Press Council rejects Natalie Rickli's complaint against Tageswoche

Basel's Tageswoche did not have to listen to National Councilor Natalie Rickli when she reported on the connection between politics and business, the Press Council has ruled.

tageswoche-rickli-presserat

The daily week annotated on February 24, 2017, under the title "How SRF opponents want to get rich with SRF". This demanded that Swiss media be allowed to take over and reuse all SRG contributions free of charge. The article was illustrated with a picture montage: National Councilor Natalie Rickli with a golden tooth in her mouth in front of an SRF logo.

Rickli is President of the Commission for Transport and Telecommunications, which dealt with the proposal. At the same time, she is an employee of the advertising marketing company Goldbach Group.

Rickli complained to the Press Council against the article. She criticized the Tageswoche for accusing her of wanting to enrich herself with political advances. Because she had not been heard on this, the Tageswoche had violated the journalists' code.

For the Press Council, it is right and important for journalists to reveal politicians' vested interests, the ruling states. Rickli's employer, the Goldbach Group, is obviously affected by the allegation. In the opinion of the press council, Rickli is not accused of any specific intention to enrich himself. But the Tageswoche at least indirectly implied a possible enrichment via Rickli's employer.

Nevertheless, Rickli did not have to be heard on this accusation, according to the Press Council. This is because lobbying is widespread in the Swiss militia system today and is neither illegal nor particularly dishonest, according to the statement. Therefore, the accusation is not so serious that a hearing of Rickli would have been obligatory. However, the Press Council is of the opinion that it would have done the commentary good if Rickli had had his say in it. The audience can better form its own opinion if it learns what the main person has to say about a possible conflict of interest.

More articles on the topic