Press Council against waiting period for publication of opinion polls before votes
For the Press Council, a ten-day grace period for the publication of opinion polls before elections is outdated in the age of permanent election campaigns. It also contradicts the public's right to information.
This was announced by the Press Council at its annual press conference on Wednesday. Although the Press Council welcomes stricter rules for dealing with opinion polls, it rejects a grace period on the grounds that it would not be compatible with freedom of information. It is disputed whether opinion polls influence voting behavior at all. As postal voting is becoming increasingly important, a waiting period makes less and less sense anyway. And it is offensive if the results of serious opinion polls are withheld from the public while political propaganda continues unhindered.
Following a parliamentary interpellation on the publication of opinion polls during voting and election campaigns, the Federal Chancellery invited interested parties to a round table in the fall of 2008. Based on this, the Association of Swiss Market and Social Researchers (VSMS) revised its guidelines and asked the Swiss Press Council in the fall of 2010 to recommend that the media observe a 10-day waiting period when publishing opinion polls before elections and referendums.
Forgotten the "right to be forgotten"?
In a statement also published at its annual press conference, the Press Council also addressed the question of whether a "right to be forgotten" is no longer realistic in the digital age and whether we must learn to live with the fact that information about long-ago events, once digitized and posted on the Internet, remains accessible to everyone indefinitely with just a few mouse clicks. The answers to these difficult questions are varied. For the Press Council, it is only appropriate in exceptional cases to subsequently update or anonymize an archive report that is accessible online if the person concerned submits a justified request and plausibly asserts that the report violates their privacy from today's perspective and that they are at risk of serious current disadvantage as a result.
