Press Council defends reports on pedophile priests
The Swiss Press Council presented the results of an analysis of the reporting on a paedophile priest from Neuchâtel in Bern on Friday. The investigation was triggered by the priest's suicide on February 3 of this year.
On Friday in Bern, the Swiss Press Council presented the results of an analysis of the reporting on a paedophile priest from Neuchâtel. The investigation was triggered by the priest's suicide on February 3 of this year, after he was suspected of having committed pedophile abuse in the early 1980s. In a suicide note, he cited the "media hunt" as the reason for his suicide. However, the Press Council has now come to the conclusion that the reporting on paedophile priests in the Swiss media was appropriate. According to the Press Council, the Catholic Church in particular, which ascribes a special moral authority to itself, has a public interest in how it deals with suspicions of paedophile acts by priests.
The short-term flood of media reports on a single topic in French-speaking Switzerland at the beginning of 2008 was admittedly sensitive. However, such phenomena are part of media freedom, the importance of which for a democracy is undisputed. It was therefore not justified for church representatives to demand that the media refrain from reporting on suspected cases. An ethic of omission was only appropriate if the media ran the risk of digging in the dirt out of pure business addiction. This was not the case here. In addition, the media had reported on the case in a proportionate manner. Based on the media reports, the priest could only be identified by his close circle.
As the Press Council announced at its annual conference, it took a position on 63 complaints last year. This is roughly the same number as in previous years. Last year, the Press Council upheld 25 complainants in whole or in part. The most common grounds were violation of the principle of fairness, violation of privacy and unjustified naming of names.
The short-term flood of media reports on a single topic in French-speaking Switzerland at the beginning of 2008 was admittedly sensitive. However, such phenomena are part of media freedom, the importance of which for a democracy is undisputed. It was therefore not justified for church representatives to demand that the media refrain from reporting on suspected cases. An ethic of omission was only appropriate if the media ran the risk of digging in the dirt out of pure business addiction. This was not the case here. In addition, the media had reported on the case in a proportionate manner. Based on the media reports, the priest could only be identified by his close circle.
As the Press Council announced at its annual conference, it took a position on 63 complaints last year. This is roughly the same number as in previous years. Last year, the Press Council upheld 25 complainants in whole or in part. The most common grounds were violation of the principle of fairness, violation of privacy and unjustified naming of names.
