SRG Ombudsman reprimands "Schweiz aktuell": Hostie is not a "snack
Criticism of SRF: SRG ombudsman Roger Blum has partially supported a complaint against a feature on the SRF program "Schweiz aktuell". In the summer project "In the Shadow of the Castle - Life 500 Years Ago," a host was referred to as a "snack" - a violation of the Radio and Television Act.
The offending episode aired on July 31. In it, the family living on 1517 funds visited a church. When Holy Communion was celebrated, the eight-year-old daughter also received a host - although she had not yet received Holy Communion.
On the advice of her mother, she pocketed the host and later gave it to her siblings. They shared and ate it. The commentary said that the host would now become a "snack" for the two older siblings.
A viewer then turned to the SRG ombudsman and spoke of a "gross denigration" of SRF and a "bitter blow against the Catholic Church. The host, he said, was not a snack roll, but the body of Christ. "With this interjection, you have deeply offended many Catholics in their attitude of faith," she wrote in the complaint.
Child innocent, journalist not
The ombudsman partially supports this complaint, as he states in his recently published final report. While the act of the little girl was not a violation of the Radio and Television Act, the journalistic reaction was.
"Instead of criticizing and classifying the behavior, the journalistic accompanying text still supports the action by trivializing it and calling the host in the children's sense a Snack designated," Blum writes.
For the Radio and Television Act is violated "when a broadcast degrades or disparages the Lord's Supper and specifically the host." The child, on the other hand, had behaved as children do.
SRF already reacted before complaint
But it wasn't all bad: The ombudsman also praised "Schweiz aktuell". Because even before the complaint was filed, the reaction had already reacted and proactively removed the relevant scene from the Internet on August 2 and published a public apology on its website.
They had not wanted to hurt any religious feelings of the viewers, but only to show the events surrounding the family's visit to the service. "In doing so, we were not sufficiently aware of the sensitivity of the topic." The editorial team, which had telephoned the Basel diocese several times on the matter, described the commentary text as "not successful."
For the ombudsman, the editorial team behaved correctly. Errors can always happen, but it shows professionalism "if you recognize them, correct them and also communicate this. (SDA)
