the use of the “Rundfunkalarm” portal. Nevertheless, only 184 cases reached the relevant oversight bodies, and the broadcasting councils upheld just one of them. Consequently, the published success rate provides only an incomplete picture of potential errors.
Formal complaints about programming rarely reach oversight bodies
A formal complaint must identify a specific broadcast segment and a potential violation of the rules; general criticism regarding program selection, working methods, or political leaning does not suffice. Furthermore, areas of responsibility and procedural paths vary among the broadcasting organizations. Consequently, even formal deficiencies can prevent a substantive review. While these hurdles shield broadcasters from mere protest emails, they also impede legitimate oversight.
Image: Shutterstock
Launched in 2024, the “Rundfunkalarm” portal provides users with complaint templates. As a result, broadcasters receive a large volume of letters that are identical or only slightly modified. Some submissions are also sent to the wrong contact person. While these issues account for part of the record-breaking figures, they do not explain the extremely low rate of upheld complaints; after all, a standardized text does not automatically invalidate the error it describes.
Broadcasting councils reject almost all reviewed cases
Out of nearly 5,000 submissions, the committees deliberated on only 184—representing less than four percent. Only one of these proceedings concluded in the complainant’s favor. This resulted in an “upheld” rate of around 0.5 percent of the cases reviewed. Media journalist Stefan Fries therefore concludes: “The councils’ decisions often favor the broadcasters.”
The procedure itself accounts for part of this outcome. Often, the broadcaster’s management reviews the allegation first and can correct the error themselves. If the sender does not pursue the matter further, the broadcasting council never makes a formal decision. In the second half of 2025, for instance, rbb management resolved five programming complaints internally. Yet, such corrections do not appear as formal rulings by the broadcasting councils. Consequently, the figure of just one successful case presents a distorted picture.
ZDF error disappears from success statistics
The ZDF incident from February 2026 illustrates the problem particularly clearly. The news program “heute journal” used an AI-generated video without proper labeling. Additionally, the segment featured real footage taken out of its proper chronological context. ZDF apologized, removed the segment, and announced new verification rules. Nevertheless, the Broadcasting Council did not formally uphold the complaint; after all, the broadcaster had already admitted to the error itself.
This logic results in a highly favorable track record for the broadcasters. Proven errors can be rectified without subsequently appearing in the records as formally upheld program complaints. At the same time, many broadcasters published hardly any details regarding the specific allegations. Only the ZDF Broadcasting Council provided a comprehensive list of the content that had been challenged. In June 2026, the governing bodies of Deutschlandradio also rejected eleven further complaints. However, public-service media require a system of oversight where citizens can fully comprehend the decisions made. Nearly 5,000 complaints resulting in only a single upheld case do not contribute to that goal.
Author: Blackout News
Sources: Welt (23.07.26) – Deutschlandradio (19.06.26) – rbb (Stand: 23.07.26) – ZDF Presseportal (13.03.26)