"Journalism and the media need a more important status"

WW: Hugo Bigi, have you ever attended a journalism school?
Hugo Bigi: Visited no. I am one of those who entered journalism 30 years ago via university studies. I was lucky enough to learn the journalistic trade from scratch with Roger Schawinski and his still small Radio 24 team in the early 1980s.

In your dissertation, you examined the diploma training at the MAZ School of Journalism. What are the benefits of such training for individual journalists?
I did not examine the MAZ, but the journalists who attend this school. A journalism school like the MAZ teaches a newcomer the professional craft and promotes self-confidence. After such training, the graduate feels more like a journalist than before. Networking with lecturers and journalists from all over Switzerland makes young journalists aware of who they are and where they can position themselves within the media industry. In this respect, MAZ graduates have a great advantage over those who complete a purely theoretical education, such as journalism students at the various universities. The MAZ graduates are already in the industry.

The training helps students to feel more like journalists. What does this mean in concrete terms?
Students have knowledge of the Swiss journalism market. They gain insights into other functions. Many lecturers at the MAZ are recognized journalists and editors-in-chief in the industry. The newcomer learns how journalism works as an industry, gets to know the system, the mechanism. This is helpful for their own assessment. What are my chances? Is it worth changing jobs now? Many of the students therefore think very economically.

Journalists only think about money and careers?
No, not only. But my study shows that the social responsibility that journalists traditionally have or should have is not the top priority for many students. It is primarily about getting fit for the market, benefiting in terms of career and salary and building up a network of contacts. Journalism training alone can hardly contribute to making current journalism more democratic, as postulated by Professor Kurt Imhof from the University of Zurich, for example. This is simply not possible in this context.

What do you mean by promoting democracy?
This is a very broad term. I would like to put it in simple terms here: First and foremost, a journalist has a responsibility to society and only secondarily to his company, his employer. His watchdog function obliges him to keep an eye on the powerful and favored and to report when political, social and cultural guidelines are disregarded.

And journalism schools are not ensuring that journalism becomes more democratic?
Ultimately, the conditions in the workplace determine the extent to which a journalist can bring critical thinking, which is certainly addressed in a journalism school, into practice. If a journalist's own editorial team is closed to self-critical thinking, the transfer will not work. In individual cases, it may happen that a single journalist takes a critical look at his or her role and vows to live not only from journalism, but also for journalism. From an idealistic point of view, this would be a very good thing, but it is not the result of journalism training. The structural and economic conditions and constraints in everyday editorial work are decisive.

Enrico Morresi, former member of the Press Council, criticizes the fact that journalistic ethics are neglected at journalism schools. The emphasis is on the know howwhile the know why left to the left.
Knowing how rather than knowing why is a clear priority in practice-oriented journalism training. The MAZ, for example, positions itself as practice-oriented and is therefore also close to the journalists' employers. The fact is that the MAZ, as a school that only receives a small amount of public funding, is ultimately dependent on publishers regularly sending their young journalists for training. This means that the MAZ is to a certain extent financially dependent on the industry. The suspicion could easily arise that the editorial offices influence what is taught at the school and how because of the school's dependence. The argument would be simple: if the journalists come back to the editorial office after their training and question everything, there will soon be problems. However, my study shows that students also want to learn those practices that they know they can implement in the newsroom.

So journalism schools are dependent on the industry. Can the industry regulate itself?
As far as journalism training is concerned, I think this is the wrong approach. News journalism today produces news and reports in accordance with economic laws. However, the journalistic product has a different value than, for example, a refrigerator. If you produce a journalistic product, you have a social responsibility. The refrigerator manufacturer, apart from the usual ecological aspects that he has to comply with, hardly does. On the other hand, it is also clear that a commercially minded publisher cannot be expected to primarily promote normative values and an understanding of democracy with their products. He needs a return on investment. And apart from that, good journalism is expensive and has to be refinanced.

What role do journalism schools play in this?
A journalism school should ask itself: How can we contribute to the transfer of not only technical but also critical, socially relevant knowledge from our teaching into journalistic practice? Otherwise, it primarily contributes to reproducing the status quo by teaching students those practices that correspond to the prevailing esprit and the required guidelines of the editorial offices. However, this is difficult to achieve if the school is financially dependent on the industry.

Do you mean direct funding by the Swiss Press Association or the SRG, among others?
Rather indirectly. For many of those who complete the diploma course, the training is co-financed or paid for in full by the editorial offices. If the editors found out that the journalist had not learned what they wanted, they would hardly send anyone else to journalism school. That's how the mechanism works. In my opinion, a school like the MAZ should be supported more by the public sector. But the exact opposite is the case. If public funding is cut or even withdrawn from a school of journalism that, in addition to professionalizing the craft, can also raise awareness of social responsibility, this is an own goal in terms of state policy. Journalism and the media need a more important place in education. Just like sport or culture, two systems that are much more firmly anchored in society. If journalism is really to be an element that promotes democracy, it needs to be addressed at a social level much earlier. Keyword media literacy.

Do we need to start at elementary school?
Absolutely. I find it incomprehensible that media literacy is not a (school) policy issue in our medialized age. At the moment, media literacy is only taught in elementary school if the teacher has a certain affinity with the media. However, our children should not only know how to use media technically, but also learn to understand what media means, who uses it and with what intentions, and what effect it has. What happens when you hear a news item on the radio? When you read 20 minutes online? Journalism itself cannot and does not want to do this educational work. It needs new structures and, above all, political pressure. But media literacy is not at the top of the agenda for any political party. I don't see any serious measures being taken.

Are you calling for a law?
The first step is to raise awareness of the importance of the issue: in schools, among teachers, with the authorities and, of course, with parents.

Can media education alone really do the job? How do you see the role of media science?
There is still a big gap between media studies and journalistic practice. I experience this time and again, both as a practicing journalist and from my 15 years of teaching and working as a media scientist. If the medical profession listened as little to medical science as the media industry listens to media science - then good night! Of course, media entrepreneurs have other interests than scientists. That is legitimate. But both are needed: scientists and practitioners.

There is room for improvement in the dialog between science and practice. You have access to both sides. What do you gain from the dissertation?
I see myself as someone who can promote dialog. My doctoral thesis has no direct influence on my journalistic work. I don't approach the "Talk Täglich" program with a scientific focus. But my experience with media and journalism research, the findings from it, generate a valuable fund for me that I am happy to pass on in a practice-oriented way.

How?
For example, as a lecturer at the MAZ, where I sensitize young journalists to become aware of their individual responsibility. Even if they are in good hands in their editorial office and there is a responsible boss on duty. The new generation of journalists should not just produce, but also ask about the meaning and impact of the production. Many practitioners say: "You have to smell the story." Of course, that's not enough. Output must not only be produced around the clock, but reflection and self-reflection must also be practiced. You have to think about it: Is it the right thing to do? Is it right?

Are journalists not doing enough for themselves?
Practicing journalists are too involved in the work process. Self-reflection is first and foremost part of every editorial code of conduct and is therefore a matter for the boss. Then the topic must be an even greater part of public media criticism. However, with the exception of the NZZ, hardly any mass media in German-speaking Switzerland writes regularly and self-critically about the media. 20 Minuten should have a media-critical page, a forum, not for media scientists, but for dialog and discussion with the target audience. Once a week, a school class could produce its own page, both online and on paper, ask questions, recapitulate the reporting of the past few days from its own perspective, criticize it and introduce new points of view. That would be exciting! Such measures would do more to encourage a critical approach to the media than me visiting schools and saying: "Don't believe everything the media says."

Interview: Isabel Imper