- The Federal Media Commission (Emek) wants to reorganize media funding so that the population has information available regardless of the form of distribution.
- The current system of private media funding has had its day, says Emek, which advises the Federal Council.
- In a position paper, Emek comes to the conclusion that a radical rethinking of funding policy is necessary.
A system change is needed in media funding, says Manuel Puppis. He is a professor of journalism at the University of Friborg and a member of the Federal Media Commission. «Today, people no longer only use print newspapers, radio and television. They mainly get their information from the internet.”
This not only on the websites of classic media, but also on platforms such as YouTube or Facebook, as Puppis goes on to explain. “In view of these changes, the classic funding instruments can no longer achieve their goal.”
What next?
With previous funding instruments, Puppis means above all the cheaper delivery of subscribed newspapers, the reduced VAT rate for journalistic products online and on paper – and the share of license fees for some of the private, licensed radio and television stations. So it’s about the private media. The SRG is not an issue in this strategy paper.
Legend:
Private media in Switzerland are funded by the federal government. For example, radio and TV stations receive money from the Serafe fee, and there are reduced postal taxes for private publishers. This system of private media funding has had its day, says Emek.
Keystone/Christian Beutler
After the no to media funding at the ballot box around 11 months ago, new ideas are now needed: “That’s why the Emek proposes that we introduce technology-neutral journalism funding.” This means that journalism should be able to be supported in all media types and on all channels – whether audio, video or text, offline as well as online.
Emek’s ideas will meet with a lot of opposition – not only from the big publishers such as CH Media, which now operates several subsidized Swiss regional television stations, but also from the small ones, whose income depends primarily on the newspapers they subscribe to. A possible change away from the subsidized delivery should hurt particularly here.
Above all, however, the question of who should monitor the allocation of any funding and who should define the award criteria is likely to be a source of dispute. Because Emek left this point open: “We deliberately did not specify exactly how it was decided who would be supported,” says Puppis.
Strategically chosen time for advance
Two options are conceivable for the media commission: The first would be a system with performance mandates, as is the case today on regional television and local radio. “Here you apply for an advertised service contract and if you are successful, you get money,” explains Puppis.
In the case of Emek’s second option, eligibility requirements would be specified. Media that meet certain legally defined requirements would qualify for funding and would receive this largely automatically. “This is how media funding works in most European countries. Because it severely restricts the decision-making leeway on the part of the state.”
The timing of the position paper’s launch was strategically chosen. Since the no to media funding at the ballot box, there has been a kind of vacuum in this discussion – not only in politics. It needs new ideas. In addition, the epiphany conference of the publishers’ association – the annual meeting of the industry – begins on Wednesday. Emek’s paper should provide a topic of conversation there.