There have been major changes in the media sector, and further significant upheavals are on the horizon. Opinions are divided on how to deal with this. If bridges cannot be built across the wide divides between the different positions, policymakers will have little chance of guiding this transformation in a constructive manner.
WW: Media policy isn't a major issue—neither among politicians, nor among the public, nor even within the industries it affects. What can the communications and media industries do to raise the profile of media policy?
Leutenegger: I am not a proponent of interventionist media policy. I want the media to be able to report freely, with as little government interference as possible and without being censored—that is part of the media’s fundamental mission. That is why I am not a proponent of media policy—the less the government interferes, the better.
Fehr: I believe the media need to focus more on themselves. Just as other relevant areas of society are the subject of journalism, developments in the media world should also be the subject of journalism. That would require a dose of self-criticism. Currently, there is much less media criticism in the media than there used to be, even though there are developments in the media world that are highly relevant to society. After all, there’s hardly anything that most people interact with as intensely as they do with the media.
Was your statement, Mr. Leutenegger, also a reference to a media policy position that also stands for the middle-class circles close to you?
Leutenegger: As I know from audience research, people are generally not interested in media policy. They want to be able to consume media, turn media on and off. I believe that the state must provide the media with reliable framework conditions so that they can research and report independently and under their own responsibility. And not that we subsidize, control or restrict the media.
Fehr: I don't know anyone who is in favor of unfree media creation. But advocating only minimum standards is not in line with our Swiss reality. We have a legally regulated scene in the radio and television sector ...
Leutenegger: ... yes, that's the problem ...
Fehr: ... no, that's not the problem, it's a quality of the Swiss media system that we have a public service in the audiovisual sector. However you look at it, it is the subject of legislation and therefore the subject of politics.
With convergence being talked about everywhere, isn't an integrated media policy also needed?
Leutenegger: Convergence is understood to mean many things. At SRG, it means that radio and television are merging. When I talk about convergence, I mean that all platforms are growing together and the distribution systems are converging onto digital platforms. A new democratic, free media world is being created on these digital distribution channels, and the left wants to control it by the state. We already had partial nationalization with the SRG, which was created in the dark times of the world wars. Another reason for the state monopoly was the high cost of radio and TV reception. These were the origins of the public service, so that everyone could enjoy these services. Today, all of these reasons no longer apply, which is why the issue of public service in the media sector needs to be thoroughly reconsidered.
Fehr: The traditional genre boundaries in the media world are dissolving with digitalization. This means that the nice little gardens - print: private with commercial freedom, audiovisual: state or legally regulated public service - can no longer be maintained in the future. This is why we will need an integrated media policy in future that covers all genres. Otherwise we will not be able to master their convergence. And then we will have further conflicts, as is currently the case with SRG's online advertising.
Does this mean that the current public service is no longer needed?
Leutenegger: It needs to be fundamentally rethought, as there are fewer and fewer reasons for comprehensive state provision of radio and TV, apart from the regional language provision of electronic content. The new offerings on the online portals are becoming ever richer. However, it is crucial that private providers are not pushed to the wall by state-subsidized competition. I am of the opinion that language regions such as French-, Italian- and Romansh-speaking Switzerland require a basic service. In German-speaking Switzerland, the question of whether we need such a broad basic service via the SRG is much more open. We have a relatively large market here, as we could possibly consider something else. But we need to study this carefully. We need to take care of the public service geared towards the language regions, but still fundamentally rethink it.
Mr. Fehr, do you see any merit in this attitude?
Fehr: In my opinion, we need to go one step further back. The crucial question is: What kind of media system does our federalist direct democracy need? And: Does our current system meet these requirements? And I have to say that the competitive private sector is increasingly moving away from what our direct democracy needs ...
Leutenegger: ... so, so. That's news to me ...
Fehr: ... yes, there are serious monopolization tendencies, euphemistically called press concentration. Today we have monopolies over large parts of Switzerland ...
Leutenegger: ... and SRG is the biggest...
Fehr: ... the SRG is a public service. In French-speaking Switzerland, it is the only relevant competitor to Tamedia. SRG is also the only competitor in Bern because we have a monopoly situation in the print sector with Tamedia. We have decades of press extinction behind us with countless titles that no longer exist. This has created major journalistic deficits in the cantonal, regional and communal areas, where there is now only one provider ...
Leutenegger: ... but the SRG can't make up for that either ...
Fehr: ... it does it to some extent, but not enough. That is why I am in favor of developing an integrated media policy that eliminates these deficits.
We therefore have a need for action. Do we need a corresponding constitutional article for a comprehensive, integrated media policy?
Leutenegger: No, certainly not, this would only massively whet the appetite of all politicians and civil servants with an appetite for regulation, and this is highly dangerous and undesirable in terms of democratic policy. Freedom of the media is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution and the SRG's services would have to be regulated by a special law, but certainly not the entire sector and certainly not by a new federal competence. This would lead to regulation of the online sector. Of course, many parliamentarians want that. But it would be bad for direct democracy if the state were to control the media and not the other way around. That is why the left also wants to regulate the online sector with quality criteria.
Fehr: Following a parliamentary initiative by the National Council's Political Institutions Committee, the Federal Council has two years to draw up a media policy concept. This has nothing to do with quality criteria. On the question of a constitutional article: I think we need an extended constitutional basis that also covers online and print ...
Leutenegger: ... I don't want that under any circumstances!
Fehr: I think there's no getting around it, because of the convergence, because the traditional genre boundaries are dissolving ...
Leutenegger: ... online - and thus the entire media landscape - is to be regulated via the lever of the revision of the Radio and Television Act. I don't want to regulate it. Because the independence of the media from the state applies. The rest will be regulated by the Criminal Code and all the other laws that already surround us on a massive scale. Over the past 50 years, the SRG has provided services that private broadcasters have had virtually no opportunity to provide. Now the SRG is being asked to penetrate into the area where private broadcasters have the only opportunity for development, to compete with them with state subsidies.
Fehr: If online is left solely to the private newspaper publishers, which have long since become multimedia publishers, monopolization will continue at all levels and online will ultimately be left to Tamedia and the NZZ. I want to save the freedom and democratic justice of the media system because it is being destroyed by private-sector developments.
There have been a whole series of such attempts over the last forty years, all of which have failed in the councils. What is different now?
Fehr: I'm not sure whether things will change now. But what is important is the fact that the Council of States and the National Council now want to move forward against the Federal Council, which would prefer to wait another four years. The reason for this is that the deficit analysis is shared by wide circles, especially in rural areas, where these deficits are most serious. Many middle-class politicians also no longer want to wait and see, but want to act, because in four years' time things will only be worse than they already are today. Politicians must finally take the reins and ensure that there is no undersupply, which is detrimental to direct democracy.
Leutenegger: The undersupply does not exist if it is not regulated and invented by the state. If there are no listeners, viewers or readers, there is no need for it. It is absurd to then talk about an undersupply. I would advise certain regional publishers who think they need the money [from fee-splitting] to shut down their radio or TV stations. If this position in the market is vacant, someone will come along the next day who won't make a worse program even without subsidies. The consequence of this is certainly not state funding, but a release of frequencies and larger broadcasting areas. Like Tele Züri, which does this successfully. But I am completely opposed to private broadcasters being subsidized. In principle, taxpayers have to foot the bill for their profits. That is the most absurd thing we have achieved with legislation. Subsidizing the media is the wrong way to go, because it makes them dependent on the state and thus tames them. This is a very dangerous drug program for democracy.
How do you see the future of the media in Switzerland?
Leutenegger: Positive. We have a massive democratization because everyone is a media producer thanks to the Internet. With little effort, you can do your own research and disseminate reports. And there is no reason why the state should have to invent further regulations, that would be the only gloomy prospect.
Fehr: If you act in terms of media policy, I am confident. But if it remains laissez-faire in the private sector, it won't turn out well.
Interview Christoph J. Walther
