The print media campaign against the SRG and its supreme chieftain was unmistakable but unsurprising: the writers simply repeated what they have been saying for years. SRG = colossus, put on fat, go on a diet. An autocratic boss with princely salaries and a business off-roader, huge savings potential.
The two rounds of cuts that SRG employees - similar to their colleagues in the print media - have already had to endure in recent years have mostly gone unmentioned. Also unmentioned was the fact that Tamedia CEO Martin Kall, who heads a company with less turnover and fewer employees, receives more than double Walpen's annual salary, over 1.3 million, both in 2008 and 2009. Or that a member of the Board of Directors like Iwan Rickenbacher (part-time) has around 240,000 francs a year credited to his account. All this can be read in the annual report of Tamedia, which - because it is listed on the stock exchange - is obliged to be transparent. The other media companies, however, keep as much under wraps as possible. Speaking of which: how much does Michael Ringier actually get paid out each year? SRG critics pay little attention to such questions, but they do pay attention to the details of SRG. And as a result, Walpen's additional expenses (27,000 francs) are being stylized into an uproar that is supposed to last an entire Sunday. Or very loosely based on Bertolt Brecht: the distribution battle also distorts journalistic perception. The extent to which Armin Walpen's policy was right, almost right or completely wrong can remain an open question.
Shortly before the midsummer solstice, the Federal Council has now made its decision and, as is often the case with controversial deals, the result is contradictory. The national government recognizes an additional financial requirement of around 10 percent of the total SRG budget. However, it still refuses to increase the fees. This is a decision that media professionals - and not just those working for SRG - will have to pay for. SRG is to save 58 million a year. The calculation is simple: less money for SRG and therefore the industry as a whole, poorer working conditions and earning opportunities for media professionals as a whole. In concrete terms: less money for SRG means job cuts and a reduction in contracts for freelancers.
So do the publishers and SRG critics now have what they want, a weakened SRG? Partly yes, partly no. Another decision is more far-reaching: the Federal Council is allowing SRG to advertise online as well as on TV. Bitter for the publishers. The national government justifies the decision with the withheld fees. Or as the media release puts it. "As there are limits to the financing of fees, at least partial commercial financing of the online presence must also be considered." However, one wonders what the seven from the Federal Palace were thinking. Before a definitive decision is made on opening up and the modalities are determined, they expect the SRG to approach publishers and look for a solution "that allows all parties involved to operate under appropriate framework conditions in the online sector".
With respect, how is that supposed to work? And what happens if the SRG and publishers cannot reach an agreement? Will the Federal Council then go back on its decision and still approve a (moderate) fee increase? Whatever happens, the wrangling will continue at first, and journalistic oblique shots are to be expected. As a precautionary measure, publishers and SRG critics should be reminded that around 50 million of the SRG fee money goes to licensed private broadcasters (radio and television). Mostly operated by those publishers who would like to see a weak SRG. And what service do the private broadcasters provide for this money? Only if you don't take the facts too seriously can you claim that the private broadcasters provide a satisfactory local "public service".

The guest commentary was published in the current print edition of Werbewoche on July 1.

The print media campaign against the SRG and its supreme chieftain was unmistakable but unsurprising: the writers simply repeated what they have been saying for years. SRG = colossus, put on fat, go on a diet. An autocratic boss with princely salaries and a business off-roader, huge savings potential.
The two rounds of cuts that SRG employees - similar to their colleagues in the print media - have already had to endure in recent years have mostly gone unmentioned. Also unmentioned was the fact that Tamedia CEO Martin Kall, who heads a company with less turnover and fewer employees, receives more than double Walpen's annual salary, over 1.3 million, both in 2008 and 2009. Or that a member of the Board of Directors like Iwan Rickenbacher (part-time) has around 240,000 francs a year credited to his account. All this can be read in the annual report of Tamedia, which - because it is listed on the stock exchange - is obliged to be transparent. The other media companies, however, keep as much under wraps as possible. Speaking of which: how much does Michael Ringier actually get paid out each year? SRG critics pay little attention to such questions, but they do pay attention to the details of SRG. And as a result, Walpen's additional expenses (27,000 francs) are being stylized into an uproar that is supposed to last an entire Sunday. Or very loosely based on Bertolt Brecht: the distribution battle also distorts journalistic perception. The extent to which Armin Walpen's policy was right, almost right or completely wrong can remain an open question.
Shortly before the midsummer solstice, the Federal Council has now made its decision and, as is often the case with controversial deals, the result is contradictory. The national government recognizes an additional financial requirement of around 10 percent of the total SRG budget. However, it still refuses to increase the fees. This is a decision that media professionals - and not just those working for SRG - will have to pay for. SRG is to save 58 million a year. The calculation is simple: less money for SRG and therefore the industry as a whole, poorer working conditions and earning opportunities for media professionals as a whole. In concrete terms: less money for SRG means job cuts and a reduction in contracts for freelancers.
So do the publishers and SRG critics now have what they want, a weakened SRG? Partly yes, partly no. Another decision is more far-reaching: the Federal Council is allowing SRG to advertise online as well as on TV. Bitter for the publishers. The national government justifies the decision with the withheld fees. Or as the media release puts it. "As there are limits to the financing of fees, at least partial commercial financing of the online presence must also be considered." However, one wonders what the seven from the Federal Palace were thinking. Before a definitive decision is made on opening up and the modalities are determined, they expect the SRG to approach publishers and look for a solution "that allows all parties involved to operate under appropriate framework conditions in the online sector".
With respect, how is that supposed to work? And what happens if the SRG and publishers cannot reach an agreement? Will the Federal Council then go back on its decision and still approve a (moderate) fee increase? Whatever happens, the wrangling will continue at first, and journalistic oblique shots are to be expected. As a precautionary measure, publishers and SRG critics should be reminded that around 50 million of the SRG fee money goes to licensed private broadcasters (radio and television). Mostly operated by those publishers who would like to see a weak SRG. And what service do the private broadcasters provide for this money? Only if you don't take the facts too seriously can you claim that the private broadcasters provide a satisfactory local "public service".