Press Council reprimands Tagi and BaZ

The Tages-Anzeiger violated its duty to tell the truth in an interview with a cult expert by failing to point out that the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination had suspended the so-called "2 witness rule" in cases of sexual assault. The Swiss Press Council upholds a complaint on this point.

Under the title "Jehovah's Witnesses tear families apart", the Tages-Anzeiger published an interview with a project manager of the association "Infosekta" on July 27, 2015. It was mainly about the exclusion from the faith community and the associated ostracism even by the closest family members.

A former member claimed to the Press Council that various statements were false and could not be found in the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, the commandment to restrict contact with excluded children refers only to adult children who no longer live in the same household. In addition, the rule that allegations of sexual abuse of children are only investigated if there are at least two witnesses had already been abolished several months before the article appeared.

In its decision, the Press Council points out that the duty to tell the truth also requires a critical examination of sources, including statements made by interviewees. It is true that the journalist was basically allowed to assume the credibility of the expert from the "Infosekta" specialist unit. However, as far as the "2 witness rule" is concerned, the expert should have pointed out that the rule was waived or the interviewing journalist should have asked.

BaZ guest author names wrongly

Is a guest commentator allowed to mention the name of a subscriber who cancels a magazine? No, says the Swiss Press Council. And: A newspaper cannot outsource the responsibility for this inadmissible naming of a guest author to the latter. Because the newspaper is also responsible for guest contributions in terms of media ethics.

This is illustrated by the case of a reader who had unsubscribed from the publication "Standpunkt der Wirtschaft" by e-mail. He then found his name published in a guest commentary by the legal advisor of the Basler Zeitung, who commented on the unsubscription in the Basler Zeitung. The reader rightly argued to the Press Council that he was not a person of public interest and that there was no reason to mention his name publicly. Furthermore, the guest author had interpreted the cancellation of the magazine by means of a polite e-mail as a "complete freak-out". The Press Council criticized this highly exaggerated interpretation as untruthful.

Observers anonymized dealer enough

The Beobachter did not violate any personal rights with its cover story on the "fashion drug anabolic steroids". The Press Council rejected the complaint of a man whom the article had described anonymously as a dealer.

On November 25, 2015, the Observer published a focus on the topic of anabolic steroids. On nine pages, the magazine described how large this market was, showed the connection with the growing fitness industry, and provided information about the dangers of anabolic steroids and other drugs. Two text sections illustrated, based on an indictment, the methods used by a dealer.

This man, listed as an example, complained to the Press Council: He had not been anonymized enough in the article, his environment had been able to recognize that he was meant. The Press Council rejected this objection: Since the Observer changed the first name and only mentioned the first letter of the last name, it sufficiently respected the privacy of the complainant. This meant that, at most, those closest to the complainant could still recognize who he was, but not third parties who only learned of the incident through the media.

The other objections of the complainant are also unjustified for the supervisory body: For example, the man complained that he had not been questioned about the accusations and that the Observer had not corrected anything. For the Press Council, there was no reason to do either: the Observer explicitly relied on the wording of an indictment and anonymized the accused. Accordingly, his personal rights were not violated by the mere description of the methods of a dealer as described by the investigating authorities in criminal proceedings.

The man also felt that the duty to tell the truth had been violated because a passage from one indictment had been used to highlight an event that was the subject of another criminal case. In this regard, the Press Council notes that journalistically it was about the same facts. The legal subdivision on the basis of different parties involved is irrelevant from a journalistic point of view.