Swiss Review 1/2018

10 Swiss Review / January 2018 / No.1 Focus mentary group. Regula Rytz, President of the Greens, be- lieves the popular request is “purely destructive” and un- dermines “direct democracy”. CVP National Councillor Viola Amherd believes it is ultimately about a piece of Swit- zerland. The initiative does not just jeopardise the inde- pendence of information, but also the mutual understand- ing of the linguistic regions and urban and rural parts of the country. Peripheral regions and linguistic minorities are greatly affected. Akey argument is that no privatemedia company could provide high-quality radio and television programmes for all regions on an economically viable basis in such a small country as Switzerland where such tremendous linguistic and cultural diversity exists. This can only be achieved by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporationwhich collects around 70 percent of its fees in German-speaking Switzerland but only spends 45 percent of them there. The remainder is used to cross-subsidise the parts of Switzerland where French, Italian andRomansh are spoken. The revenues are distributed so that the minorities benefit from the major- ity. French-speaking, Italian-speaking and Ro- mansh-speaking Switzerland have a similar type of service toGerman-speaking Switzerland. That is the principle of a nation forged by the will of the people applied to journal- ism. Heterogeneous opposition to the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation The “No Billag” supporters contend that the Swiss Broad- casting Corporation has become too powerful in themedia industry, leaving too little roomfor private companies. The SBC is indeed a giant organisation by Swiss standards. It has grown enormously since its foundation in 1931, today has around 6,000 employees and runs 17 radio and 7 tele- vision stations as well as online services and swissinfo in 10 world languages. That makes the SBC the biggest elec- tronic media company in Switzerland. It receives annual revenues of 1.65 billion francs, with 75 % of its funding com- ing from fees and 25 % from commercial activities. The nostalgic image of the erstwhile national stations “Beromünster”, “Sottens” and “Monte Ceneri” has long been consigned to the past. Any organisation the size of the SBC today will also face enemies. The emphatic rejection of the “No Billag” initiative in Parliament is therefore not a relia- ble barometer of themood amongst the Swiss people. Opin- ion seems divided at the very least. On the one hand, the SBC programmes usually seem to score well in the ratings and opinion polls and enjoy considerable support, particu- larly the factual shows. On the other, the “No Billag” initi- ativemay benefit from the extremely heterogeneous oppo- sition to the SBC. To beginwith, there is the SVP, which has a broken relationshipwith the SBC. It and the conservatives still believe the SBChas a left-wing bias. Criticism is not just levelled at the SBC over political and ideological issues but also over economic ones. The SBC is also a thorn in the side of some publishing companies. Publishers are calling for the rescaling of the SBC and for it to refrain fromproviding specifically web-based services. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater The SBC’s programmes are seen bymillions of people each day. Obviously not everyone agrees on the type of radio and television services provided. Criticism of media content is not just legitimate but also necessary and helps to improve quality standards. The “No Billag” referendummay never- theless lead many people to express their dissatisfaction with individual programmes at the ballot box by voting yes, thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Then, of course, there are all thosewhose support can easily bewon with the “compulsory fee” argument – especially young people who often only get their information online and have grown up with free media. Not least in light of the fight for survival of the press, which is taking place at the same time, approval of the ini- tiativewould bring about a revolution inmedia policy. Swit- zerlandwould become the only country in Europewithout public broadcasting. The initiative’s authors say that the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation is not the issue but rather the abolition of the compulsory licence fee. The SBC is not mentioned in the text of the initiative. It could continue to produce and broadcast programmes after the abolition of the Billag fees, but it would simply have to finance these ac- tivities itself in the sameway asmost other companies. But it is arguably an illusion to think that the current scope and quality of the SBC’s services could be funded purely on a commercial basis. The reality would look rather different. The abolition of the fees and the effective break-up of the SBC in its current formwould leave themarket open tome- dia playerswith large amounts of capital available, and also, above all, to internet giants headquartered abroad. The example of theUSA showswhere the path of amedia systemwith no licence fees leads. Radio and television sta- tions there are highly commercialised and political and in manycasesoutrightpropagandamachines – fostering thepo- larisationof societyandundermining thebasisofdemocracy and the search for consensus. Roger deWeck, former SBCDi- rector General, said at an event last year that such a situation could also arise in Switzerland due to the lack of funding for journalism. This would create a political landscape where “ever more political forces no longer support the basic princi- plesof theEnlightenment”andare trying togaincontrol over thosemedia that still adhere to these fundamental values.