In the report on the SRF program "Schweiz Aktuell", wine was referred to as "fusel" in connection with the court hearing about a Valais winegrower. There was also talk of "panning". The winemaker had mixed various wines together and sold them under the Valais AOC quality label. Following the report, the SRG ombudsman's office had to check the admissibility of the terms used.
The ombudsman's office received two complaints, both of which took issue with specific terms used in the report, as reported in the SRF newsletter on Wednesday. The first complaint criticized the fact that the report referred to the wine being "panned". Because, he writes, this refers to the addition of water, which the accused wine merchant did not do.
The second complaint concerned the term "fusel". This term was used to refer not only to the added Spanish wine but also to the Schaffhausen wine that was also used. The collective term "Fusel" was used to portray the Schaffhausen product as inferior. This is wrong and damaging to business.
The ombudsman's office only supported one of the complaints in this discussion about terminology. The ombudsman's office does not accept the criticism of the use of the word "Panschen" because - as correctly explained by the editors - the definition goes beyond mixing with water. The fraud charged could therefore very well be described by the term "panning".
The case is different with the term "fusel". From a technical point of view, this is alcohol that still contains undesirable substances and residues. This is not the case here. Only colloquially does "fusel" also describe an inferior wine. However, as the fraud with the AOC label was the focus of the report, a technically correct and not a colloquial explanation could be expected from SRF. (SDA/swi)
]]>
Challenges also occur occasionally in Swiss tourism: A hotel room does not meet expectations, the service in a restaurant leaves something to be desired or a booked activity is unexpectedly canceled. If disagreements between guests and the operators of the offers cannot be resolved in a joint dialog, a reliable and neutral authority is needed to mediate quickly and effectively.
For this reason, HotellerieSuisse, Switzerland Tourism, GastroSuisse and the IG Parahotellerie have joined forces to create an ombudsman's office for tourism. The initiative will be incorporated into the Proven offer from the ombudsman of the Swiss travel industry integrated. Active since 1990, the impartial mediator between guests and travel companies has so far mainly operated in the outgoing sector. The expanded service, which will be available from July 2024, will also be available to guests in Switzerland as a destination.
"A strong sign of quality and customer satisfaction"
The creation of this central, neutral contact point strengthens "trust in Swiss tourism" and promotes service quality in the industry: "The joint ombudsman's office is an important milestone for our industry. It illustrates our joint commitment to the highest quality standards and the satisfaction of our guests," emphasizes Nicole Brändle, Director of HotellerieSuisse. It will also enable more intensive cooperation within the industry.
The platform also acts as a contact point in two respects - on the one hand for guests traveling to Switzerland and on the other for Swiss accommodation providers seeking information and advice, which closes an existing gap in the offering.
]]>
"Not even during the coronavirus pandemic, with over 1,000 complaints in both 2020 and 2021, did the mediation office receive as many submissions within two months as it did for the events after October 7, 2023," according to the ombudsmen's annual report published on Friday.
According to the press release, the ombudsmen received a total of 836 submissions in the reporting year 2023. 35 of these were partially or fully approved.
Gender language less criticized
In addition to the Middle East conflict, the topics of climate, wolves, the SVP and Covid regularly led to complaints, as in previous years. However, the ombudsmen wrote that the anger over the gender language had died down or the critics had become accustomed to it.
There are now often complaints that too little attention is paid to the female form. As an example, the ombudsmen cited a criticism that only "farmers" were mentioned instead of "female farmers".
"Violent statements"
The ombudsmen also criticized the tone used by many of the complainants. They were repeatedly left speechless by the vehement statements and terms used in the complaints, they wrote. For example, they described SRF as partly responsible for the fact that Jewish citizens in Switzerland have increasingly been the target of anti-Semitic accusations since the terrorist attack on October 7. On the other hand, SRF has been accused of supporting genocide and the apartheid regime in Israel.
Overall, the ombudsmen gave SRF good marks. "Even if the ombudsmen would occasionally weight the contributions differently or welcome a different choice of topics, the work of the editorial teams is competent, varied and extremely impressive," they wrote. (SDA)
]]>
The program featured two experts, the former Basel public prosecutor Markus Mohler and Thomas Kistner, the German journalist for sports politics at the South German Newspapercriticized the decision of the Swiss judiciary.
As the ombudsman's office announced on Wednesday evening, Kistner had said, among other things, that the Swiss justice system was "extremely questionable". Again and again, a kind of "caring protection of functionaries is practiced". Infantino was the only third person to have his say.
The extraordinary federal prosecutors responsible for the recruitment had lodged a complaint against the article. In their view, it was unacceptable for a journalist from abroad to criticize the Swiss authorities, for this criticism to go unchallenged and for the complainants not to be confronted with it.
Tagesschau" defended its report and the selection of experts. They were a criminal law expert and a world-renowned journalist for sports politics. In addition, the statements were clearly recognizable as subjective and were not directed against the prosecutors, but against the Swiss justice system in general.
No opposing position
However, the ombudsman's office takes a different view and upheld the complaint. The article left the public with the impression of "nepotism", as the discontinuation of the proceedings was described as "strange" and there was talk of "lack of transparency" and "secrecy".
It was not enough to let the former defendant speak as a counter-position. Other experts should have been consulted in order to contradict the overall impression of "favoritism". The "Tagesschau" had therefore violated the principle of fairness with the report. (SDA)
]]>
In the specific case, a woman wrote to the SRF News article "Germany abolishes free Corona tests" published in 2021 that she wished the same for Switzerland. So far, she had managed well without a test or vaccination.
The editorial team deleted the post because it believed it violated the rules for social communication behavior - the so-called netiquette. The writer initially objected to the deletion with the SRG ombudsman's office. However, the latter did not feel responsible. The Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (UBI), which was subsequently called upon, was of the same opinion.
In the present case, the Federal Court did not have to decide on the deletion of the commentary or its content. Rather, it was a matter of clarifying whether the SRG ombudsman's office is responsible for the complaint at all under the Federal Radio and Television Act RTVA or whether the complainant should not have turned to a civil or criminal court.
Bound by fundamental rights
The federal judges held that SRG has a public mandate from the state and is therefore bound by fundamental rights. By deleting the commentary, the SRG had interfered with the freedom of opinion of the persons concerned. Therefore, legal recourse must be open, as provided for in the guarantee of legal recourse.
The majority of the panel of judges came to the conclusion that no appropriate legal remedy could be invoked at all before a civil or criminal court. The deletion of a comment is not a violation of personality and a person concerned is also not injured in his honor.
The Federal Court concluded that the ombudsman's office had jurisdiction, even though this required an interpretation of the relevant legal provisions of the RTVA. The court overturned the decision of the lower court - the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television - and referred the case back to the ombudsman's office for a substantive assessment. (SDA)
]]>
The ombudsman's office had received 46 complaints, as it announced on Tuesday on its final report. They were directed against the "Arena" of March 18. The ombudsman's office expressly states that it was right to confront the Zug National Councilor and SVP parliamentary group leader with his statement.
The Ombudsman's Office also approved of the confrontational discussion, in which the moderator took the place of the other side. Aeschi had agreed to this one-to-one conversation in advance and had known what was in store for him. In the context of the conversation and the clarifications, it was understandable that Brotz had described Aeschi's statement as "racist".
Aeschi a little too short
But it also concludes that Brotz's conclusion was too conclusive and took too little account of Aeschi's arguments. The "Arena" editorial team already conceded that the battle of words was intense and that the moderator should have given Aeschi's arguments more space.
The ombudsman's office notes, however, that Brotz never condemned the head of the parliamentary group, but relied on the clear opinion of the Federal Commission against Racism (EKR) and thus on experts.
In conclusion, the ombudsman's office states that the audience was able to form its own report and that factual fairness was not violated. SRF television sees the rejection of all complaints as confirmation of the work of the "Arena" editorial team. SRF remains committed to factual reporting, but also to political independence.
SVP boycotts "Arena
SVP faction president Aeschi had said in the National Council debate on the Ukraine war with regard to the expected war refugees: "It must not be that Nigerians or Iraqis with Ukrainian passports suddenly rape 18-year-old Ukrainian women. That must not happen." That was meant to refer to an incident in Germany, according to the statement, which was followed up. The EKR called the statement racist.
The SVP announced after the "Arena" broadcast that it would no longer participate in the discussion round "until further notice. The party described Aeschi's confrontation with his statements as a "gross derailment" by presenter Brotz. He had acted as a judge towards Aeschi.
In mid-April, the SVP declared its willingness to participate again after a three-week boycott. This was preceded by a discussion between SVP President Marco Chiesa (TI), Thomas Aeschi and SVP National Councilor Thomas Matter (ZH) with SRF Director Nathalie Wappler, Editor-in-Chief Video Tristan Brenn and Editor-in-Chief Audio Lis Borner. (Werbewoche.ch reported). (SDA)
]]>