Press Council partially approves complaint against Blick, but not against Blick am Abend
How much information about a person—about whom one is not permitted to report in a way that identifies them—is permissible in an article? The Press Council examined this question in connection with the *Blick*. It also notes that it is mandatory to state whether a judgment is final or not. A complaint against the *Blick am Abend* was dismissed.
The question and the statement arose from a complaint to the Swiss Press Council about the reporting on filmmaker X. View had reported that X. would have to appear in court because he was accused of raping and sexually assaulting a child. In an initial article, "Blick" reported on the allegations and described X. as a well-known figure in the Swiss film scene.
View gave X.'s first name and the first letter of his surname, his age, region of origin, current region of residence and a few facts from his film career. The newspaper also published a picture of X. with a bar covering his face. The information provided made it possible to identify X. As there was no public interest in this, the Press Council ruled that "Blick" had violated Directive 7.2 (Identification). The newspaper later reported on the ruling against X. In doing so View did not point out that the judgment was not final. However, this reference was mandatory. View has therefore also violated Directive 7.4 on the presumption of innocence, according to the Press Council.
Speculation about sexual orientation is not discriminatory
At the same time, the Press Council has lodged a complaint against the Evening view rejected. "At least three gays" was the title of a newspaper article on the TV dating show "Bachelorette" last year. Candidates were introduced with their first name, age and profession, personal characteristics or activities, three of them with a picture. The drag queen "Gossipa" suggested that these three might be homosexual. This could be deduced from their posture, clothing, piercings or tattoos. "No straight man puts his hands down his pants like that," was one of the less profound analyses.
A reader lodged a complaint against such attributions with the Press Council. It is fundamentally problematic to speculate about people's sexual orientation. The article violated the ban on discrimination and cemented a "heteronormative image". Evening view did not comment as the complaint was made anonymously. However, the Press Council acknowledged that the complainant, who was known to it by name, had legitimate reasons for doing so.
The Press Council did not consider the article to violate any journalistic duties. It essentially consists of a list of cheap clichés. However, homosexuality is not portrayed in a derogatory manner. The term "freak show", which was also criticized by the complainant, is problematic from a media ethics perspective. However, it referred to the entire field of candidates and not to a specific group. (pd/red)
