The cursed public
The state government is undermining the implementation of the principle of public access. Op-ed by Hans Stutz, freelance journalist.
What Blocher Christoph can do, Maurer Ueli also wants to be able to do: publicly berate publishers, editors and journalists. Delivered in the best local luxury hotel, where the Congress of Swiss Publishers is always held. Five years ago, Blocher claimed that, as a Federal Councillor and entrepreneur, he knew how much we "depend on unvarnished reporting". He then went on to outline, more or less in the style of a program outline, which topics (excessive government spending, migration) the media should cover and how (according to the SVP program, possibly Weltwoche). Blocher now has a favorite as his microphone holder, while Maurer Ueli still runs to any microphone that is put in front of him for professional reasons. A few weeks ago, he complained to the publishers that the media were bungling things. Above all, however, they were not controlling the "powerful and the power". It sounded as if a leftist or a bourgeois radical democrat was singing the praises of transparency and control of power. But was it really meant that way?
Mr. Federal Councillor has a lot to say. Together with his six colleagues, he is at the head of an apparatus in which several hundred people deal with the public on a daily basis, be it through media releases, be it by deliberately spreading indiscretions, be it by ignoring or delaying answers to unwanted questions. The principle of public access has been in force for over three years: everyone has the right to inspect official documents and to obtain information from the authorities about the content of official documents. Of course there are exceptions. But overall - at least that's what it looks like - it would be a useful tool, including for media professionals.
But what does the reality look like? For example, when a member of the media asks Maurer's (formerly Schmid's) DDPS department for information about the military rank of some men who have been convicted of violent crimes. For years, the DDPS has always answered questions about the military rank of members of the armed forces promptly and quickly. But this time, it suddenly says, data protection, no information. The rejected person invokes the principle of publicity and lodges a complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner - as stipulated by law. According to the law, the data protection officer should make a decision within thirty days to ensure that the requested information is not no longer up to date. But nine months later, there has still been no decision. The reason: the Federal Council has not approved the necessary staff for the Data Protection Commissioner (according to the dispatch, 300 to 350 full-time equivalents), and a single person must - at present - handle the entire complaints process. In plain language: the federal government is torpedoing the implementation of the principle of public access. And, according to reports from the federal administration - under the seal of secrecy, of course - they do not want the publicity principle to become better known among citizens or media professionals.
After the publishers' congress, Maurer Ueli was able to look confidently at the newspapers the next day. They published the DDPS chief's scolding of the media without contradiction. Asked by Peter Wanner's Sonntag about his criticism, Maurer even claimed that he had never really been criticized in the first nine months of his time in office. And then added: "Criticism always helps you to improve." Mr. Federal Councillor, we also know where! And the costs remained comparatively low, not even one percent of a fighter jet!
Mr. Federal Councillor has a lot to say. Together with his six colleagues, he is at the head of an apparatus in which several hundred people deal with the public on a daily basis, be it through media releases, be it by deliberately spreading indiscretions, be it by ignoring or delaying answers to unwanted questions. The principle of public access has been in force for over three years: everyone has the right to inspect official documents and to obtain information from the authorities about the content of official documents. Of course there are exceptions. But overall - at least that's what it looks like - it would be a useful tool, including for media professionals.
But what does the reality look like? For example, when a member of the media asks Maurer's (formerly Schmid's) DDPS department for information about the military rank of some men who have been convicted of violent crimes. For years, the DDPS has always answered questions about the military rank of members of the armed forces promptly and quickly. But this time, it suddenly says, data protection, no information. The rejected person invokes the principle of publicity and lodges a complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner - as stipulated by law. According to the law, the data protection officer should make a decision within thirty days to ensure that the requested information is not no longer up to date. But nine months later, there has still been no decision. The reason: the Federal Council has not approved the necessary staff for the Data Protection Commissioner (according to the dispatch, 300 to 350 full-time equivalents), and a single person must - at present - handle the entire complaints process. In plain language: the federal government is torpedoing the implementation of the principle of public access. And, according to reports from the federal administration - under the seal of secrecy, of course - they do not want the publicity principle to become better known among citizens or media professionals.
After the publishers' congress, Maurer Ueli was able to look confidently at the newspapers the next day. They published the DDPS chief's scolding of the media without contradiction. Asked by Peter Wanner's Sonntag about his criticism, Maurer even claimed that he had never really been criticized in the first nine months of his time in office. And then added: "Criticism always helps you to improve." Mr. Federal Councillor, we also know where! And the costs remained comparatively low, not even one percent of a fighter jet!
