Kassensturz contribution not objectionable according to the Federal Supreme Court
The TV consumer magazine Kassensturz did not violate the program regulations with its programme "Useless conventional medicine: health insurance companies pay millions for nothing". The Federal Supreme Court has upheld the appeal by Swiss Television (SF).
The TV consumer magazine Kassensturz did not violate the program regulations with its programme "Useless conventional medicine: health insurance companies pay millions for nothing". The Federal Supreme Court has upheld the appeal by Swiss Television (SF).
On June 7, 2005, Kassensturz broadcast an article on the effectiveness of conventional medical services. The background to this was the Federal Council's decision to no longer cover complementary medicine services under basic insurance. The program criticized this and argued that several conventional medical services should also be reviewed.
The Secretary General of Interpharma, the association of research-based pharmaceutical companies, filed a complaint with the
Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (UBI): The pharmaceutical industry had not been able to comment. Only an excerpt from an old interview with him was shown, which Kassensturz had already broadcast in a different context. The UBI upheld the complaint in 2005 and found a violation of the program regulations. The audience had not been able to form its own opinion. The broadcast of an almost 16-month-old statement violated the journalistic duty of care. Right at second instanceSF took the case to the Federal Court. The court has now ruled in favor of SF. According to the ruling, the points of view of the parties involved on the topic are clear. The pharmaceutical industry had a sufficient say. In this respect, the audience was able to form its own opinion. The reuse of the old interview was not unobjectionable. However, the audience was neither misled about its topicality nor manipulated in its opinion formation. There was no compelling need for Interpharma to make a new statement on the same issue.
On June 7, 2005, Kassensturz broadcast an article on the effectiveness of conventional medical services. The background to this was the Federal Council's decision to no longer cover complementary medicine services under basic insurance. The program criticized this and argued that several conventional medical services should also be reviewed.
The Secretary General of Interpharma, the association of research-based pharmaceutical companies, filed a complaint with the
Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (UBI): The pharmaceutical industry had not been able to comment. Only an excerpt from an old interview with him was shown, which Kassensturz had already broadcast in a different context. The UBI upheld the complaint in 2005 and found a violation of the program regulations. The audience had not been able to form its own opinion. The broadcast of an almost 16-month-old statement violated the journalistic duty of care. Right at second instanceSF took the case to the Federal Court. The court has now ruled in favor of SF. According to the ruling, the points of view of the parties involved on the topic are clear. The pharmaceutical industry had a sufficient say. In this respect, the audience was able to form its own opinion. The reuse of the old interview was not unobjectionable. However, the audience was neither misled about its topicality nor manipulated in its opinion formation. There was no compelling need for Interpharma to make a new statement on the same issue.
