Last but not least: Do you prefer your media landscape with "pseudo-objectivity" or rather with "quota anti-Blocher"?

The discussion not only provided plenty of fuel, but also an insight into the mindset of the two panelists and their assessment of the Swiss media landscape. In the first few minutes, fundamental questions arose: "How should newspapers weight political opinions - according to voter percentage, or should they simply take a clear position? Does the media landscape primarily represent the interests of one political group? And does the political positioning of the media depend on which topics are in the foreground and how critical journalists are of the state and its claims to power?"

Roger Köppel emphasized that it is currently easy to highlight the merits of Micheline Calmy-Rey, for example, "but if you write that Blocher has done something well, then you will feel the withdrawal of love". Köppel outed himself as a great admirer of all people who have the courage to stand up in a group of like-minded people and express their own opinion - he is not a token anti-Blocher.

Cédric Wermuth also sees a problem in the lack of position, the so-called "pseudo-objectivity". After mentioning certain newspapers that have been bought up by "SVP protagonists" in recent years, Wermuth emphasizes that there is a lack of media with a clear point of view in the Swiss media landscape. How should one assess the so-called non-political media, such as free newspapers, he asks. The newspapers that are most difficult to assess are those where you don't know exactly where they stand. He cites the Tages-Anzeiger as an example. As some newspapers do not position themselves clearly, they are also difficult to grasp.

However, an objective summary of the further discussion would run counter to these points of view. See therefore here the whole discussion, uncensored and without pseudo-objective assessments. (uma)