Press Council: Public interest greater than protection of privacy

In March 2015, a Germanwings plane crashed in the French Alps. There was a great deal of interest in the crash and in the co-pilot, who took 149 people with him to their deaths. A reader complained to the Swiss Press Council because the media mentioned the name of the co-pilot. The Press Council rejected the complaint. The Swiss Press Council ruled that the crime was of overwhelming public interest in terms of its extent and uniqueness. The perpetrator had made himself a public figure. In this case, the public's right to information is stronger than the protection of the perpetrator's privacy. The Press Council therefore rejects a complaint directed against an article in the Tages-Anzeiger and one in the NZZ am Sonntag. For the Press Council, it may be justified to mention the name of the perpetrator in the case of an exceptionally serious crime. However, the editorial offices have to carefully weigh up in each individual case whether the naming is permissible from the point of view of media ethics. In doing so, they should also take into account the privacy of the offender's relatives. Even if other media disseminate the name or even the investigating authorities mention the name, this is not a license for all media to publish the name unseen.

Presumption of innocence not violated either

The complaint also claimed that Tages-Anzeiger and NZZ am Sonntag had violated the presumption of innocence in the case of the Germanwings crash. The Press Council rejects this as well. Both articles appeared a few days after the crash. Both relativize the perpetration already in the first lines. The NZZ am Sonntag, for example, states that the co-pilot "probably intentionally" brought the plane down. And the "Tages-Anzeiger" quotes the public prosecutor, who expresses the assumption that the co-pilot had acted with intent. It is quickly clear to readers in both reports that the investigation has not been concluded. Thus, both newspapers have not violated the presumption of innocence.

Case 2: Watson correctly reported on shitstorm

After a Twitter user deleted her account and announced legal action because her real name had been published on Twitter, Watson.ch published a report entitled "User bullied away: Twitter Switzerland has the biggest shitstorm in its history". Hundreds had expressed their solidarity with the Twitter user and spoken out against cyberbullying. The deletion of the Twitter account was apparently triggered by a tweet from a journalist that revealed the user's real name. The user defended herself against this report by filing a complaint with the Swiss Press Council. The article referred to the ongoing criminal investigation, but failed to mention that she herself had not been able to provide any information due to the ongoing proceedings and thus did not respect her privacy. In addition, Watson omits the important documents, pictures, sounds, sources of stalking and cyberbullying.

For the Press Council, it is not objectionable, even in the case of ongoing criminal proceedings, if it is indicated that such proceedings have been initiated. The user had expressly waived her right to contribute her own factual account to Watson. The Press Council also finds it acceptable that Watson used the statements of the tweeting journalist on the one hand and the user's post on Facebook on the other to gather information. The user herself had reported on Facebook about the deletion of her Twitter account and the reasons for this, which is why the Press Council did not recognize any violation of her privacy. Moreover, for lack of a more precise description, it was also not recognizable to him what the misappropriated documents were supposed to have consisted of. The Press Council rejected the complaint.

Case 3: Finews.ch was allowed to call Elmer a data thief and traitor

The Swiss Press Council has rejected another complaint by Rudolf Elmer. Elmer had complained that he had been wrongly called a "traitor" and a "data thief" in a report on the internet portal Finews.ch. In addition, he claimed a violation of section 1 (truth) of the "Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists". Both terms constituted further serious accusations which would have imperatively required the obtaining of an opinion. Because the article had not been drawn, Elmer also considered paragraph 7 of the "Declaration" to have been violated. This requires that anonymous and factually unjustified accusations are to be omitted. In Opinion 45/2008, the Press Council had already stated in connection with the Elmer case that the word "data theft" was in order, because it was not the business of the Press Council to make a legal assessment of the criminal allegations made against the complainant in connection with questionable data of customers of the Cayman branch of Bank Bär. Elmer had supplied customer data of the bank to the internet platform Wikileaks. In Opinion 29/2012, the Press Council had further protected the terms "thief" and "blackmailer". In the present case, "data thief" was also used colloquially in the view of the Press Council. In addition, Finews.ch specifies that Elmer sees himself as a whistleblower. Therefore, the use of the term is not objectionable. The same applies to the accusation "traitor", although this is not a new accusation. Finews.ch was allowed to use it without hearing the complainant, according to Pressereat. (pd)