Of dignity and decency

The media interest in the Schafisheim trial of the quadruple murder in Rupperswil was understandable: The case shook the whole of Switzerland to the bone marrow. Accordingly, many people wanted to know the background and the outcome of the inconceivable crime. For once, it was probably not sensationalism that was the main driver of attention in many places, but genuine sympathy and consternation. And the hope that the conviction of the perpetrator would draw a line under the unbearable story.

At least this is true for us, who live and grew up more or less in the neighborhood of the events. And we witnessed many things much closer than we would have liked. How reporters - in former times they were called "widow shakers" - harassed the partly traumatized neighbors after the crime. How the life partner of the murdered woman gradually became entangled in wild (and completely groundless) speculations. How, after years of radio silence, old colleagues - now working for renowned media - suddenly got in touch via WhatsApp, saying that they had grown up in the vicinity, whether they had heard something or knew something.

Some media outlets were not only on their best behavior when reporting on the trial. One portal, for example, published reader comments in which the main suspect was named in full. Or it ticked the full name itself in a hurry, only to correct the mishap minutes later. In contrast to the rather "tüpflischiiserischen" question whether one may call a not yet rightfully convicted accused from the outset "quadruple killer", the naming is also about the right of his relatives. About the right, at some point in people's minds, not to be associated in the first moment with the incomprehensible act of a close relative.

The line between a violation of the "Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists" and a lack of decency is apparently narrow. Presumably, one is allowed to casually call a murdered young woman "carpet dead" above her unpixelated photo because her body was found wrapped in a carpet in the forest. Presumably, one is allowed to drag her obviously media-inexperienced mother in front of the camera beforehand to let her hope in broken German that the found corpse is not her daughter. Presumably, one may also conduct a follow-up interview when the distraught mother finally has the sad certainty. And presumably you may also film her as she mourns at her daughter's grave, screaming in despair. In case you didn't catch the case: You read correctly.

You may be allowed to. But you certainly don't have to. Nor does anyone need a detailed account of how exactly the four-year-old daughter was abused by her "slave mother" to raise her to be a sex slave for her "master." Even if it's in the disturbing indictment. The dignity of a small, traumatized child is being flogged here - with details that are not (!) of public interest - for clicks and ratings. Will it be helpful for the child on the stony path of overcoming trauma in the years to come if his or her own incomprehensible fate remains available online in detail for all the world and for all eternity?

The Internet, as we all know, never forgets. The victims, on the other hand, are working on being able to do it as well as possible one day. Perhaps some media would do well to keep this in mind, at least from time to time. At the end of the day, there are more important things than circulation and reach.

Thomas Häusermann, Editor-in-Chief a.i. Werbewoche

t.hauesermann@werbewoche.ch