SRG media report correctly on the initiative for plenum money
SRG Ombudsman Roger Blum finds no errors in SRF’s radio and television broadcasts regarding the Sovereign Money Initiative. In response to a complaint about the «Arena» program, he states that the host is not required to correct participants.
A viewer had complained that Federal Councillor Ueli Maurer had claimed in the broadcast that no one had lost money at a bank in the last 100 years. The magistrate failed to mention the bankruptcy of the Spar- und Leihkasse Thun in 1991; the claim was therefore demonstrably false.
Moderator not a "walking encyclopedia
The statement of the Federal Council is not correct - Blum agrees with the complainant in his statement published on Thursday. In contrast to an information program, the editorial staff does not have absolute influence on a discussion program, according to Blum. It cannot be the task of the moderator to correct every factual error. Blum is also surprised that the four proponents of the initiative did not contradict the finance minister in the broadcast. Presenter Jonas Projer, meanwhile, asked Maurer critical questions and probed. However, according to Blum, as a presenter he cannot act as a "walking encyclopedia or instant fact-checker". The trailer for the "Arena" edition was also criticized. It revealed SRF's ignorance of the monetary system and misrepresented, for example, the creation of credit from customer deposits. The ombudsman does not see it that way. According to his decision, the trailer correctly reflects the concerns of the initiative.
"Timo and Paps" as scouts
Radio SRF 1 came under fire for its morning show "Timo und Paps" at the end of May. The author was criticized for conducting a covert referendum campaign. Blum, however, believes that the content was inspired by the Federal Council's voting booklet. And the latter is known to be against the initiative. Thus, the text is political education and enlightenment for the ombudsman. The fourth complaint was directed against SRF News' coverage of an opinion poll on the initiative. The editorial headlined: "Risky experiment: Full money initiative practically without a chance". This was manipulatively one-sided and not neutral. Ombudsman Blum counters that the text is a piece of precision journalism. It thus conveys socio-scientific data in a precise and comprehensible way. The classification as a "risky experiment" was not made by the editors, but was based on the statement of the scientists commissioned with the survey. And this statement in turn was based on the survey data. The complainant had also apparently failed to notice that the editorial team had placed "risky experiment" in quotation marks. (SDA)
