Of loud, quiet and absent criticism

More than 60 media articles have appeared on the "Yearbook Quality of the Media 2012" since its presentation in October. In particular, the trade press has taken up the quality study of the "fög - Forschungsbereich Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft / Universität Zürich". More than in the previous year, Mark Eisenegger, member of the fög management and co-author of the yearbook, is pleased to report. An additional success: Austria is interested in the Yearbook and wants to launch an analogous project. The response, however, does not hide the fact that this time, too, a rough wind blew against the scientists. The publishers' association pre-emptively dug up the hatchet and criticized - before the publication appeared - the lack of a "serious and comprehensible definition of the term quality". Roger Köppel took offense at Weltwoche being counted among the "Weltanschauungspresse." The NZZ am Sonntag saw in the fact that the weekly newspaper (WOZ) came out on top in terms of objectivity as proof that "by Imhof's standards, the left is still the best. And the scholars' media-policy demand that information journalism be supported by a foundation outside the state caused a particular stir.

The media scientists also ranted. On Twitter and online portals, they defended their project and sometimes lashed out. "I'll admit it bluntly: I have a quarrel with the profession of journalism. There is too much anxiety in the woodwork," wrote media sociologist Kurt Imhof, the figurehead of the study, on Medienspiegel. ch. What really infuriated the scientists was the lack of criticism. Specifically, the media company Tamedia, for which the quality study was worth virtually no news this year. With the exception of a revised SDA report on Newsnet, there was nothing to read about the yearbook, which not only did not give Tamedia's free paper 20 Minuten a good quality report card. "I have no hard evidence, but it is my suspicion that an order came from above at Tamedia," Eisenegger speculates. They don't want to know anything about that at Tamedia. The decisions on whether to report on the yearbook were made in the respective editorial offices, says Christoph Zimmer, head of corporate communications. "In the context of the general current news situation and the news value of the yearbook." There had been no directive. Eisenegger, on the other hand, finds it "implausible" that the yearbook was not discussed by all titles due to its lack of news value. It contradicts contrary to the experiences, which he makes in personal discussions with journalists. "Off-the-record, there is regret that the quality problems and resource weaknesses in journalism are not more strongly addressed. "

Lumped together

However, the yearbook did not fall on deaf ears with all media that remained silent in public. Radio Argovia, for example, to which the yearbook attested only low quality performance, sought a discussion with the fög after the publication. The classification of the researchers (a lot of human interest, low objectivity, little classification and relevance) did not want to let editor-in-chief Jürgen Sahli sit on his hands. "We take the study seriously," Sahli told Werbewoche. The findings of the yearbook had stimulated internal discussions and the questioning of the own program. However, the editor-in-chief does not agree with the fög's definition of quality. He criticizes that only the selection of topics is taken into account. But not, for example, the comprehensibility of how the news is conveyed to the listeners. And with this criticism, Sahli is in good company. While media scholars measure the function - and thus the quality - of journalism by its social function in democracy, many practitioners take a less normative view or a market-oriented concept of quality. The academics apply four quality dimensions: relevance, diversity, topicality and professionalism (objectivity). For the practitioner, however, it is just as important whether something is interesting for the reader, listener or viewer. Whether it is understandable.

Sahli also considers it tricky that the news of a regional station is compared to the news compartments of Radio SRF. "Our core topic is not foreign political reporting. " The first priority for the regional station is the local. If something happens in Aargau that moves or is worth talking about, Argovia reports on it. And that can also be the description of a spectacular self-inflicted accident of a young driver. But the radio station doesn't get any quality points from the fög for that (episodic instead of classifying, entertainment-centered).

Tabloid not bad per se in terms of quality

The fact that the yearbook does not take into account the individuality of media titles or media types is also generally criticized. According to the Publishers Association, free newspapers and tabloid journalism are equated with low quality. Mark Eisenegger of fög disagrees: "The tabloids definitely have a good chance of doing well. It's just that today it's too entertainment-oriented and neglects socio-political topics. Blick, for example, which used to launch explosive topics and stimulate discussions on economic policy (the debate about the rip-off) or the Holocaust, has largely lost its pre-topic function. Eisenegger demands that the tabloid should once again focus more on socio-political topics. Also, in order to distinguish itself from the free press, which is already heavily involved in entertainment. "Of course, entertainment and sports have a right to exist. But it's the overall cocktail that makes it, and that used to include socio-political topics much more in the tabloids."

Ringier is not interested in such criticism, at least officially. They do not want to comment on the assessments, they say on request. A (public) debate is also not foreseeable elsewhere. At least the scientists are willing to make their research transparent. The fög offers more detailed evaluations to media outlets. And this is free of charge, as long as no costly additional analyses are carried out. Eisenegger considers monetization of the previously foundation-financed yearbook with additional analyses to be problematic for reasons of independence.

For Swiss Radio, for example, fög has already scrutinized foreign reporting. The Swiss Dispatch Agency (SDA) had its reporting qualitatively prescribed and was shown in which newspapers the SDA reports are reflected. Practitioners gained an insight even without additional analyses. For by far not all results from the annual research can be represented in the yearbook (journalistic coverage: 144 media titles, quality validation: 46 media titles). Although the work is a "thick ham". 480 pages - probably not least the reason why one or the other journalist may not take on the findings (or limits himself to the summary). The fög is aware of this and promises to improve. In the future, the annual research will be published in four stages (spring, summer, fall, winter) with the goal of increasing the response throughout the year and ensuring a continuing debate about media quality. And things will also change in terms of reader-friendliness. Says Eisenegger, "We can communicate our research more engagingly. That's what we're working on."

It remains to be seen whether the two largest media companies, Tamedia and Ringier, will show more interest in a discussion in the future. After all, media managers don't miss the opportunity to point out their democratic function. At any rate, Christoph Tonini, the new CEO of Tamedia, said at the Epiphany conference: "Newspapers have a future. No other medium can better meet the needs of democracy and federalism."

Isabel Imper