[2] Based in Hamburg, it has grown to be a major worldwide operation serving print media, radio, television, online, mobile phones, and national news agencies.

[2] Independence of ideologies, businesses and governments, non-partisanship, and reliability (accuracy always comes before speed) have been announced as the main principles of the agency management and editorial policy.

Journalist Stefan Zickler included the company as part of his criticism of the structure of the German Press in a publication in which he challenged the belief that total privatisation of the agency by its around 170[2] shareholders prevent manipulation of its content.

As a company owned by around two hundred shareholders who are responsible for ensuring its independence, the total privatization can be seen as a drawback, as it prevents any state and majoritarian involvement.

Furthermore, the ownership also places great power in the hands of the Editor-in-Chief, who can shape the media landscape by controlling how information is disseminated.

[14] After the departure of its founder Fritz Singer, the German Press Agency came under public criticism several times for spreading unchecked false reports.

[17] In subsequent years, the agency was forced to apologise for inaccurate reports regarding the protests against the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (2007)[18] as well as the news of a scandal involving the then Federal Economics Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (2009).

The Otto Brenner Foundation conducted a large-scale study in March 2010, led by Hans-Jürgen Arlt and Wolfgang Storz.

This study, named "Business Journalism during Crisis - The Mass Media's Handling of Financial Market Policy", evaluated the working procedures of the dpa from spring 1999 to autumn 2009.

The evaluation of the dpa's contribution to financial market policy journalism was described as being "highly deficient" and that it gave a sense of confusion rather than offering orientation.

[21] The editor-in-chief of the dpa rejected these criticisms, citing the selectivity of the articles examined as a reason why the results were not representative.