Ombudsman criticizes "Rundschau

The audience had not been able to form its own opinion sufficiently on the basis of the TV report. Important information was suppressed. In addition, the conclusions of the expert report, which was classified as "confidential," were reported in a "very striking and little differentiated manner," Casanova writes in his final report. In his complaint to the SRG ombudsman's office, a TV viewer had criticized that "Rundschau" had broadcast a "highly unqualified program on streetcar procurement" on the basis of a secret report. Quoting from a secret paper was "unacceptable in terms of media ethics and criminal law".

The Ombudsman does not share this opinion. In his opinion, "the public's interest in information is to be given greater weight than the authorities' interest in keeping the report secret". The "Rundschau" had fulfilled its role "as a guardian of democracy". The streetcar procurement is "a very important project for Zurich, involving investments of 280 to 350 million Swiss francs. The decision would have consequences for the next 40 years. In the report entitled "Tram procurement VBZ. Second Opinion", the "Rundschau" reports that the evaluation of the offers was "not sufficiently comprehensible" and that all four streetcar suppliers had not met the "must" criteria.
fulfilled".

However, according to the Ombudsman, the TV report omitted important information. For example, it was not mentioned that the confidential report repeatedly pointed out that a final assessment was not yet possible because the authors of the expertise had only been given limited access to the documents. Overall, Casanova judged the TV viewer's complaint to be "partially justified." He considers the publication of the confidential report as admissible, but the way in which this was done, he considers "too little precise". (SDA)

On the subject: "Rundschau" derailed in dream dispute? (Werbewoche.ch, 1.3.2015)