millisecond to think about what the other person said, whether he might not be a little bit right, and what solution there might be for the problem outlined.
One example: Baz editor-in-chief Markus Somm said in April on the Monday talk show "Roger gegen Markus" about the SVP and UBS boycott of advertising: "I can't expect an advertiser to place an ad if he's being danced around on the nose all the time. That's the deal with my customers. There's a level of criticism that's right, and there's a level of one-sidedness that's no longer okay. In that case, I can only support an ad boycott."
Let's listen carefully: Markus Somm talks about a deal with his customers. He doesn't mean his readers, but the advertising clients. What Somm does well is that, as a journalist, he makes transparent how he thinks and decides. Now Baz readers know where they stand. What is unfortunate is that Somm's statement suggests that, as editor-in-chief, he writes in a way that suits his biggest advertising clients. Fortunately, we live in a free country and everyone is free to decide where they advertise and why. But everyone is also free to decide what they read. And Somm didn't think that through. Because a subscriber who has to reckon with biased reporting because a bank or a party advertises in the same newspaper will hopefully cancel the paper immediately. What would that mean: that the Baz only reports on the stock price of UBS 100 if the performance is right?
Publisher President Hanspeter Lebrument said in mid-April in the "NZZ am Sonntag": "A clean separation between the advertising market and the editorial part of a newspaper has become much more difficult than it was twenty years ago, when the financial situation allowed us to put editorial independence above everything else."
Let's listen carefully: The publisher's president said it was "much more difficult today than it was twenty years ago" to make a clean distinction between advertising and editorial. Of course he's right - and not just because he also publishes Werbewoche. Today, attempts are being made in every conceivable way to foist advertising messages on editorial departments as editorial contributions, disguised as high-quality and neutral content, strangely enough free of charge. At the latest then one must listen up. Editors-in-chief have to be on their guard to make sure they don't slip a fake article into the magazine or onto the website. But does Hanspeter Lebrument's statement also imply that the financial situation no longer allows editorial independence to be maintained? I don't think so. Lebrument may have formulated his statement somewhat unclearly, but I still don't see any causality. In the past, a media outlet could place editorial independence above everything else and pay for it, simply rejecting flat advertising and publicity reports. Today, you really have to consider whether you can afford it - but the simplest way to avoid getting yourself into either a journalistic or a financial pickle is as old as journalism itself: Putting on the record what's in it, editorial or advertising. And yes: even one-sided positive articles and public reports are advertising. But beware, the world has never been just black and white; transitions are fluid, information can also be advertising and advertising can be information, without there being an immediate intention to deceive and mislead readers. You need a fine sense for your readers to estimate what you can expect from them and what is unacceptable.
Lost in the whole debate is the reader. Our readers, dear colleagues in the media, are smart and mature. Do not underestimate them! They understand very well what is offered to them and decide autonomously what they want to consume and what not. They also know that nothing is given to us on the highly competitive media market. And that quality costs money. That's why we have to take a clear line. That doesn't mean upsetting advertisers or duping readers. It means finding a way that works for everyone.
The Press Council ruled at the beginning of the week that statements like those of Somm and Lebrument were dangerous and undermined the credibility of the media. The journalists' code stipulates that journalists should avoid "any form of commercial advertising" and should not accept "any conditions from advertisers.
Let's listen carefully: The Press Council recalls the Journalists' Code and warns the media not to jeopardize their credibility. That is good and right. Journalists must not associate themselves with any cause, not even a good one. But the Press Council does not say how journalists should "avoid any form of commercial advertising" when advertising is the only thing that finances the media. The Press Council is right in saying that journalists should accept "no conditions whatsoever": neither from advertisers, nor from subscribers, nor from the editor-in-chief.
Subscriptions have long since ceased to finance the production of effective media, and fewer and fewer people are willing to subscribe to media if they can get half the truth for free on the Internet. An annual subscription to the NZZ am Sonntag costs 252 francs, that to Werbewoche 295 francs. They can't even pay the cleaning lady from that. Advertising is still the main source of income for the media, even if less and less advertising is being placed. So let's stop the hypocritical talk and look for viable ways to continue offering our readers well-researched, in-depth reporting. And let's not forget the clear dividing line between reporting and advertising. To do that, we simply have to let journalists do their job again: I guarantee you that no journi will voluntarily insert an advertising jingle into a hard-researched article.
The real scandal is the attitude of UBS and SVP anyway. Two people who could casually afford advertisements and should be doing a good job of media work are putting pressure on the media because they don't speak after their mouths. One doesn't really need to comment on this at all, the matter comments itself. Profile is not made by advertising - neither that of media, nor that of companies.
Again, "What kind of times are we living in?" 2016, dear grandmommy. And there is much to do.
Anne-Friederike Heinrich, Editor in Chief
[email protected]
