There is no such thing as “the media awards”, just as there is no such thing as “the media”. That may sound like a semantic distinction, but it is actually at the heart of a debate that is becoming increasingly intense. When people discuss awards in journalism, they often end up talking about a phantom if they ignore the differences between the individual awards, their statutes, and the way their juries work.
At the recent Grimme-Diskursraum at the NRW Forum in Düsseldorf, I joined the panel “Media Awards Under Pressure? Between Quality Standards and Political Symbolism” together with Schiwa Schlei, Diemut Roether, Friedrich Küppersbusch, and René Martens, moderated by Torsten Zarges. The overall event was titled “Journalism Between Objectivity, Activism, and Recognition”, and that title alone reflects how closely these issues are connected today.
Whenever a media award is presented, it makes a statement about what counts as outstanding work. And once society begins to disagree about what good journalism actually is, the award itself inevitably comes under scrutiny.
A media award is only as strong as its statutes
Whether a media award serves as a genuine benchmark for quality or turns into a political symbol does not depend on the label “media award.” It depends on the rules behind it. It depends on the statutes, the composition of the jury, the focus, and the purpose of the individual award. Two awards may share a similar name while representing completely different values.
From my experience serving on both the Grimme-Preis and the Grimme Online Award, one principle is indispensable: continuous evolution.
A media award that stops evolving gradually loses touch with the very work it is supposed to recognize. The Grimme Online Award illustrates this particularly well. In its early years, the internet was primarily a text-based medium. Later it became a video platform, requiring completely different evaluation criteria. From virtual reality to podcasts, nomination committees and juries have repeatedly had to ask themselves what actually matters at a given moment and how to evaluate formats that did not even exist in their current form a year earlier.
Over the years, the Grimme Institute has consistently created the space for exactly these discussions.
How decisions are really made
This framework is what separates genuine quality standards from political symbolism.
The process itself, like the committee decisions, has always been neutral. The Institute invests an extraordinary amount of effort into creating a protected environment where the best possible decisions can emerge.
The process consists of two stages.
First, the nomination committee reviews all submissions and recommendations and selects the strongest entries. Afterwards, an independent jury evaluates those nominees from scratch, without being influenced by the previous discussions.
This separation creates a remarkably objective process because it prevents individual preferences from shaping the outcome from the beginning.
Since joining the Grimme Online Award nomination committee for the first time in 2007, I have never experienced a single attempt by the Grimme-Institut.
Some decisions were expected to be controversial, yet both the jury and the Institute consistently stood behind the process itself.
That is important to me because accusations of political influence tend to appear whenever an award receives political attention. In my experience, those accusations simply do not reflect how these committees actually operate.
The real value of a media award lies in the debate
What happens inside these juries is almost impossible to understand from the outside.
Listening to people with different expertise often changes your own perspective. Decisions that initially seemed obvious to me have sometimes shifted completely because another jury member noticed details I had overlooked.
That is not a weakness. It is precisely the strength of the process.
For me personally, these discussions have become one of the greatest benefits of serving on these committees. Even after many years, I would not want to miss that exchange.
Why media awards matter
Time and again, I have seen how a nomination or an award shines a spotlight on outstanding work. That visibility has often led to new projects, books, documentaries, or entirely new opportunities.
For me, that is the real purpose of media awards. Experts identify innovation and discover ideas that can serve as blueprints for the future, exactly the kind of future society needs.
Technical excellence must meet today’s professional standards. In 2026, that is simply the baseline. Beyond craftsmanship, however, creativity and passion also matter, and those qualities cannot be measured with a checklist.
The Grimme Online Award repeatedly demonstrates how small independent creators, working without large editorial teams or significant budgets, can produce work with extraordinary impact. They often establish standards that larger media organizations later adopt.
An award that makes this kind of work visible is far more than a trophy. It points toward where a medium may be heading.
More than a political symbol
Whether media awards are truly under pressure cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.
Any award is under pressure if it stops evolving, fails to protect the integrity of its procedures, or loses sight of its own statutes.
Where those foundations remain strong, an award can withstand accusations of being politically motivated.
Above all, the discussion in Düsseldorf reminded me of one thing:
Before judging “the media awards,” it is worth taking a closer look at each individual award.
Hier der Link zu der Veranstaltung und hier zu allen Speakerinnen und Speakern.
Hier die Fotos der Veranstaltung und hier das Video.
Die Playlist des Grimme Diskursraumes mit allen Beiträgen des Tages.
Zu Vorträge und Workshops im Bezug auf Medien geht es hier mehr.
