To the point: danger in the suit
Hanspeter Lebrument, president of the Swiss Press Association, has always been a staunch advocate of indirect press subsidies. He would like to return to the 100 million francs that the federal government used to allocate to support the distribution of newspapers and magazines until 2001. Starting in 2002, this amount was reduced to 80 million.
Hanspeter Lebrument, President of the Swiss Press, has always been a clear advocate of indirect press subsidies. He would like to go back to the 100 million Swiss francs with which the federal government subsidized the delivery of newspapers and magazines until 2001. From 2002, this amount was then cut to 80 million. Since last year, only small publishers and those in peripheral regions have received subsidies totaling 30 million francs. It is not only understandable, but also correct, that Lebrument is once again putting more emphasis on these demands in times of crisis such as the present. It's hard to see why countless sectors of the economy should benefit from state aid, but not the media industry.
The upheavals in the media industry and the current crisis have long worried politicians. The takeover of Edipresse by Tamedia and the uncertain future of the Berner Bund have now intensified this unease. Exponents of the left, but also of the right, are deeply concerned. They are concerned about the democratic opinion-forming process and fear the alleged decline in diversity of opinion that accompanies media concentration.
This is absolute nonsense for two reasons. First of all, no media company will be so stupid as to prescribe a uniform opinion to its media. Quite apart from the fact that this would not even be possible in practice. Secondly, only financially healthy media are also strong media. Media that can afford to expose grievances and sometimes report and comment against the mainstream. Without fear of any attempts to exert pressure - whether from business or politics.
The state policy committees of the National Council and the Council of States want to deal with the topic of media concentration and press subsidies at the beginning of May. We can already look forward to countless speeches by concerned politicians who will devote long and detailed debates to the topic. Just as they did during the endless debates on the RTVG. The result is a law that wants to regulate everything, from broadcasting to so-called quality. This is done under the pretext of public service.
The same danger now threatens with the press subsidy debate. Whoever politics promotes, it also wants to control. The threat of the media being controlled by direct press subsidies is therefore not a pipe dream, but a real danger. Direct press subsidies that go beyond the reduction of postal charges must therefore be strictly rejected.
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
The upheavals in the media industry and the current crisis have long worried politicians. The takeover of Edipresse by Tamedia and the uncertain future of the Berner Bund have now intensified this unease. Exponents of the left, but also of the right, are deeply concerned. They are concerned about the democratic opinion-forming process and fear the alleged decline in diversity of opinion that accompanies media concentration.
This is absolute nonsense for two reasons. First of all, no media company will be so stupid as to prescribe a uniform opinion to its media. Quite apart from the fact that this would not even be possible in practice. Secondly, only financially healthy media are also strong media. Media that can afford to expose grievances and sometimes report and comment against the mainstream. Without fear of any attempts to exert pressure - whether from business or politics.
The state policy committees of the National Council and the Council of States want to deal with the topic of media concentration and press subsidies at the beginning of May. We can already look forward to countless speeches by concerned politicians who will devote long and detailed debates to the topic. Just as they did during the endless debates on the RTVG. The result is a law that wants to regulate everything, from broadcasting to so-called quality. This is done under the pretext of public service.
The same danger now threatens with the press subsidy debate. Whoever politics promotes, it also wants to control. The threat of the media being controlled by direct press subsidies is therefore not a pipe dream, but a real danger. Direct press subsidies that go beyond the reduction of postal charges must therefore be strictly rejected.
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
