{"id":14667,"date":"2020-04-22T10:04:56","date_gmt":"2020-04-22T10:04:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.re-check.ch\/wordpress\/?p=14667"},"modified":"2024-12-11T14:39:52","modified_gmt":"2024-12-11T14:39:52","slug":"journalism-pandemic-embedded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.re-check.ch\/en\/journalism-pandemic-embedded\/","title":{"rendered":"Journalism in pandemic mode: embedded, complacent and unable to inform democratic debate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
 <\/h5>\n\n\n\n
by Catherine Riva, Serena Tinari \u2013 Re-Check.ch
April 22, 2020
<\/span><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Read the article in English<\/a> \/ Den Artikel auf Deutsch lesen (PDF<\/a>) \/ Leggere l\u2019articolo in italiano (PDF<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An executive whose press conferences are accessible only by streaming and at which the only questions journalists are allowed to ask are those they have sent at least one hour in advance by e-mail. Government press briefings to which only a handful of correspondents are allowed to attend in person. Journalists who must obtain permission from the police to interview doctors and are escorted by an officer during their work. These snapshots are neither dystopian science fiction nor a report about the conditions imposed on journalists by an autocrat: they describe the new normality of the Swiss media in the age of the coronavirus. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since March 2020, in the name of the fight against the pandemic, hundreds of millions of citizens around the world have been deprived of certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration and freedom of movement. Schools and universities are still closed, most borders sealed, much of the economic activity is prohibited. Armies have been mobilised and essential instruments of democratic control (parliamentary sessions, votes) have been suspended in the name of the right of necessity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This unprecedented crisis is being presented to us as a health crisis, whereas the worst-case scenario of a widespread Lombard tragedy has not materialised and in some countries hospitals are even half empty. Its direct political and economic consequences, on the other hand, are very serious. Many democracies even seem to have reached a tipping point: today, the authorities can use the fight against the coronavirus as an excuse for censorship, surveillance and repression that would have been unthinkable in January 2020 – and some governments are doing just that (1<\/a>) (2<\/a>). At the same time, as a result of the measures taken, millions of people have fallen into precarious or destitute conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such an extraordinary and tense context, the media have a crucial responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collaborations and problematic ties
<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In such an extraordinary and tense context, the media have a crucial responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, they have a duty to provide the public with relevant, verified and properly contextualized information so that the public can make an informed judgment as to whether the decisions taken in the name of its protection seem justified to it, with all their consequences. This can only be done if journalists regularly hold the authorities to account in defence of the public interest and the right of citizens to be informed. As Vinzenz Wyss, professor of journalism at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Winterthur (ZHAW) (3<\/a>) (4<\/a>)rightly pointed out: \u201cWhen the executive branch dominates and parliamentary debate is silenced, journalism must be particularly vigilant. The debate on such decisions of the executive is not just another journalistic issue — it is a duty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what are the chances of media coverage with these essential qualities when journalists from a public television station come to work on a regular basis to support the authorities’ communication service?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Seven journalists from a public service radio and television station helped the Cantonal Crisis Headquarters, under the direction of the police, to communicate to the population the content prepared in collaboration with the authorities<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This question may seem absurd in a democracy like Switzerland, which readily emphasises its commitment to the separation of powers and media independence. And yet in 2019, RSI, the Italian-speaking branch of Swiss public service broadcasting, which has its headquarters in the canton of Ticino, signed an agreement with the authorities of this canton in which it would provide this kind of service \u201cin extraordinary circumstances\u201d. In particular it \u201cwill guarantee the necessary personnel and technical means for the drafting, production and dissemination of institutional and information messages of the cantonal crisis staff\u201d (5<\/a>). With the pandemic, the conditions were right for this \u201ccollaboration\u201d to be implemented. As a result, seven journalists from a public service radio and television station worked in teams to help the Cantonal Crisis Headquarters, under the direction of the police, to communicate to the population what the authorities thought it should know, making available, as agreed, \u201cmultimedia channels and television\u201d to transmit the content prepared in collaboration with the authorities (6<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is also questionable what the chances are of relevant and well-founded media coverage when only certain correspondents without special expertise on health issues have access to press conferences of the federal authorities, as is the case every other day at the Media Centre of the Federal Palace in Bern. Other journalists – also hand-picked by the administration – have to \u201cqueue up\u201d to ask their questions by phone or e-mail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ticino cantonal authorities, for their part, have in recent weeks required the media to submit their questions in writing (two at the most) several hours in advance, while specifying that the questions could only be asked if sufficient time remained available (7<\/a>). They have thus deprived journalists of the possibility of insisting in the event of vague or elusive answers, but above all of asking questions about the information given at press conferences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, some media outlets have concluded agreements with the authorities that allow only a \u201cpool\u201d of journalists to have access to hospitals and to report in a \u201csupervised\u201d manner (8<\/a>), and according to our information, in one canton of French-speaking Switzerland, police regulate media access to hospitals; their officers apparently also consult the notes taken by journalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Such rules of the game mean that journalists are neither able to access information nor to establish a distance between themselves and the authorities<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In all these cases, the likelihood of relevant and well-founded media coverage is very low, if not nil. Such rules of the game mean that journalists are neither able to access information nor to establish a distance between themselves and the authorities. They have to work with what the executive power is willing to give them and can no longer assess the quality of this information, question it or analyse it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undisclosed \u00abembedded\u00bb journalism<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

By agreeing to operate in this way, journalists put themselves in a situation of dependence and conflict of interest that exposes them to a massive risk of bias and influence. As the examples of embedded reporting during the Iraq war have shown, such dependence of the media on the authorities invariably undermines the quality of information. Moreover, access to the relevant structures for coverage of the epidemic cannot be the privilege of a few \u201cguest\u201d journalists. Above all, for all the \u201cnon-embedded\u201d, it will therefore be very difficult, if not impossible, to confront the government and the administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point of concern is that none of the media involved in these practices has so far openly and proactively disclosed to the public the conditions under which their work is now being carried out: neither the details of the arrangements under which \u201cimmersion\u201d reporting has been done, nor the difficulties encountered in accessing press conferences, nor the limits that have been imposed on interviews, nor the collaboration that may have been undertaken with the authorities. Worse still, no media in Switzerland has strongly denounced the controls and threats to which some journalists have been subjected, even though, as the recent survey by Impressum, a professional organisation of journalists in the country, revealed, at least 38 professionals holding a Swiss press card have been prevented from carrying out their work by the authorities since the beginning of the crisis (9<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Such silences are highly problematic, because they give the public the illusion that journalists can continue to work normally. That the right to information is fully exercised, that the media are not under pressure<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

These preliminary results of the Impressum survey should have caused an outcry. They were greeted by a deafening silence that came on top of all the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such silences are highly problematic, because they give the public the illusion that journalists can continue to work normally. That the right to information is fully exercised, that the media are not under pressure, or that they have free access to experts and sites of their choice, and that the recommendations of the authorities and the testimonies of those \u201con the front lines\u201d are the most relevant insights into this crisis. That the masks with which the television crews are displaying themselves constitute an indispensable protection for the exercise of their profession in the present circumstances, even though they are filming in the open air and interviewed people are talking to them from several meters away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As long as editors do not protest, it is impossible to know, for example, whether the restrictions in Ticino are an exception or whether they apply in the other cantons. Or whether in some cases the situation is comparable to that denounced by Spanish journalists, i.e. government press conferences broadcast in streaming only, in which the media had to submit questions in advance and the government itself selected the questions it wished to answer (10<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

As long as journalists threatened by the police do not speak up, it is impossible to know whether their case is isolated<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As long as journalists threatened by the police do not speak up, it is impossible to know whether their case is isolated or whether these practices are systematic. Above all, it is important to ensure that they are stopped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, if the Swiss editors had denounced the conditions imposed on them from the outset, on 11 April 2020 the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists would not only have criticised the decision of the Serbian government to require journalists to submit their questions in writing in advance (11<\/a>), it would probably also have condemned the authorities in Ticino, for example, who had been following the same practice for several weeks without any Swiss newsroom protesting publicly. The Spanish journalists won their case and the government changed its practice. What about Ticino? We do not know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another major problem is the silence of newsrooms about their current working conditions. It gives the public the illusion that all the experts are analysing the seriousness of this epidemic in the same way, that the figures published are verified and relevant indicators, and therefore that there is little alternative to the measures that have been taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of this is true and the public must be informed of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the economic recession or the suspension of certain civil liberties, one of the major consequences of the current crisis lies indeed in media coverage that all too often slides towards journalism that is at best ankylosed and at worst complacent (12<\/a>) and misleading (13<\/a>) (14<\/a>). And which, in fact, can no longer inform the democratic debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obvious temptation to instrumentalize the media<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

By embarking in this way on board a vessel controlled by the authorities, the media accept to remain in a state of astonishment that is incompatible with the ethical standards associated with their mission of information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much so, that now we can see journalists apologizing after asking a relevant question. As was the case at the press briefing on 28 March in Bern, when Daniel Koch of the Federal Office of Public Health described the figure of 280 people at ICU in Switzerland as \u201cenormous\u201d. When asked by a journalist what would be \u201cnormal\u201d in this field, Daniel Koch simply shook his head in disapproval and said: \u201cWe don’t know\u201d. Despite the unacceptability of this response, the journalist apologized as if he had acted inappropriately, when he was actually just doing his job. And none of his colleagues present flinched. Yet his question was perfectly relevant, as one always needs a comparator to put figures into perspective. Above all, every journalist should protest loud and clear when one of his peers is treated with such condescension by a senior official who presents the situation on the hospital front in an eminently dramatic light, without specifying that, overall, the news is good because these infrastructures are not overwhelmed (15<\/a>) (16<\/a>) (17<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The authorities and administrations perhaps consider that everything is good to keep the population under siege. But the media have a duty of truth<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The authorities and administrations perhaps consider that everything is good to keep the population under siege. But this cannot be the case for the media, which have a duty of truth to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an article published on Medialex on 2 April 2020 (18<\/a>), , Peter H\u00e4nni, Professor Emeritus of Constitutional and Administrative Law at the University of Fribourg, made a statement that is as lapidary as it is worrying: \u201c(\u2026) the limit to obstructing the work of media workers is close and the temptation to instrumentalize the media cannot be overlooked\u201d. Before recalling that even when the law of necessity applies, the media workers \u201cdo not mutate into federal and cantonal assistants because of the COVID-19 (Ordinance 2). They can therefore use the full range of their possibilities in their research and also publish uncomfortable truths. In doing so, they are only fulfilling their actual function in a free and democratic constitutional state\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is therefore urgent for Swiss journalists to get their act together and, on the strength of their mission, hold the authorities and the administration to account, fuel the plurality of the debate and point out the uncertainties. Vinzenz Wyss also stressed that it would \u201cbe important now that journalism addresses its own role in this crisis and transparently explains the conditions, routines and limits of reporting. This media-journalistic self-reflection should go beyond the presentation of journalistic work in the home office. More clarifications would be needed, instead of navel-gazing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Important clarification, April 26, 2020:<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Our commentary \u201cJournalism in pandemic mode: embedded, complacent and unable to inform democratic debate\u201d provoked many reactions, some of which showed us the need to clarify the following points:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n