In Güllen and elsewhere
Journalists like to claim, loudly and often, that they want to keep readers fully informed. But everything has its limits—especially when a millionaire forgets to report a change of address. Op-ed by Hans Stutz, freelance journalist.
Only the NZZ and the Willsauer Bote recently mentioned the study on "Political Communication Culture in Switzerland", published by the Institute for Journalism Studies and Media Research at the University of Zurich. The study is only based on a survey and therefore does not examine the reality, but only the perceptions that the players in the Federal Parliament have of each other. Nevertheless, the study flattened the respondents and called them the "elite", the "decision-makers" (politicians in the Federal Assembly and the government), their media spokespersons on the one hand, and the editors-in-chief, editors and journalists on the other, especially those accredited in the Federal Palace. They all received another questionnaire some time ago, and only around a third of them returned it. An initial result of this diligent work: the majority of respondents admit that they don't think much of opinion polls. So should they be praised for returning the questionnaire anyway?
Or should we give them a pat on the back for even trying to find an answer to the social scientists' clichéd specifications ("not at all true" to "completely true"), for example to the claim that "the power of the media is overestimated"? Shouldn't we first agree on how great this power actually is? And is it power at all? Or is it just influence?
However, the study comes to the unsurprising conclusion that politicians rate the influence of the media more highly than the media professionals themselves. This is a common behavior in Switzerland: Making oneself smaller/less important. Not surprisingly, the "media elites" also believe that the media primarily want to provide citizens with comprehensive information. Or to put it in more understandable terms: the media professionals themselves attest to lofty professional ideals. But what does the reality look like?
Let's take a sample from current events: A man moves to another municipality with his family, but fails to report the change of residence. Many months later, the municipal clerk responsible draws his attention to the omission in a letter.
Not only should everyone be equal before the law, but also before the authorities.
However, the media take up the case because this man is an heir, co-owner and director of a chemical plant, major shareholder in an ice hockey club, golf course owner and former mayor.
Are the journalists now praising the brave writer for remaining incorruptible? "Municipal president throws millionaire out of village and forgoes a lot of tax money", headlines the tabloid. "Tax haven wants to send millionaire to the desert", says a free newspaper, but then writes in small print that the man now lives with his family in a residential area of the city of Bern. And an online editorial bangs the nice title online: "Farmers' nest expels millionaire." At least the Solothurn newspaper acknowledged a few days later that the municipal clerk had acted "unusually and unceremoniously, but legally absolutely correctly".
The study reports nothing about this real existing political communication culture. Fortunately, we still have Friedrich Dürrenmatt. Güllen, visit of the old lady Claire Zachanassian. Just as the people of Güllen decide to accept her billion-dollar foundation and condemn Alfred Ill, the old lady's former lover, to death, the radio reporter begins: "Devout silence in the theater hall. Nothing but a sea of raised hands, like a mighty conspiracy for a better, fairer world. Only the old man sits motionless, overwhelmed with joy." Alfred Ill soon lies in his coffin. So everything is in order, the village elite are at peace with themselves and the media people get a snack in the restaurant.
Or should we give them a pat on the back for even trying to find an answer to the social scientists' clichéd specifications ("not at all true" to "completely true"), for example to the claim that "the power of the media is overestimated"? Shouldn't we first agree on how great this power actually is? And is it power at all? Or is it just influence?
However, the study comes to the unsurprising conclusion that politicians rate the influence of the media more highly than the media professionals themselves. This is a common behavior in Switzerland: Making oneself smaller/less important. Not surprisingly, the "media elites" also believe that the media primarily want to provide citizens with comprehensive information. Or to put it in more understandable terms: the media professionals themselves attest to lofty professional ideals. But what does the reality look like?
Let's take a sample from current events: A man moves to another municipality with his family, but fails to report the change of residence. Many months later, the municipal clerk responsible draws his attention to the omission in a letter.
Not only should everyone be equal before the law, but also before the authorities.
However, the media take up the case because this man is an heir, co-owner and director of a chemical plant, major shareholder in an ice hockey club, golf course owner and former mayor.
Are the journalists now praising the brave writer for remaining incorruptible? "Municipal president throws millionaire out of village and forgoes a lot of tax money", headlines the tabloid. "Tax haven wants to send millionaire to the desert", says a free newspaper, but then writes in small print that the man now lives with his family in a residential area of the city of Bern. And an online editorial bangs the nice title online: "Farmers' nest expels millionaire." At least the Solothurn newspaper acknowledged a few days later that the municipal clerk had acted "unusually and unceremoniously, but legally absolutely correctly".
The study reports nothing about this real existing political communication culture. Fortunately, we still have Friedrich Dürrenmatt. Güllen, visit of the old lady Claire Zachanassian. Just as the people of Güllen decide to accept her billion-dollar foundation and condemn Alfred Ill, the old lady's former lover, to death, the radio reporter begins: "Devout silence in the theater hall. Nothing but a sea of raised hands, like a mighty conspiracy for a better, fairer world. Only the old man sits motionless, overwhelmed with joy." Alfred Ill soon lies in his coffin. So everything is in order, the village elite are at peace with themselves and the media people get a snack in the restaurant.
