Plea for the Stutz
It's worth noting that the discussion about the health clinic is valid. Whether the arguments are fair is another question.
Column The discussion about the health consultation hour is right. Whether the arguments are fair is another question, and the joke is so cheap that I can't keep it to myself. Dr. Samuel Stutz is the most honest doctor in Switzerland. Even his name says what it's really all about ... Haha ... Colleagues from competing companies - always the most reliable PR helpers and image carriers for players in the media environment - have had ample opportunity in recent weeks to discuss the links between the popular TV doctor and the pharmaceutical industry and the techniques used to cross-subsidize TV programmes. What the "Beobachter" brought to light - after all, it belongs to a company that also profits from press TV - should lead to a fundamental clarification of the issues surrounding product naming, sponsorship, media partnerships and other mixed forms in a tiny and therefore fixed-cost-prone television market like Switzerland.
From my own experience, I would like to contribute just two aspects: Firstly, it is a journalistic duty to name the smallest possible unit accurately, i.e. to name product names if they are essential to the message of the story. (The alternatives would be countless queries and frustrated users). However, this is then independent of production contributions or sponsoring contributions. Secondly, most of the hygiene problems surrounding "content for content" are solved through transparency. If it is clearly and completely stated who is financially supporting a media presentation, users accustomed to the realities of life can make up their own minds.
In the background of the current Stutz discussion, however, is a phenomenon that most Ringier critics have simply missed. In the 1970s, it was still almost impossible to publish a picture of a doctor making a statement (carefully proofread, of course) to a popular magazine: Code of professional conduct! Today, I am no longer even amazed when I learn that not only medical associations, but even individual practice groups employ advertising agencies and PR consultants.
The healthcare sector and the media industry have learned from each other. Both sides have not only become more aware of their interdependence, but have also become more competent. The new generation of doctors, most of whom have been influenced by their experiences in America, know that they need the key currency of public life, attention, to achieve their goals. And the media, for their part, have realized that they can no longer credibly maintain their claim to provide information and their watchdog role with irresponsible stories about obscure cancer healers, but only with increased professional expertise.
Samuel Stutz is the first person to fill this huge gap in the publishing market with the backing of Ringier.
I have personal experience of his way of working, as I have been a patient on his program twice and am happy to testify that I have always been treated well by this doctor. I experienced Samuel Stutz as a sensitive, extremely conscientious and tactful professional. Every written and verbal statement was agreed and proofread. There were no leading questions and no ambush situations. It was clear to everyone - interviewees and viewers alike - that although he knows more, he takes back this advantage because he is genuinely interested in what the other person, the person concerned, has to say. His interviews are designed to gain knowledge, not to confront.
Two journalistic techniques prevail in our media world that bore me: firstly, "Schawinskization" - fundamental aggression at the limits of decency with inadequate preparation. Secondly, "Sommarugization" - protection of the consumer, if necessary against his will, through rebellious ignorance, combined with the Jacobin demand for state control.
To prevent this nonsense from setting the style, we need calm, competent journalists like Samuel Stutz, who ask direct but fair questions. Who insist on essential answers, but don't think they know them in advance.
Dr. Samuel Stutz plans his broadcasts and publications with a precision that I have previously only observed in Wysel Gyr. For all his business acumen, he clearly knows that he is dealing with fragile goods: the vulnerability of sick people - and his own credibility. Only with this mixture of competence and respect is it possible to find hundreds of people over the years who are willing to talk publicly about their obesity, alcoholism and cancer.
Karl Lüönd considers Samuel Stutz to be conscientious and tactful.
From my own experience, I would like to contribute just two aspects: Firstly, it is a journalistic duty to name the smallest possible unit accurately, i.e. to name product names if they are essential to the message of the story. (The alternatives would be countless queries and frustrated users). However, this is then independent of production contributions or sponsoring contributions. Secondly, most of the hygiene problems surrounding "content for content" are solved through transparency. If it is clearly and completely stated who is financially supporting a media presentation, users accustomed to the realities of life can make up their own minds.
In the background of the current Stutz discussion, however, is a phenomenon that most Ringier critics have simply missed. In the 1970s, it was still almost impossible to publish a picture of a doctor making a statement (carefully proofread, of course) to a popular magazine: Code of professional conduct! Today, I am no longer even amazed when I learn that not only medical associations, but even individual practice groups employ advertising agencies and PR consultants.
The healthcare sector and the media industry have learned from each other. Both sides have not only become more aware of their interdependence, but have also become more competent. The new generation of doctors, most of whom have been influenced by their experiences in America, know that they need the key currency of public life, attention, to achieve their goals. And the media, for their part, have realized that they can no longer credibly maintain their claim to provide information and their watchdog role with irresponsible stories about obscure cancer healers, but only with increased professional expertise.
Samuel Stutz is the first person to fill this huge gap in the publishing market with the backing of Ringier.
I have personal experience of his way of working, as I have been a patient on his program twice and am happy to testify that I have always been treated well by this doctor. I experienced Samuel Stutz as a sensitive, extremely conscientious and tactful professional. Every written and verbal statement was agreed and proofread. There were no leading questions and no ambush situations. It was clear to everyone - interviewees and viewers alike - that although he knows more, he takes back this advantage because he is genuinely interested in what the other person, the person concerned, has to say. His interviews are designed to gain knowledge, not to confront.
Two journalistic techniques prevail in our media world that bore me: firstly, "Schawinskization" - fundamental aggression at the limits of decency with inadequate preparation. Secondly, "Sommarugization" - protection of the consumer, if necessary against his will, through rebellious ignorance, combined with the Jacobin demand for state control.
To prevent this nonsense from setting the style, we need calm, competent journalists like Samuel Stutz, who ask direct but fair questions. Who insist on essential answers, but don't think they know them in advance.
Dr. Samuel Stutz plans his broadcasts and publications with a precision that I have previously only observed in Wysel Gyr. For all his business acumen, he clearly knows that he is dealing with fragile goods: the vulnerability of sick people - and his own credibility. Only with this mixture of competence and respect is it possible to find hundreds of people over the years who are willing to talk publicly about their obesity, alcoholism and cancer.
Karl Lüönd considers Samuel Stutz to be conscientious and tactful.
> Karl Lüönd is a publicist and head of the Media Institute of the Association
