To the point: civil courage
Bern welcomed a distinguished guest this week. Federal President Widmer-Schlumpf received the President of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. This was done, as is customary, with full military honors. An important point to note: In Reporters Without Borders’ 2011 World Press Freedom Index, Turkmenistan ranks 177th—third from the bottom—behind China, Iran, and Syria, and ahead of North Korea and Eritrea.
As usual, there was also a press conference after the speeches. Markus Häfliger writes about this in the NZZ: "Even beforehand, a Swiss official made it clear that the journalists from the two countries would only be allowed to ask two questions each. And so, across the group, the Swiss journalists agree on one nice question about bilateral economic relations and one critical one about human rights." Huh? Is that the option?
Markus Häfliger wrote in the NZZ that he would have liked to ask more questions, Kathrin Ammann criticized clearly and unequivocally in the Aargauer Zeitung "In order to retain international influence, Switzerland is happy to allow Turkmen conditions to prevail at a media conference" and David Hesse even published the seven questions he was not allowed to ask in the Tages-Anzeiger. I think these reactions are good, but are they enough? No.
Ronnie Grob asks on the page of the Zurich Press Association the absolutely justified question whether it would not have been wiser if the journalists had not gone to this fake press conference in the first place. But sure! Boycotting such a neutered Q&A session would have been better. And also for the credibility of the Swiss journalists respectively the Swiss press such a reaction would do more. Better than kowtowing to a foreign potentate resp. to the anticipatory obedience of a bland Swiss official. (Thanks Ronnie Grob for the input!)
While we're on the subject of moral courage: The New York Times no longer wants quotes authorized, effective immediately. Why? Three reasons speak for it. First, the x-times revised and soft-pedaled answer does nothing for the reader. Second, one should be able to assume that decision-makers in business and politics should be able to give answers that don't have to be muddled or even changed by a communications professional afterwards. And thirdly, an O-tone practice, as is common practice on radio and television, would only be good for the reputation of the press. That would be worth discussing in Switzerland, too.
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
