To the point: border crossing
Der Kampf um die mediale Aufmerksamkeit der Zeitungskonsumenten am Sonntag ist hart. Die Frage, welcher Titel die meisten Primeurs hat und welches Blatt am meisten zitiert wird, scheint überlebenswichtig zu sein. Dieses Rennen um Aufmerksamkeit führt naturgemäss zum Mid-Risk-Journalismus.
Many years ago, this was introduced by the SonntagsZeitung. Andreas Durisch was heavily criticized for this, as mid-risk journalism had previously been considered the domain of the tabloids. In his blog Neiniger's Diary, which is always worth reading, Norbert Neininger states ironically that "Durisch was a trendsetter. He's right, because mid-risk journalism is apparently part of the good tone today. And not only in the Sunday press.
But what is mid-risk journalism actually? Mid-risk journalism is based on the fact that only about 50 percent of an article has to be based on facts and the remaining 50 percent can be pure speculation. Former NZZ editor-in-chief Hugo Bütler put it more harshly a few years ago: "From mid-risk journalism, it's only a small step to crossing the border, which leads to simple deception or falsification.
Two recent cases caught my eye last week. First: In Sonntag, there is a lurid front-page lead story entitled "Dramatic drop in ratings on SF1" followed by an article in the media section entitled "Rätselhafter Zuschauerschwund - Das Schweizer Fernsehen verlor jeden zehnten Zuschauer - eine Erklärung dafür gibts nicht". If one delves into the article, one quickly realizes that while some of it is true, some of it has been left out for the sake of a coherent story. Some things were simply not understood: Logically, one does not replace households that did not switch on their TV set (!!), but those that technically could not be measured. It can also be assumed that not only the change in the weighting method, which tended to result in younger test subjects, is to blame for the decline, but also other factors such as the ever-increasing spread of digital television, which leads to greater viewer fragmentation, or external circumstances such as the Winter Olympics.
Second: A report in the weekly gossip column by Hildegard Schwaninger in the Tages-Anzeiger. Under the lurid title "Zürcher Starwerber haut ab" (Zurich star advertiser leaves), things are reported that do not stand up to closer scrutiny - a simple phone call would have sufficed - and, strictly speaking, could even be damaging to business. Gossip or crossing the line?
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
But what is mid-risk journalism actually? Mid-risk journalism is based on the fact that only about 50 percent of an article has to be based on facts and the remaining 50 percent can be pure speculation. Former NZZ editor-in-chief Hugo Bütler put it more harshly a few years ago: "From mid-risk journalism, it's only a small step to crossing the border, which leads to simple deception or falsification.
Two recent cases caught my eye last week. First: In Sonntag, there is a lurid front-page lead story entitled "Dramatic drop in ratings on SF1" followed by an article in the media section entitled "Rätselhafter Zuschauerschwund - Das Schweizer Fernsehen verlor jeden zehnten Zuschauer - eine Erklärung dafür gibts nicht". If one delves into the article, one quickly realizes that while some of it is true, some of it has been left out for the sake of a coherent story. Some things were simply not understood: Logically, one does not replace households that did not switch on their TV set (!!), but those that technically could not be measured. It can also be assumed that not only the change in the weighting method, which tended to result in younger test subjects, is to blame for the decline, but also other factors such as the ever-increasing spread of digital television, which leads to greater viewer fragmentation, or external circumstances such as the Winter Olympics.
Second: A report in the weekly gossip column by Hildegard Schwaninger in the Tages-Anzeiger. Under the lurid title "Zürcher Starwerber haut ab" (Zurich star advertiser leaves), things are reported that do not stand up to closer scrutiny - a simple phone call would have sufficed - and, strictly speaking, could even be damaging to business. Gossip or crossing the line?
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
