Brazen grab for the power of interpretation
Column: Is it time to start letting go of the idea that the media determine their own content?
Column Are we slowly having to say goodbye to the idea that the media determine their own content? The disgraceful drama put on by the supposedly liberal Liberal Party around the TV show "Classe Politique" suggests that this is the case. Party President Fulvio Pelli felt that discussing Christoph Blocher's chances of re-election was currently unimportant - and refused to take part in the program. And immediately before the broadcast, the SVP is said to have tried to dictate the content on which it would comment.
When asked, Editor-in-Chief Ueli Haldimann disputes the main points of the SonntagsZeitung report. He has long since prepared himself for a hot autumn. The fact is that the parties - just like some corporations, associations and institutions - are increasingly trying to control the media coverage of their activities. What is required is the courage to make it crystal clear to the parties' scene-shifters (or even a Federal Councillor in the make-up chair): either according to our rules or not at all. And if the Federal Councillor runs away from the studio - so what!
Where, please, do we actually live? According to their own statements, top liberal politicians want to dictate to a leading medium such as television what it should and should not cover as a current topic. Behind this lies the rather impudent claim to set the topics when they suit you and to determine the "right", i.e. politically useful, time yourself. Here we can see the ever-growing arrogance of the interpretation industry. While the editorial offices of the printed media are reducing their budgets and thus their content expertise to the point where they can only just cope with day-to-day business, the manipulation apparatuses of companies, parties, institutions and authorities are arming themselves. This is the second really sad piece of news from the media theater in the week that saw the departure of Facts.
As understandable as the reasons for the news magazine's closure are: Once again, a voice of independent journalism is being silenced as the media theater, staged and controlled by interest groups, puffs itself up. It is no longer the independent journalists who are directing the show. Those being described want to set the rules of description themselves. They insist on playing the leading role, and they also want to prompt the appropriate text. At the same time, to make the beleaguered press as tame as possible, postal subsidies are withdrawn. This does not weaken the large publishing houses that were targeted, but the small ones.
As expected, the Federal Office of Communications has barely decided on fee-splitting before launching dubious "performance mandates" and "quality requirements" into the world. On what legal basis, actually? Nobody asks, nobody talks about it. It was the doomed "Facts" of all things that uncovered this veritable scandal. In plain language, it's like this: through the long arm of Bakom, the easily offended Federal Councillor Leuenberger is getting in the way of determining how television news is presented and what content should be banned or frowned upon in future. There is talk of a "model concession", which contains monstrosities such as this: "The department can prohibit the broadcasting of certain programs in the concession that run counter to the fulfillment of the performance mandate." This refers to warnings about speed traps or certain competitions, the Bakom spokeswoman rebuffs. However, she confirms a few lines later that this is just the beginning. Original quote from Facts: "The model license also requires private radio and TV stations to pay minimum wages and provide training and further education courses for employees. They should have their operations evaluated annually by an external organization (I wonder which one?)." Of course further training makes sense; I'm not so sure about minimum wages. The fact is, however, that politicians are forcing unsuccessful trade union demands on media companies via fee splitting. That's what the political amoebas in the media houses get for it now: willingly stretching out their hands for concession money and closing their eyes to the fact that the state, which gives or redistributes money, always makes demands as well. The Leuenbergers and Dumermuths may call it a "performance mandate" or "evaluation". I call it a brazen attempt to control the content and to control the business. The fact that the majority of the printed media no longer even realize what is being played out only makes things more tragic. It will come to the point where the last hopes for reflective and journalistically honest background reporting will rest on the state-sponsored SRG media!
Karl Lüönd is a freelance journalist and author.
When asked, Editor-in-Chief Ueli Haldimann disputes the main points of the SonntagsZeitung report. He has long since prepared himself for a hot autumn. The fact is that the parties - just like some corporations, associations and institutions - are increasingly trying to control the media coverage of their activities. What is required is the courage to make it crystal clear to the parties' scene-shifters (or even a Federal Councillor in the make-up chair): either according to our rules or not at all. And if the Federal Councillor runs away from the studio - so what!
Where, please, do we actually live? According to their own statements, top liberal politicians want to dictate to a leading medium such as television what it should and should not cover as a current topic. Behind this lies the rather impudent claim to set the topics when they suit you and to determine the "right", i.e. politically useful, time yourself. Here we can see the ever-growing arrogance of the interpretation industry. While the editorial offices of the printed media are reducing their budgets and thus their content expertise to the point where they can only just cope with day-to-day business, the manipulation apparatuses of companies, parties, institutions and authorities are arming themselves. This is the second really sad piece of news from the media theater in the week that saw the departure of Facts.
As understandable as the reasons for the news magazine's closure are: Once again, a voice of independent journalism is being silenced as the media theater, staged and controlled by interest groups, puffs itself up. It is no longer the independent journalists who are directing the show. Those being described want to set the rules of description themselves. They insist on playing the leading role, and they also want to prompt the appropriate text. At the same time, to make the beleaguered press as tame as possible, postal subsidies are withdrawn. This does not weaken the large publishing houses that were targeted, but the small ones.
As expected, the Federal Office of Communications has barely decided on fee-splitting before launching dubious "performance mandates" and "quality requirements" into the world. On what legal basis, actually? Nobody asks, nobody talks about it. It was the doomed "Facts" of all things that uncovered this veritable scandal. In plain language, it's like this: through the long arm of Bakom, the easily offended Federal Councillor Leuenberger is getting in the way of determining how television news is presented and what content should be banned or frowned upon in future. There is talk of a "model concession", which contains monstrosities such as this: "The department can prohibit the broadcasting of certain programs in the concession that run counter to the fulfillment of the performance mandate." This refers to warnings about speed traps or certain competitions, the Bakom spokeswoman rebuffs. However, she confirms a few lines later that this is just the beginning. Original quote from Facts: "The model license also requires private radio and TV stations to pay minimum wages and provide training and further education courses for employees. They should have their operations evaluated annually by an external organization (I wonder which one?)." Of course further training makes sense; I'm not so sure about minimum wages. The fact is, however, that politicians are forcing unsuccessful trade union demands on media companies via fee splitting. That's what the political amoebas in the media houses get for it now: willingly stretching out their hands for concession money and closing their eyes to the fact that the state, which gives or redistributes money, always makes demands as well. The Leuenbergers and Dumermuths may call it a "performance mandate" or "evaluation". I call it a brazen attempt to control the content and to control the business. The fact that the majority of the printed media no longer even realize what is being played out only makes things more tragic. It will come to the point where the last hopes for reflective and journalistically honest background reporting will rest on the state-sponsored SRG media!
Karl Lüönd is a freelance journalist and author.
