Federal Court ruling: "10vor10" did not violate the principle of fairness
The SF news magazine "10vor10" did not violate the principle of fairness with its reports on possible side effects of the contraceptive pill Yasmin did not violate the principle of fairness. With this finding, the Federal Supreme Court supports a decision by the Independent Complaints Authority (Ubi).
Last summer, Ubi rejected a complaint by Yasmin manufacturer Bayer (Switzerland) against the reporting in the program "10vor10". However, the pharmaceutical company did not want to accept this and took the case to the Federal Supreme Court. Here, too, Bayer (Switzerland) was unsuccessful insofar as the Federal Supreme Court accepted the appeal. According to the ruling published on Thursday, the company must pay the court costs of CHF 3,000.
In May 2009, Swiss television's "10vor10" reported on a 16-year-old girl who suffered a pulmonary embolism after taking Yasmin and has been severely disabled ever since. Based on this case, the news magazine made possible side effects of contraceptives the subject of two further programs. Bayer (Switzerland) subsequently criticized that the "manipulative" reports falsely gave the impression that Yasmin was particularly dangerous. The legally enshrined requirement of fairness had therefore been violated. Like Ubi, however, the Federal Supreme Court has now come to the conclusion that this was not the case.
Individual elements questioned in a tendentious manner
The programs did not claim that Yasmin was more dangerous than other contraceptive pills. Rather, the question had been raised as to whether this was the case. The complainant had repeatedly had the opportunity to comment on the allegations, the federal judges found. Moreover, "10vor10" had pointed out that other contraceptive pills could also cause side effects. The federal judges admitted that "10vor10" had questioned individual elements in a tendentious manner. However, even in this case, the advocacy and critical viewpoint of the broadcasts was recognizable to the audience.
"In summary, it can be seen that the disputed contributions as a whole could have been designed differently and possibly better in individual points," the reasons for the ruling state. However, this is not sufficient to justify regulatory intervention by the UBI. (SDA)
