Press Council: SDA reporting on Elmer trial was correct
The news agency SDA did not violate its duty to hear in its coverage of an ongoing court case brought by former Julias Baer banker Rudolf Elmer against Weltwoche. This is the conclusion of the Press Council.
The SDA had made a permissible assessment, the Press Council said in a ruling published Wednesday. The complaint by Weltwoche editor Alexander Baur was rejected. He had objected to SDA's coverage of Elmer's lawsuit against Weltwoche. He complained that the SDA had violated the "Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists" in two points.
The SDA report of July 3, 2013, refers to a decision of the Zurich District Court. The court had ruled that Weltwoche had to prove its accusations against Elmer within 20 days. The SDA then made the assessment that Elmer had achieved an "interim success" in court. In doing so, the agency had created a false impression because the court had rejected a request by Elmer for a precautionary measure, Baur claimed. The Press Council sees this differently: The evaluation is permissible from a professional ethics point of view.
The "interim success" refers to the deadline set for Weltwoche to provide evidence for its accusations and not to the rejection of Elmer's request for a precautionary measure. Therefore, the freedom of comment had not been violated by the SDA.
No obligation to consult
The second point of the Weltwoche editor's complaint, according to which the SDA would have been obliged to invite him or his employer to comment, was also rejected. "There is no obligation to seek the opinion of those involved in the proceedings on (interim) decisions," the Press Council wrote.
In addition, the editor and Weltwoche had not been accused of any illegal conduct. Thus, no serious allegations were discernible on which the SDA would have had to hear the persons concerned. (SDA)
Teaser image: Rudolfelmer.com
