The Federal Media Commission (Emek) presented its plans for media funding at the beginning of September. This is to be put on a new footing (in a departure from the previous postal tax reduction). The 13-member committee of experts elected by the Federal Council last spring proposes financially supporting "a news agency", promoting journalistic training and further education and launching innovation projects in the media sector. The opposite would be right - and above all much cheaper.
In the Internet age, news agencies have long been an anachronism. With the advent of electric telegraph connections, they were founded by publishers in the century before last (Associated Press: 1846, Reuters: 1851, in Switzerland: 1895) in order to save costs. Telecommunications services were horrendously expensive, especially when operated around the clock and around the globe. When the Internet emerged in the mid-1990s and spanned the globe, suddenly everyone had the same and now far better telecommunications options for a comparative pittance, for which news agencies were still paying six to seven-figure sums a year just a few years previously. And when publishers began to use the Internet commercially, they set up their own editorial offices for the new online services, which function in the same way as news agencies, namely reporting around the clock without fixed closing times. Because the professional communications departments in companies, organizations and public authorities have been greatly expanded at the same time, we typically have this news process today: Operating under the name of Chief Communication Officer, a former journalist writes a press release, even though he would be perfectly capable of writing the same message in the style of a news article. This press release is widely distributed electronically, reaching all editorial offices and news agencies simultaneously. Before the announcement is forwarded to the public, it has to be rewritten from PR-speak into news-speak. This was and is the main task of news agencies, especially in Germany. Such nonsensical duplication can easily be dispensed with: Anyone who wants to know something communicated provides the editorial offices with media-specific content from the outset and without detours, which can be adopted with as little effort as possible, provided it is not fed directly to the interested public via social media from the outset (posts about unexpected news events, such as earthquakes, etc., can also be found here, and usually faster than via any news agency). This also makes it clear that pure news distribution is no longer suitable as a journalistic business model - more is needed. In order to make this possible, the cost of the pure news business must be reduced to a minimum. The media industry could have agreed on such processes long ago - but it has not. Like smokers to nicotine, editors and journalists have become accustomed to agency reports. Although they receive most information at the same time, they often prefer to wait and see what the agency reports before processing it. Once this signal from the pre-drummer has arrived, editors know they are on the safe side and can write their own version (or publish the agency text straight away). As you can see, agencies today are not only an unnecessary and costly detour, but also promote uniformity and thus contribute significantly to the loss of media diversity. If you want better media, the first step is to do without news agencies.
No Geri-Gate without an agency
There are other idealizations that persistently circulate in connection with news agencies in Switzerland and can be used to hunt for subsidies. One of these is that financial support for the news agency contributes to language understanding in the country. Numerous reports have always been translated via this channel and distributed to other parts of the country. And in the vast majority of cases, these have always been ignored in the editorial offices on the other side of the French-speaking divide - a Swiss idle time. And thanks to the Internet, the flow of information between the different parts of the country has long and easily been ensured. The original source and media reports from other parts of the country can be accessed at any time. News agencies are also not the repository of pure and objective information and are therefore not suitable as an antidote to the (alleged) declining quality of the media. The Geri-Gate case has just shown how the news agency functions as part of the media mob. Without a news agency's report, which is quickly disseminated by the media simply out of a sense of competition, other editorial offices could have reacted more thoughtfully. But because the news agency picked up on the topic and used it as a lever, all the media were forced to take up the topic too, even if only by publishing the agency report. What's more, in this case the agency's most conspicuous contribution was not exactly praiseworthy: the widely circulated false report that the chat partner was 21 years old and not 33, as was later corrected, came from the news agency.
If the news agency is shut down and discontinued instead of being ballenbergized with federal funds, two further concerns of the Media Commission can be fulfilled without the need to spend taxpayers' money. It wants to promote innovation, both through the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) and with additional start-up funding for media start-ups. And it wants to set up a media fund to promote "outstanding editorial or journalistic achievements". Research funds are also to be promoted. Once there is no longer a news agency, it will be like a forest: once a decades-old giant tree has been felled, numerous new plants can sprout in its place. These are the desired media start-ups that are looking for opportunities in the new media ecosystem. The fact that media companies are doing well in the start-up world was documented by Werbewoche in issue 13 (page 18) before the summer vacations. And once editorial offices no longer have to hand over large budget items to the news agency, these funds (around CHF 20 million annually across the industry) can be used for research projects - preferably not to produce more Geri-Gates or simply to save them out of necessity.
Such steps are not the task of the Media Commission (which may call into question its raison d'être), but of the publishers (and the SRG). As long as their suffering is not great enough, they will hardly find a common approach to modern cooperation models (and will be forced to keep outdated and expensive structures alive due to this industry-wide inertia). However, if media companies continue to have such significant and untapped rationalization potential, they do not need to be supported with state funds.
Christoph J. Walther
(Disclosure: The author held various positions at a news agency between 1979 and 2004).