SRF reported on US election in a balanced way
Nine people were so disturbed by SRF's radio and television coverage of the US elections that they complained to the ombudsman Roger Blum.
Seven broadcasts were objected to - from a tennis direct-to-home broadcast to the children's program Zalando. Blum agrees with the plaintiffs in very few cases. The ombudsman showed the least understanding for criticism of satirical broadcasts in which Donald Trump was taken for a ride. In the TV show Giacobbo/Müller, for example, the future US president was called an "asshole." In this broadcast format, one must take into account what Trump has done so far and how he has campaigned, Blum argues. The future U.S. president is racist, sexist, narcissistic, he has insulted Latinos, Muslims and women, he is selfish and domineering, and he is a notorious liar. A judge would therefore probably accept the term "asshole" outside of satire. If satire did, then it had "effectively distorted him beyond recognition." That is precisely the task of satirists.
The description of Trump as a "mentally disturbed narcissist" in the program "Vetters Töne" by cabaret artist Gabriel Vetter on SRF radio should not have been censored, according to Blum. It was undisputed that Trump was a narcissist, but for "deranged" there was "no provable evidence." This formulation is therefore reprehensible even in a satire.
Trump-critical children
Heinz Günthard, too, would have been better off refraining from making a political statement during SRF's live coverage of Stan Wawrinka's match against the black American Donald Young at the Swiss-Indoors in Basel. In connection with the first name of the tennis player on the court, the SRF expert had said that he hoped that he would not have to say Donald Trump in the future. For Blum, the incident was absolutely harmless and an "insignificant footnote" in the reporting.
According to Blum, the same applies to the children's program "Zalando," in which children made critical comments about Trump. One listener complained that the program was truly "Trump bashing" and that the children were being instrumentalized. Mr. Trump had been discriminated against and his human dignity had been impaired. For Blum, however, this was not the case. The initiative for the program had come from the children and they had reflected the Trump-critical mood among the children. On the other hand, she also explained how powerful the American president really is.
No "sham neutrality
Blum could not detect any imbalance in the direct broadcasts during the U.S. election night or in "Rundschau-Spezial" and "Schawinski". He also points out that broadcasts about elections abroad are not subject to the same strict rules as broadcasts about elections in Switzerland. Only presenter Stefan Klapproth would have been better off leaving some of his unequivocal comments to the experts. Among other things, he had called Trump a "pied piper," a "show-off," or a "braggart." But "because of the problematic nature of the Trump election," he prefers "a clear and visible stance" to mock neutrality, Blum writes. (SDA)
