Actually, Weltwoche is superfluous, unless...
A weekly newspaper is only worth reading if it manages to set itself apart through surprising questions, arguments, and writers. Guest commentary by Karl Lüönd, freelance journalist and author.
It has been a frequent topic of conversation over the past ten days—and not just among journalists: Why did *Die Weltwoche*, of all publications, break the story about Bruno Zuppiger’s «original sin»? Its close ties to the SVP are well known, after all. What did Köppel and Engeler (and perhaps Blocher, one of the possible masterminds behind the scenes) intend to achieve with this scheme? Cui bono (Latin for «To whose benefit?»)
Anyone who asks this question is mistaken, because they are assuming from the outset that journalists have fixed partisan political positions and corresponding strategies. A good journalist, however, is always where the good story is. They don’t need to suppress their own political viewpoint, but it takes a back seat when assessing facts and stories. The worst of all journalistic sins in such a case would be cowardice in the face of one’s friends.
Ideally, a good story meets three criteria: it is true, it is relevant, and it interests people. As far as one can judge from the outside, all three criteria apply in a virtually textbook manner to the Zuppiger scoop in *Die Weltwoche*. To date, not a single line of the article written by Urs Paul Engeler has been denied or refuted.
Anyone who enters the selection process leading up to a Federal Council election exposes themselves and their past to in-depth journalistic scrutiny. This has been common knowledge at least since the Kopp case. In the case of Bruno Zuppiger, however, this investigation was not very thorough at first. Not even the Tages-Anzeiger, which has never held back when it comes to other SVP figures with shady pasts, deemed it necessary to follow Zuppiger’s business trail. The fact that there had been a debacle at the cantonal trade association—for which Zuppiger shared responsibility—had been an open secret in Zurich’s political circles for many years. To have initially overlooked this story and then, in hindsight, to accuse colleagues at the *Weltwoche* of having dishonest—that is, unjournalistic—motives is simply cheap.
Urs Paul Engeler is self-critical and independent enough to treat even promising sources with care and skepticism. Whoever tipped him off about the story—and it was more than just a tip; it included documents—must have been pursuing their own agenda. It is not the journalist’s job to morally judge the motives of his informants; rather, his task is to see through those motives and identify any gaps in the files. In other cases, I have found Urs Paul Engeler to be tenacious in his investigations, but also extremely careful and level-headed. Until proven otherwise, and given my knowledge of his integrity, I do not assume that Engeler allowed himself to be used as a pawn in a political game.
But *Die Weltwoche* of all places! My friends objected, saying that didn’t fit with its track record at all. But yes, it did fit—namely, with *Die Weltwoche*«s main problem. That problem is that it is superfluous. No one today needs the kind of weekly newspaper with its reflective essays that Karl von Schumacher and Manuel Gasser invented in the early 1930s. Ever since electronic and online media have pushed daily newspapers out of the »breaking news” business—a shift that began when the NZZ stopped publishing twice a day—the major daily newspapers have shifted toward the former core competency of weekly papers: in-depth analysis, background coverage, explaining the world, original articles, and exclusives. A newspaper like the *Weltwoche* is only worth reading and economically viable to the extent that it succeeds in setting itself apart through surprising questions, theses, and authors.
Young publisher Köppel, who loves to put himself under pressure, realized this long ago and has consistently put it into practice. His motto is: Be a thorn in someone’s side, and you’ll make a name for yourself. If he fails to surprise, provoke, and amaze readers every week, his project is over. That’s why, for years now, he’s placed Peter Bodenmann alongside Christoph Mörgeli. It’s less about ideology and more about excellent marketing.









