When journalism becomes security architecture

Around 240 visitors start the media year 2026 at Aura Zurich - with a clarification from the Swiss Media Publishers Association (VSM): In times of geopolitical tensions, disinformation and AI dynamics, strong, credible media are essential for democratic stability and national security. Patrick Müller (CH Media) is the "king of the lot", but Federal Councillor Martin Pfister (DDPS) takes the crown in terms of content: The information space is negotiated as a security policy arena - and quality journalism as part of resilience.

The fact that this time it sounds less like a ritual than a status report is also due to the setup: Alongside Pfister, Andrea Masüger and Pia Guggenbühl provide the association perspective, Ladina Heimgartner and Karen Rønde provide an international perspective, Mark Eisenegger on research, Tanja zu Waldeck on corporate practice and Jan de Schepper on the advertising industry. Miriam Meckel and Léa Steinacker span the intellectual horizon - with the thesis that AI not only shifts distribution and production, but also the understanding of truth.

The information space as a setting

Federal Councillor Pfister begins under the impression of the tragedy in Crans-Montana. At times like these, the need for classification is particularly great, and the media are called upon to work "objectively, factually and according to journalistic standards". He expressly thanks them for this.

Then the tone becomes strategic. Pfister outlines a comprehensive concept of security: security is not first and foremost territory or military power, but the protection of democratic rights, freedoms, prosperity, self-determination and integrity. In this logic, the media become the yardstick: to put it bluntly, he says that if the media are doing well, then democracy and security are also doing well.

His core finding fits into a sentence that lingers in the room: "Anyone who destabilizes a country's information space weakens its security." For Pfister, this includes the fact that hybrid warfare has long been part of everyday life: cyber attacks, espionage, economic pressure - and disinformation.

He provides examples and figures that take the topic out of the abstract: Russia Today and Pravda disseminate "between 800 and 900 articles per month" in Switzerland, which can often be described as disinformation. And a coordinated video (May 2025) showing Switzerland in chaos was viewed over two million times in a short space of time.

AI further exacerbates this situation. Pfister calls it a "fire accelerator for existing developments": Disinformation will become cheaper, faster, more credible and more precisely tailored to target groups. His plea is twofold: Yes, the state is taking action (Federal Office for Cyber Security; interdepartmental working group; security policy strategy 2026-2029 with measures against influence peddling). However, the state should not and cannot do everything. Resilience arises in a democracy when the population is informed, critical and vigilant - this requires media competence and diversity.

Pfister sees the media as having a role that goes beyond the traditional "fourth estate": free media are "part of our security architecture" - because they provide facts, give orientation, control power and protect the information space through research, classification and transparency.

Politically, he names the construction sites that should address the economic pressure: the new ancillary copyright law, the implementation of the Gössi motion on the use of AI in the media sector and a motion for media funding that is independent of channels and business models to strengthen the diversity of offerings.

And then comes a sentence that comes across as a hidden compliment: Trust in the media is "impressively high" in Switzerland, and as a politician he is "almost a little envious". Combined with the instruction not to squander this trust.

Don't freeze, but regulate intelligently

In the subsequent discussion, Pfister is more specific in his stance: as Minister of Defense, he has to think about "worst-case scenarios". At the same time, he calls on us not to freeze "like a rabbit before a snake" when faced with the threat of tariffs and the concentration of technological power. His formulation: think long-term and "regulate intelligently" - create protection without destroying new freedom for technology. Media literacy remains his guiding principle in education, even as a father: introducing young people to a critical approach to information is key.

Four key figures - and the accusation of AI piracy

Andrea Masüger starts with structure and economy after the security policy bracket. He works along striking key figures that the conference takes up again and again:

• 15%young people in Switzerland who use AI to cover their news needs (with reference to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025).

  

• up to 90%: unease among the population about AI in the media sector.

• 30%One third continue to read print - still the most important source of information for voters alongside the voting booklet.

• 60%The majority use digital platforms for their daily information needs.

• plus his guiding principle of credibility: traditional media as protection against disinformation, including campaign logic.

Masüger's central point of conflict is the way AI and tech platforms deal with journalistic content. He criticizes the fact that content is used "on a large scale and unsolicited" without appropriate remuneration. The sentence that succinctly formulates the outrage: "We provide them with the raw material for their business model for free." And: "This piracy in the AI sector is becoming an ever greater problem."

He makes this not only a moral issue, but also a question of the economic basis of media diversity. Without fair revenue models, there is a risk of erosion - and thus consequences for quality and democratic opinion-forming. He describes the Gössi motion, which has been passed, as a political step: the Federal Council is obliged to enforce copyright law against AI services as well. His view: "Publishers must receive money for the raw material that others are gold-plating."

SRG, Weko and the "fragile structure"

In an interview with Oliver Steffen, Masüger delves deeper into the Swiss internal mechanics: He sharply criticizes the Competition Commission (Weko), which interprets cooperation between SRG and private media companies in the online sector as an illegal agreement in a "horizontal competitive relationship". Masüger considers this to be unrealistic - also because fee-based financing shifts the balance of power. At the same time, he does not want to bury the agreement with the SRG lightly: The aim is to make adjustments where necessary instead of abandoning the "fragile structure".

 

Credibility as a hard currency

Pia Guggenbühl sets the tone from the association's perspective at the Epiphany Conference: strong, independent private media are essential for society. From a security policy perspective, she calls independent journalism a "protective shield for our information resilience" - especially in times of hybrid warfare, propaganda and disinformation.

Guggenbühl also refers to the Federal Council's 2026-2029 security policy strategy, which attaches great importance to the media skills of young generations - also in order to counteract radicalization tendencies on social media. This line is important and correct because it defends journalism not as nostalgia, but as a functional system: orientation, classification, control - and therefore resilience.

Denmark shows how tough enforcement is

Ladina Heimgartner and Karen Rønde provide an international comparison as a corrective to Swiss self-talk. Heimgartner emphasizes: Denmark is further ahead in terms of regulation (ancillary copyright, EU AI Act, collective collecting society DPCMO, which bundles 99% of the publishers). In Denmark, there are no individual bilateral agreements with Google (Showcase) because the country relies on collective strength. In Switzerland, ancillary copyright is "in the political mills" and is likely to be linked to AI regulation (Gössi motion). Her prognosis is sobering: there is unlikely to be a finalized Swiss AI regulation for media in this decade.

Rønde, on the other hand, describes how unreliable "cooperation" is as an expectation: tech players often refused to sit at the negotiating table and even ignored arbitration proceedings led by a culture minister. OpenAI has openly said that Denmark is not a priority because of its size. Her sentence sums up the asymmetry: "It takes two to tango. But most tech firms just don't want to dance."

This results in a practical recommendation that fits in well with the basic Swiss attitude at the conference: no over-regulation in technical details, but a simple principle - anyone who uses and commercializes third-party content must pay for it (and share data, depending on the model). And: if Big Tech doesn't dance, the only recourse if necessary is legal action - i.e. lawsuits, complaints and proceedings to enforce claims.

Norway's free experiment meets Swiss skepticism

Marte Ingul presents a model that is deliberately provocative: Free access for 15- to 20-year-olds to over 120 newspapers, combined with female journalists in schools and e-learning tools for teachers. Their premise: Young people do not avoid news, but the format and distribution logic do not match their usage behavior. The goal: to build a digital relationship before subscriptions become a realistic option.

The figure that makes this experiment immediately debatable in Switzerland: 73,000 registrations since June, which corresponds to 18% of a year in Norway. Engagement is generated primarily through local relevance and breaking news.

The model for Switzerland is mirrored in the panel:

• Tanja zu Waldeck sees little risk in free models because the target group is hardly represented in paid products anyway - product innovation based on real needs is crucial.

• Mark Eisenegger welcomes the experiment, but warns against a free mentality and calls for accompanying research: habits yes, but loyalty must become sustainable.

• The Swiss situation comes into focus with one figure: 46% are considered "news-deprived". Reasons: lack of relevance, overly complex or negative content, crowding out by social media and streaming, and growing difficulties in distinguishing journalism from influencer content. Everyone agrees: media literacy in schools is key. Eisenegger criticizes Curriculum 21 as being too technology-heavy and calls for journalism to be brought into the classroom as a "living object". Zu Waldeck speaks of a uniform national plan.

Advertising: credibility works

The advertising block is the place where ideals are translated into market logic. VSM Director Pia Guggenbühl starts with a hard shift: Around three quarters of online advertising expenditure in Switzerland (approx. CHF 2.1 billion) flows to big tech companies in the USA and China - even though content there is often uncontrolled and erroneous.

Two studies provide the basis for the argument:

• JRC ZurichOnly 2% consider information on social media to be credible, print is at 71%, online news portals at 50%. In tests with fictitious advertising, ads in journalistic environments are remembered longer and increase the willingness to buy.

• PWCMarketing managers rate the credibility of traditional media highly (85% relevance), but are nevertheless increasingly booking on social media - driven by performance KPIs and supposedly simple measurability.

The decisive consequence becomes very pragmatic in the panel: credibility alone does not sell inventory if reach and bookability do not keep up.

Dr. Markus Wirth puts it from the publisher's point of view: advertisers act rationally - "if reach is a need, we have to deliver it even better". Jan De Schepper describes the advertising industry's balancing act between branding and performance and says frankly: He cannot afford to completely ignore big tech, otherwise he would immediately lose a large proportion of new customer acquisition. At the same time, he emphasizes social responsibility and the danger of fraudulent ads on platforms such as Meta.

Here, the conference deliberately focuses on self-help: cooperations such as OneDSP should make bookings with media companies easier and more attractive. And de Schepper calls for a radical step: Swiss media should stop selling their inventory via Google because this destroys prices and 30 to 60% of the advertising francs are lost on the way to the publisher. Wirth adds to the logic: price integrity and independence depend on ending the "leftover ramp" principle.

AI is not disrupting the media, but the truth

Perhaps the most important change of perspective of the day comes with Miriam Meckel and Léa Steinacker. They start with a thought experiment: an image generation model (Gemini) is supposed to show a world without journalism - the result is a gloomy "archive of silence", empty spaces, total surveillance. Their point: this is not an "idea" of AI, but the sum of human fears and data. Our thinking is shaped by what the systems reflect back.

Then they turn the screw deeper: the digital public is flooded with inferior AI content through "enshittification"; "model collapse" threatens if models are only trained with synthetic data due to a lack of new human data. And: in practice, millions of people use chatbots as a news source despite blatantly high error rates.

Nevertheless, it is not cultural pessimism. They point to democratic opportunities (balancing values through AI, consensus radar Polis in Taiwan, "Habermas machine" in Oxford, "Government as a Service" in Estonia) - and end up with a strategic imperative for media: when truth comes under pressure, media must evolve from a pure attention business to trust authentication. In other words: create spaces, moderate, enable community experiences in which human exchange remains fact-oriented.

The appeal fits the overall mood of the conference: get out of the defensive, use AI as a tool - and at the same time take your own existential question seriously: "What are we still needed for?" The answer is not technology, but trust.

The Swiss conclusion

What remains after this day?

Firstly, the situation is difficult, and this is not glossed over. Business models are under pressure, the outflow of advertising money is massive, platforms and AI are accessing journalistic services without automatically remunerating them.

Secondly, there is a framework for action that does not end in resignation. Masüger and Guggenbühl formulate it clearly: protection of intellectual property, fair remuneration, media competence, strengthening credible environments, joint technical initiatives. These lines are important and correct because they not only call for help, but also for development work.

Thirdly, platform power is real - but it is also a question of popularity and architecture. The tech companies are not just winning because of budgets, but because their products are tailored to modern needs, serve them and anticipate them. This is precisely why the productive part of the diagnosis is that publishers need to get to this level - in terms of UX, format logic, availability and bookability. Not as a copy, but as their own credible answer.

Fourthly, cooperation is necessary - especially when it comes to advertising and infrastructure. But it must not replace competition. Competition remains democratically central: as a counterforce, as a driver of innovation, as a guarantor of diversity. Standing together, yes - but not at the expense of the plural market.

Fifthly, the approach should remain Swiss-pragmatic: effective, not over-regulated. And politically clever in a situation in which we cannot afford to trigger unnecessary international escalations through symbolic politics. Pfister's "regulate intelligently" line hits this point precisely: rules that protect without paralyzing - and without turning Switzerland into an experimental laboratory for overregulation.

The Dreikönigstagung 2026 sends out a signal: journalism in Switzerland is not just a market, but an infrastructure for democracy and resilience. Those who take this seriously build - with self-confidence, innovation and the courage to think about content, formats and offerings in the way that the present demands.