Media quality

The Stifterverein Medienqualität Schweiz (Media Quality Association Switzerland) wants to set up a foundation that regularly evaluates the 50 national Swiss press titles, news sites and TV and radio formats with the highest reach from an independent perspective. Three different aspects will be evaluated: organizational requirements, journalistic output and stakeholder perception. Two million Swiss francs of endowment capital are to be invested to finance the project for at least the three-year period.

Media quality: Andreas Durisch

WW: How exactly should the quality of the media benefit from a rating?
Andreas Durisch: On the one hand, digital communication has changed business models very significantly. This has led to pressure on traditional subscription newspapers, but also on radio and television. That means you have to save money everywhere. On the other hand, you have to work differently today with the changed conditions. This has an overall impact on quality. In addition, the Internet leads to more speed and more channels. This means that if information goes out today that has not yet been checked, which perhaps does not present facts correctly - keyword: shitstorm - then this information is spread much faster today. That's why people say media quality is more important than ever.

Who specifically would access this quality rating as a reference afterwards?
The rating - obtained using scientific methods - is intended to provide a reader-friendly overview of the Swiss media landscape. Thus, people in middle management or even in top management can access it if they are new to Switzerland and still know too little or not at all about the media landscape.

Why doesn't the foundation give the money to individual journalists from the 50 most important press titles and radio and TV information outlets?
The foundation aims to promote quality by rewarding quality. In this sense, the rating should also be an incentive for the individual editorial teams, but also for publishing and media companies, to ensure that their important broadcasting channels and titles perform well in this rating. Our foundation is not about subsidizing the media industry. We have launched a private initiative. And I personally would find it very regrettable if media promotion became a state task. That's also the big debate at the moment, that as soon as the media receive state funding, they lose at least part of their independence. That's why it's important for media quality to be addressed from the private side and thus also promoted.

What is the benefit of a debate on media quality in practice? - Does the study offer concrete approaches to solutions in a second step?
The aim of the rating is a kind of award in the sense of "best practice" - the rating is intended to be exemplary in this sense. As a quality award, the rating should have a positive motivating effect. So it's not about booing the Swiss media landscape, but about showing where quality can be found. Like the Gault Millau points for restaurants or the Michelin stars. The quality of the media is systemically relevant to the quality of public debate. That's why it's a legitimate concern to sit down with academia and stakeholders and raise the question of what quality is and how it is perceived in detail in the Swiss media landscape. And that one also gives feedback to the media entrepreneurs and publishers afterwards. Of course, you can then discuss how and whether you can change things. But a rating can be done in any case.

How do you plan to prevent a quality rating from the Foundation from increasing the pressure on journalists even more, instead of being a motivation for publishers to improve quality?
Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved with a quality rating alone. The ranking should motivate publishers to invest in the quality of journalism. In concrete terms, this means shaping the framework conditions in such a way that quality is possible. Therefore, journalists must not see this as a means of exerting pressure on reporting, but rather as a motivation to deliver quality.

Media financing crisis: Manuel Puppis

 
A recent survey of Swiss journalists (conducted by the Department of Communication Studies and Media Research DCM at the University of Fribourg) finds that the media financing crisis, triggered by a structural change in the media landscape and economic problems, is responsible for the negative impact on media quality - on journalism and editorial teams. Professor Manuel Puppis of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Fribourg (research focus: media system and media policy) comments on the influence of the media financing crisis:

WW: How independent are journalists in view of the interests of advertisers, politics and owners in Switzerland?
Manuel Puppis: Basically, freedom of the press is in good shape in Switzerland - compared to authoritarian systems anyway. But of course there are always attempts to influence journalism. A particularly blatant case is certainly the house search ordered by the Neuchâtel public prosecutor's office on journalist Ludovic Rocchi. Accordingly, it is important that the European Court of Human Rights also offers the possibility of appealing Swiss court rulings. In addition to attempts by the state to exert influence, commercial dependencies must also be considered. Important advertising customers can also cancel advertisements in the event of unpopular reporting - and if necessary also exert pressure on editorial offices. Our survey shows that consideration for advertisers has tended to increase over the past five years. Less problematic in terms of content is that advertisers are naturally interested in a suitable advertising environment. To meet these wishes, departments such as lifestyle or travel have been created. And finally, the survey also shows that there is almost no critical reporting on the company's own house. The "scissors in the head" seem to play an important role here.

What are the practical benefits of a quality rating?
Studies of media quality certainly help to keep the debate about the social performance of the media going and to point out problems in the Swiss media landscape. A link with structural issues - i.e., the financing of media organizations and media policy - is also very useful in order to be able to discuss causes and possible solutions for the media crisis.

The media funding crisis has clearly worsened working conditions in journalism. What specifically can contribute to solving this problem?
Indeed, our study shows that journalists have little time for research or for cultivating their network. Moreover, the situation has worsened significantly over the past five years, especially at daily newspapers. The less money available to editorial teams, the more difficult it is to produce high-quality and diverse journalistic content. First, of course, new business models are needed, which the newspaper industry is also looking for in all Western democracies. Paywalls or data mining could be possible sources of revenue, but it is still unclear whether these will really suffice. In addition, organizational forms could also be considered to alleviate profit pressure, such as cooperatives or commitments to internal cross-financing from profitable business areas such as online classifieds. Second, journalistic innovations and exclusive content are needed to increase readers' willingness to pay. Third, however, I think it is necessary to think about direct media funding. This does not automatically lead to media dependence on the state and should be discussed non-ideologically. Studies show that there are innovative ideas for funding journalism in Scandinavia, for example. These funding instruments do not simply serve to maintain structures, but explicitly include online platforms. Moreover, Sweden or Denmark are not suspected of endangering press freedom either. In surveys on press freedom, these countries regularly rank better than Switzerland.

Media promotion: Otfried Jarren

The EMEK already made proposals at the beginning of September on how media promotion in Switzerland could be approached in concrete terms: "In the long term, the EMEK believes that it is desirable for the federal government to promote entrepreneurial innovations in the media market, outstanding journalistic projects and applied media research. Because this second type of funding measure requires an organization that is independent of the state, the EMEK proposes the establishment of a foundation. This is a model that has already proven itself in related areas in the form of Pro Helvetia (culture) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (research). By means of this foundation, various promotional measures can be implemented outside the state, with significant participation by the industry." Professor Otfried Jarren, President of the Federal Media Commission EMEK and Prorector of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Zurich, justifies the system change in media promotion and comments on the need to create a quality label within the industry and to choose the path of price agreement instead of competition.

WW: Doesn't a shake-up in funding also mean more pressure for individual journalists, editors or publishers?
Otfried Jarren: That's a discussion we have to have. But I tend to see the opportunities: In the current business, the print media have fewer market opportunities than ever. They have to increasingly take on background functions. Sponsoring an agency makes sense because then more editorial resources can be used for background reporting, analysis and commentary. The function of daily newspapers in particular is background reporting, which serves to provide orientation. Journalism there must be more knowledge-based and qualitatively demanding. Unfortunately, it is not that at the moment. All media also benefit from a broad and good range of agencies, as do new online platforms. A well-made, broad-based agency offering also ensures that reports can be provided from all parts of the country.

Is a quality rating of the media additionally necessary?
Whether rating or analysis, the media industry has a lot of catching up to do in terms of quality development, product differentiation and pricing. However, the era of mass media is over. Something for everyone - that's no longer enough. Product differentiation is needed. In addition, it must be possible to provide, i.e., guarantee, adequate quality on a sustained basis. In journalism, the understanding of quality is still poorly developed, both at the professional and institutional level. To put it bluntly, there is hardly any other industry that makes so little effort to develop quality standards. I don't want to talk about accreditation or certification here - that's out of the question for journalism for me, too. But journalism must recognize that society has demands on it, and it must deal with these demands. Journalism is doing that, the industry is doing that, clearly too little. The debate should be conducted objectively. At the moment, you have to read cheap polemics - that doesn't do journalism any good. The media industry is one of the few that does not set any - or: too few - quality signals. If you want your services to be recognized and you want to be paid for them, you have to communicate your services and their quality. The industry does far too little here. Until now, it has not been used to communicating and justifying prices and services. This deficit is now taking its toll. It is now up to the industry to think about forms of quality management and to enter into a dialog about quality with all stakeholders. In this respect, the time of "naive" production is also over in journalism. It is about quality, which must be recognized, and it is about objectivity and credibility. Here, the media have lost recognition. And journalists must learn that the overall product is as decisive for evaluation as the subscription. Of course, "noble feathers" are also important and formative, but more and more the overall performance is being put to the test. Unfortunately, editorial quality strategies are still a long time coming.

Why, then, has the EMEK not called for such a rating?
The EMEK has not dealt with this. The EMEK has no position on this. Personally, I think that the industry must regulate this itself. Suggestions from outside can be helpful.

Why is promotion of the media not a matter for the industry?
The press media want and need to finance themselves on the market. However, as we are seeing, they are less and less able to do so. That's why we need to look at the general conditions, with the aim of preserving the market opportunities for the current print media - above all for reasons of democratic policy. We certainly don't need homeland security. But we do need support measures where the industry has weaknesses. This is the case, for example, in the area of research and development. Press publishers in particular have no research and development know-how. But this is necessary in the context of digital offerings. Publishers have always made a lot of money, and they have then imitated or bought up successful new offerings or providers. But this approach has no future. What is needed now are creative technical and economic solutions, including new business models. Support and funding measures for the entire industry are conceivable here. The market is changing; with Google, Twitter or Netflix, new providers and offers are appearing - with consequences for the medium-sized media industry and also for journalism. Competition is good and necessary. But we have to pay attention to the framework conditions if we want to have a media offering that is appropriate for state and democratic policy goals and that is also multilingual.

Interview: Ursina Maurer