broadcasting


A referendum showed overwhelming support for the publicly funded national news outlet, says Rob Hyde


He said the Swiss vote may be of


interest to countries such as Britain where the future of licence-fee funded broadcasters is politically contested. “For me, there is no truly independent


Swiss public vote to protect broadcaster


S


wiss voters have voted No to a proposal that would have triggered major cuts at the national broadcaster.


As Britain continues to debate the


future of the BBC licence fee, nearly 62 per cent of Swiss voters in a national referendum opposed a proposal that would have sharply cut funding of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG SSR) and downsized its activity. Known as the Halving Initiative, it


would have reduced the annual household media levy from roughly £300 to around £180 and removed company contributions altogether. Analysts said all this would bring


severe disruption, stripping the broadcaster of more than £540 million a year – between 35 and 40 per cent of its budget. This would have forced sweeping newsroom cuts and dismantled parts of the overall operation. Not a single one of the country’s 26


cantons backed the measure. Martin Jungfer, a Swiss journalist who works in


the country’s digital media economy, said the scale of the referendum result was striking.


Jungfer is head of content at Digitec Galaxus, Switzerland’s largest online retailer, where he oversees editorial content. Before moving into the digital sector, he spent years in traditional journalism and newsroom development, including on digitisation and audience strategy for regional papers and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Speaking to The Journalist, he said:


“The vote was surprisingly clear. For me, that is a sign that the Swiss population recognises the necessity of a publicly funded broadcaster and appreciates it.” Jungfer said repeated referendums also show Swiss voters continuing to support the licence fee model. “The Swiss population has clearly


shown that the current model of financing through a licence fee is acceptable,” he added. “Abolition of the fee was rejected


years ago, and now even a major reduction in its level has been rejected.”


“


For many voters, it was less important to save around £90 or £100 a year than to strengthen reliable public information


private digital media,” he said. “Either they are dependent on the political views of their owners or they are economically dependent on advertising revenue and therefore rely on mechanisms such as clickbait.” The referendum is part of a longer political battle over the role of public media in Switzerland. In 2018, 72 per cent of voters rejected a more radical proposal – known as No Billag – that would have scrapped the licence fee entirely. For Holger Alich, deputy editor-in- chief of Handelszeitung, a Swiss business paper, the referendum shows the public values the broadcaster’s work. “Trust in SRG SSR remains high,” he told The Journalist. “Media consumers want a broad programme and are obviously satisfied with what SRG offers. “In many countries, there are similar discussions about publicly funded broadcasters such as the BBC. The supporters of the initiative indirectly wanted to challenge what they see as left-leaning or irrelevant content. “They believed that reducing the


contribution would force the SRG to concentrate its programmes and make them less political.”


He also referred to the impact of the broadcaster’s size and resources. “The public broadcaster is the only media organisation large enough to control institutions effectively,” he said. Professor Vinzenz Wyss, who teachs


journalism at Zurich University of Applied Sciences, said the vote reflects the role SRG plays in Switzerland. “We know from surveys that SRG


enjoys higher trust than many other media, especially compared with social media. In all language regions and all cantons, the initiative was rejected. That is a strong vote of confidence,” he told The Journalist. He said the decision also reflected concerns about the reliability of content. “For many voters, it was less important


to save around £90 or £100 a year than to strengthen reliable public information in times of disinformation,” he said. “Because the business model of private media companies is collapsing, public service media must be strengthened to maintain journalistic competition and to fulfil the role of the fourth estate.”


theJournalist | 07


REUTERSCONNECT.COM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28