“Where are the counterarguments?” asked Infosperber last March. The reason for this question was a vote in the canton of Bern that gave parliament more power. In emergency situations, it can introduce new laws immediately without waiting for the usual referendum period.
The Bern parliament was so unanimous about this expansion of its own power that the Bern voting documents did not contain a single counter-argument. The new regulation was recommended to the people with 148 yes to 0 no.
At the time, Infosperber criticized the media for not taking a critical look at this approach. Even SRF failed to mention that there were definitely objections to this expansion of power.
“One-sided and incomplete”
Now comes the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (UBI) to the same conclusion: That was too one-sided. She approved the complaints against a contribution and an online article in the regional journal Bern, Freiburg, Valais. The two posts with the title “Vote Canton of Bern – The canton should be able to act immediately in crises” were inadequate and unbalanced.
The UBI stated: “The parties and groups represented in the No Committee were reported one-sidedly and incompletely.” In addition, SRF only allowed one representative of the supporting side to speak and did not present the arguments of the two camps equally.
SRF did not comply with the increased due diligence requirements for contributions to upcoming referendums and therefore did not guarantee equal opportunities.
The UBI made it unmistakably clear: “The fact that the Grand Council of the Canton of Bern had unanimously approved the new constitutional article did not justify unequal treatment of both camps.”
This statement from UBI no longer changes the vote. Voters in the canton of Bern approved the new, urgent legislation. However, this was only done with 75 percent of the votes and not 100 percent like the Grand Council previously did.
Subject-related interests of the author
No
_____________________
➔ Such articles are only possible thanks to your DONATIONS. You can deduct donations to our foundation from your taxes.
_____________________
Opinions in articles on Infosperber correspond to the personal assessments of the author.
What are the potential long-term implications of the unanimous decision by the canton of Bern’s parliament on future legislative processes?
1. First, let’s talk about the background of this vote in the canton of Bern – what are your thoughts on the new legislation that was passed and the unanimous decision by parliament? How do you think this will impact the way laws are made in the future?
2. One of the key criticisms of the media coverage was that counterarguments were not presented. As a journalist, how do you balance presenting all sides of an issue while also ensuring that misinformation doesn’t spread?
3. The UBI found that SRF’s reporting was one-sided and incomplete, specifically regarding the No Committee. What steps can media organizations take to ensure they present multiple viewpoints fairly?
4. The new regulation gives parliament more power in emergency situations. Some may argue that this is necessary for quick decision-making. On the other hand, others may worry about a lack of transparency and accountability. How do you see the potential implications of this expansion of power?
5. Moving forward, what role do you think journalists and media organizations play in covering complex political issues like this one? How can they ensure they are presenting balanced and informative reports without oversimplifying or sensationalizing the story?
