SRG’s ombudsmen after criticizing the late-night show: This “Deville” show was more than satire

Esther Girsberger and Kurt Schöbi.

Key

Two fee-funded public broadcasters in Europe are currently in the headlines: the British BBC and the Swiss SRG. The BBC is said to have won over Lady Di for an interview with criminal media. On the other hand, the journalistic crime that “Deville” is said to have committed on his satirical show on Sunday 22 November seems downright harmless: a week before the highly controversial corporate responsibility initiative, he tackled this same template for 35 minutes, Therefore, almost throughout the program. With an unmistakable list in favor of the initiative. The SRF media office objected to this the day after the scandalous broadcast: According to journalistic guidelines, contributions must be balanced in the week before the vote. That was not the case for “Deville,” but the show was a satirical show and not an information format, so “Deville” journalistic guidelines would not apply.

The satirical Dominic Deville.

SRF / Oscar Alessio

Under current “practice”, satire can do (almost) everything, as the Ombudsman has repeatedly emphasized over the years. You must respect basic rights: serious discrimination against sexual or religious orientation, for example, are limits that also apply to satire. Some of the complaints received by the Ombudsman against “Deville” accuse him of precisely that. The ombudsman will check if this is the case within the legal period of 40 days.

The increased journalistic due diligence also applies to a satire show in the last six weeks before the vote.

One day after the vote on the group’s initiative, we ombudsmen publicly comment on the most frequently asked question: Do different provisions apply to a satirical program than to broadcasts of information when it comes to voting documents? The management of the division «Development and comedy» reported publicly on November 25. It refers to a final report of the then ombudsman Roger Blum of 2019. On May 5 a complaint was received against “Deville”, who that same day made the weapons law the subject of his satirical and satirical program in favor of the hardening. The referendum took place two weeks later, on May 19. The Head of Development and Comedy refers to this final report when he quotes from him: A satirist cannot express himself neutrally on a voting issue, satirical pieces are comments. Only in the rarest cases can a satirist distribute his blows simultaneously and evenly on both sides; generally one field elicits more mockery than the other. Therefore, firstly, satire on the voting issues could not be prohibited and secondly, balance could not be required. In political discourse you have to be able to bear ridicule.

In the same final report, Roger Blum noted that he had argued differently in a previous final report. The increase in journalistic due diligence and the diversity requirement, as established in the journalistic guidelines of the SRF and derived from the suitability requirement of Art. 4 para. 2 of the Radio and Television Law, was also applied to the six weeks prior to the Satire referendum. Otherwise, the balance observed in information programs could be undermined by satirical programs. If one “thinks the matter through to the end,” according to Blum, “subjecting satire to the strict rules of voting reports would ultimately amount to prohibiting satire on voting subjects.”

Three short explanations

We can learn a lot from this argument. However, we do not allow them to be applied with this rigor, especially since the case that is decided now is different: on the one hand, “Deville” is considered a satirical program. However, even “satire-tested” viewers find that in “Deville” on November 22, 2020, not everything really looked like satire. For example, Deville explains the history of the Corporate Responsibility Initiative in less than ten minutes in a very appropriate way, beginning with the more than 100 organizations that met in 2015 and presented the initiative in 2016, to explain the Counselor’s counterproposal. Federal Karin Keller. -Sutter and extract the debate from the town councils. The fact that “Deville” repeatedly slowed down the development of the initiative and “thinned out” with satirical objections does not invalidate the informative character of these statements.

Second, the satirical show, whose imbalance is not denied by anyone, was not aired weeks before Sunday, November 29, but exactly seven days before. Point 7.2 of SRF’s journalistic guidelines states: “In the week before the vote, individual contributions (explanations, discussion programs in templates, etc.) must be balanced.” Experience has shown that in the week before the referendum, the SRF only reports on drafts if there are developments that need to be reported. “Deville” was thus the last detailed transmission on the Corporate Responsibility Initiative (KVI). And the last impression is known to be defining.

Third, the “10vor10” information program on November 20 refers to the upcoming “Deville” program. The subject of the corporate responsibility initiative is not mentioned. However, it is noted that this time, of all time, attention is drawn to “Deville”, which “10vor10” does not usually do. The information container, which deals with balance in the KVI, thus indicates an unbalanced broadcast of satire on the subject of KVI.

Here you can watch the SRF “Deville” program from November 22:

Former ombudsman Roger Blum mentions in the final report of May 14, 2020 that the UBI Independent Complaints Authority has never had to examine the rules to which satires on voting issues are subject in the run-up to referenda. For the RBU to make this desirable decision, it needs 20 signatures. Which, in view of the enormous anger caused by “Deville” on November 22, was easily collected.