Public principle needs more resources

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has rarely received praise for dedicated research. At least during the many decades of liberal dominance at the federal level and bourgeois dominance in the cantons, its editors and correspondents lived comfortably as embedded journalists, like private scholars, aware of their importance to the state. That is history. Today's working conditions, especially in the private and for-profit media houses, are less comfortable: In the thinned-out editorial offices, there is little time for reflection and follow-up; the news has to go online or over the air immediately. Be first, maybe be right. Corrections can always be made later, if absolutely necessary. Messages processed by media departments reduce production stress as well as editorial costs.

Last weekend, NZZ editor Adi Kälin complained that "the information behavior of the authorities" had "changed considerably" over the past twenty years. It would be embarrassing if they had closed their minds to developments in technology and the media. Kälin then criticizes: "Negative information" would be disseminated by government and administration "as casually as possible" or they would even hide it "quite well", for supposedly "great and important things". In plain language: More and more "public relations instead of information".

Kälin's description is not new, but accurate, except where he constructs a contradiction "principle of publicity", according to which "in principle" everything is public if no personal rights are violated. The list of exceptions is longer, but that is a detail. It is also undisputed that the principle of publicity is unpopular with many administrations and governments. The only thing is: it is not an obligation for the authorities to provide information according to the ideas of individual media professionals. It is a tool that curious media professionals could use. The only thing is that there are many indications that the introduction was preceded by heated discussions, and that in practice only a few media professionals invoke it. One example. In 2013, just 469 applications were submitted across the entire federal administration. Every application means work, but there is hardly any time for that in the editorial stress. Conclusion: If you want more media control of government and administration, you have to increase the editorial budget again. And perhaps this even requires increased state support for the media.

And finally this: Transparency is also unloved in the private sector. In the last session, the conservative-dominated Council of States passed a whistleblower law. It decided that employees should not be allowed to go to the media in the event of internal misconduct. They would only be able to go to an internal reporting office or to external authorities. This solution is a step backwards. Until now, the Federal Supreme Court has stated that employees may go to the media "if the authority remains inactive - and if the circumstances justify it". Lawyer Dominique Strebel, once a journalist and now head of studies at the Media Training Center (MAZ), even considers the Council of States' regulation to be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. He points to a Strasbourg decision that ruled in favor of a German geriatric nurse: Although she had damaged the reputation and business interests of her employer, in a democratic society the public's interest in learning about abuses in geriatric care prevails. Let's see if NZZ editors will lobby for a strong whistleblowing regulation in the coming weeks, so that the National Council corrects the Council of States.

Hans Stutz is a journalist in Lucerne. He also sits on the Cantonal Council for the Green Party.