Bobby Cherian (*1981) has worked with the German TV channel ZDF for many years – first as a reporter, later as a presenter of heute in Europa, and now as a policy adviser in the Director General’s office. In this interview, he reflects on his varied career path and the transition from daily news reporting to strategic responsibilities within the broadcaster. Shaped by his Indian heritage, he speaks openly about the search for identity, social participation and the importance of diversity in the media. As a journalist, he has always seen it as his mission to make complex European issues both accessible and relevant. At the same time, he emphasises the special responsibility of public service broadcasting in times of disinformation, social polarisation and artificial intelligence – advocating for independence, critical thinking and transparency in dealing with mistakes.
Bobby, you have been with ZDF for quite some time, including as a presenter of heute in Europa and now in the Director General’s office. How have your responsibilities evolved over the course of your career, and what challenges and opportunities do you see in your current role?
Over the years, I have been fortunate to take on many exciting tasks at ZDF. I first started as a reporter in the main news department. Later, as a reporter in the regional studio in Rhineland-Palatinate, I covered events such as the devastating floods in the Ahr Valley and the development of the Covid-19 vaccine by BioNTech in Mainz. After that, I spent three years as duty editor and final editor in the politics and current affairs department, where I was responsible for ZDF spezial programmes and special formats such as How is Germany doing? In addition, I alternated with two colleagues in presenting heute in Europa. In my current role, I support the Director General in his wide range of responsibilities. These include an overview of our broad programming, liaison with supervisory bodies, strategic corporate matters and assistance with representative duties. I had to familiarise myself with many new processes and areas of work. It was and remains a challenge because the work differs greatly from the classic news business that I know well. But it also offers a unique perspective on the organisation – one that is unlike anything else within the broadcaster.
As the presenter of a European magazine, you were at the forefront of reporting on European affairs. How did you succeed in making complex issues understandable while also reflecting the diversity of Europe?
If that is your impression of heute in Europa, let me first say thank you – and I will gladly pass on the compliment. A programme like that is always the result of teamwork. The heute in Europa team is passionate and fully committed. The ZDF foreign bureaux also play a crucial role in identifying and covering important stories. Some topics impose themselves because of their immediacy or impact and must be included in the programme. In other cases, the editorial team can set its own accents to reflect Europe’s diversity. The key is to explain to viewers in Germany what European issues mean for their lives and daily routines. As a presenter, my task was often to make clear: “This is important to you because…” I always tried to break down each subject as clearly and accessibly as possible so that everyone could relate to it.
Your parents are from Kerala in India, and you were born in the Rhineland. What challenges did your parents face when they first arrived in Germany, and how did these experiences shape your own identity and career path?
To answer that question in full would take more space than we have here. In short: my parents had to cope with the language barrier, the non-recognition of qualifications and major cultural differences. Growing up “between cultures” left a deep mark on me. I vividly remember the search for a sense of belonging – and how, especially during my teenage years, the pendulum swung at times strongly towards being German, at other times towards being Indian. It was not until my twenties that I found some balance. As for my career: I think the uncertainty my parents experienced for a long time in Germany was something I carried with me into my professional life. As the child of immigrant working-class parents – even though they placed great value on education and books – could I really “compete” on the same level as white children of academics? That was something I had to learn to come to terms with.
Were you ever tempted to work as a foreign correspondent in India?
I never really saw myself as a foreign correspondent in India, except perhaps on a project basis. What matters far more to me is that people with a migration background play an active and visible role in the domestic media landscape. Today, one in four people in Germany has a migration history, yet these individuals and their perspectives are still underrepresented in many fields, including politics. But we need those perspectives if we want to portray Germany as it truly is.
As a journalist, how do you perceive the development of integration in Germany, especially regarding the second and third generations of immigrants?
I lack the expertise to give a comprehensive answer on integration policy. It is also important to distinguish whether we are talking about the willingness of immigrants to integrate or the willingness of the host society to embrace them. On both sides, there is a wide spectrum. As for the second generation: many of us – and I include myself here – see ourselves as an integral part of German society. Germany is our home; that is a clear commitment. At the same time, we struggle with the fact that society often hesitates to make the same commitment to us. In my view, this gap has not been closed decisively enough, and it continues to divide sections of the population. In the third generation, however, I see a much greater sense of natural belonging and a strong self-confidence. The question of integration is no longer relevant. They question themselves less, articulate their rights and demand them. I welcome that.
What responsibility do public service broadcasters like ZDF carry in an era of fake news and artificial intelligence? How do you personally address these challenges in your own research and work?
The task of ZDF – and of all public service broadcasters – has always been significant. We provide viewers with independent and objective information, non-partisan and comprehensive. This is enshrined in our programme principles. The task has not become any easier. People today move in filter bubbles and echo chambers where claims are made that are simply untrue. Many commercial players, especially the big tech companies, no longer adhere to the rules of discourse that were once taken for granted. Artificial intelligence may well exacerbate these challenges. For me, and for all representatives of quality journalism, it means we must stay alert and constantly adapt. This applies both to detecting fakes and to using AI ourselves, which has already become an important tool for us. Remaining critical, questioning information again and again, and reaching people where they are – that is what we do and what we will continue to do.
What does a typical working day look like for you as a journalist? Could you give us some insight into how a programme is planned and produced?
I will focus on my role as presenter, even though that is no longer my current position. The day begins with an editorial conference. The first step is to review and prioritise the day’s stories. Which subject is important enough to warrant a report and perhaps a live interview? The final editor leads this process, but every team member is encouraged to contribute. Then there are the less pressing topics which are nonetheless vital to building a well-rounded programme. Once the framework is in place, everyone gets to work. As presenter, I would watch the prepared reports, conduct my own research, prepare questions for live interviews, coordinate with the final editor and write my scripts, which still had to be approved by the editorial desk. Depending on breaking news, the entire programme could be reshaped during the day. Then it was time to change clothes, go into make-up and head to the studio. Fortunately, we always rehearsed before going live: is the introduction right, have new figures come in? At 4pm, the broadcast went live – hopefully without errors. Afterwards, there was a debrief and preparation for the next day.
In these polarised times, media face increasing pressure – whether through political interference, growing scepticism or calls for strict neutrality. How can a newsroom safeguard its independence and credibility, and where should the line be drawn between journalistic criticism and activism?
As a public service broadcaster, we safeguard our credibility by carrying out our work responsibly, in line with our programme principles. We take legitimate criticism seriously and engage with it thoroughly. We also make mistakes. Ideally, we identify them ourselves, but outside feedback is equally important. On ZDFheute.de, for example, we have a corrections page where we deal with errors very openly. In addition, there are supervisory bodies that provide constructive scrutiny of our work. But as you rightly point out, today there are many actors who deliberately discredit ZDF and public service broadcasting as a whole in order to undermine trust in us. This is no longer about factual criticism, but about attacking and dismantling democratic institutions – a trend not limited to the media. ZDF takes a clear stance here: we will not be intimidated. Fortunately, public trust in ARD and ZDF remains strong. We work every day to ensure that it stays that way.
Thank you for your time, and all the best for the future.
Foto: (c) ZDF