Invitation to dance
Guest commentary By softening the fronts, the publishers' association's foundation model has already achieved its first purpose, says Daniel Kaczynski.
Guest commentary By softening the fronts, the publishers' association's foundation model has already achieved its first purpose, says Daniel Kaczynski.
Today more than ever, Swiss media policy bears the hallmarks of a borderline science. "You have to understand: Turn one into ten..." If you want to understand this witchcraft 101, you sometimes have to spell in a devilishly tricky way.
Our association is not of the opinion that it has given the eternally stubborn statists a wickedly sinful pass and thus scored an own goal, as Oliver Classen insinuates (WW 34/03). What has actually happened? The National Council has - agreed! - made a wrong decision. But it is not final. It can and must be corrected, either by the Council of States or, at the latest, by the people.
The decisive factor, however, is that the left's calculation must not work out in the end. They want to support "the press" with money that they have previously taken away from it (including by leveraging the SRG). Above all, however, they want to prevent publishers from developing into modern regional cross-media providers through TV and radio investments. The independent, private-sector information processors are thus to be excluded from the markets of the future. The aim is to remove radio and television from competition as state-owned reserves. Why is nobody talking about a regulatory fall from grace here?
The problem with press promotion is this: For years, the print media have been feeding direct democracy with information, an indispensable raw material for referendums at federal, municipal and cantonal level. Small and medium-sized companies in particular feel the burden of this self-imposed obligation. Is it indecent to ask whether the state should pay for these public services? After all, it does so in the case of private railroads.
Previously, this compensation was paid via distribution or postal subsidies. The system was certainly not ideal, but the idea was elegant. Now this subsidy will be reduced by the end of 2007 as a result of the austerity ministers' increased advice. The large publishers will help themselves by leveraging their buying power with the liberalized postal service and negotiating favorable rates. The smaller ones, however, will have to pay so-called process-oriented costs until it hurts.
In this situation, launching a creative idea - that of the foundation - was certainly not the worst role an association could play. (Incidentally, it was expressly requested to do so by the National Council committee and the administration). And the foundation model is not as "unrealistic" as Classen thinks. Or has he never heard of the Pro Helvetia cultural foundation?
Since the publishers have done their pirouette, the scene has been dancing. Formerly rigid fronts have started to move. And incidentally, as in sport, the same applies in politics: what counts is the final result, not the half-time result.
> Daniel Kaczynski holds a doctorate in law and has been Managing Director of the Swiss Press Association since April.
Today more than ever, Swiss media policy bears the hallmarks of a borderline science. "You have to understand: Turn one into ten..." If you want to understand this witchcraft 101, you sometimes have to spell in a devilishly tricky way.
Our association is not of the opinion that it has given the eternally stubborn statists a wickedly sinful pass and thus scored an own goal, as Oliver Classen insinuates (WW 34/03). What has actually happened? The National Council has - agreed! - made a wrong decision. But it is not final. It can and must be corrected, either by the Council of States or, at the latest, by the people.
The decisive factor, however, is that the left's calculation must not work out in the end. They want to support "the press" with money that they have previously taken away from it (including by leveraging the SRG). Above all, however, they want to prevent publishers from developing into modern regional cross-media providers through TV and radio investments. The independent, private-sector information processors are thus to be excluded from the markets of the future. The aim is to remove radio and television from competition as state-owned reserves. Why is nobody talking about a regulatory fall from grace here?
The problem with press promotion is this: For years, the print media have been feeding direct democracy with information, an indispensable raw material for referendums at federal, municipal and cantonal level. Small and medium-sized companies in particular feel the burden of this self-imposed obligation. Is it indecent to ask whether the state should pay for these public services? After all, it does so in the case of private railroads.
Previously, this compensation was paid via distribution or postal subsidies. The system was certainly not ideal, but the idea was elegant. Now this subsidy will be reduced by the end of 2007 as a result of the austerity ministers' increased advice. The large publishers will help themselves by leveraging their buying power with the liberalized postal service and negotiating favorable rates. The smaller ones, however, will have to pay so-called process-oriented costs until it hurts.
In this situation, launching a creative idea - that of the foundation - was certainly not the worst role an association could play. (Incidentally, it was expressly requested to do so by the National Council committee and the administration). And the foundation model is not as "unrealistic" as Classen thinks. Or has he never heard of the Pro Helvetia cultural foundation?
Since the publishers have done their pirouette, the scene has been dancing. Formerly rigid fronts have started to move. And incidentally, as in sport, the same applies in politics: what counts is the final result, not the half-time result.
> Daniel Kaczynski holds a doctorate in law and has been Managing Director of the Swiss Press Association since April.
