An SRF documentary from the “Reporter” series heated up tempers in March. The topic was Russian oligarch funds in Switzerland. The spectators were shown a Swiss bureaucracy that is overwhelmed with the implementation of the sanctions. This was embodied dramatically by the erratic appearance of the Zug finance director Heinz Tännler (62).
St. Moritz GR, home of fertilizer baron Andrei Melnitschenko (50), didn’t fare much better in the post. The doc-makers branded the Engadine posh resort as a “Russian pavement” and supported their thesis with canned faders.
St. Moritz did not let this sit and filed a complaint with the SRG ombudsman. Admittedly, this was generously embellished – complainants, plaintiffs and complainants usually play big gambles. “Boulevarddesk” was the strip, clichés were warmed up and “ex-ambassadors, ex-misses and other figures from the C-celebrity world” tried to do it.
Lesson in diplomacy
In essence, however, it was regarding the aforementioned edited archive material, which gave the audience the impression that it was the reporters’ current recordings.
Now the ombudsman’s verdict is in – it’s a lesson in diplomacy and comes like an arrow wrapped in pink cotton, a ruffle accompanied by the sound of shawms.
In any case, those who were attacked in the Leutschenbach should warm their hearts because of some lines of the verdict. The program was “excellent”, “enlightening overall”, it “picked up on a currently relevant event”, “brought to light what was previously unknown” and “started a broad and important national debate”. What more do journalists want?
Russian party deep in the clothes box
The referees smash the allegation from the mountains that SRF relied on worn-out key witnesses in the program and bolted unproven prejudices. In addition, St. Moritz is indeed extremely popular with Russian holidaymakers, which is why the term “Russian pavement” is justifiable.
The core of the matter, however, lies elsewhere, and interested parties first have to fight through plenty of defensive prose. In a key point of the complaint, the arbitrators in St. Moritz are right: “The ombudspersons approve of the allegation that the source and time were not specified.”
This includes, among other things, sequences with a ski instructor and a tourism manager, both of whom have actually not been on duty for years, as well as recordings of a celebrity host and a Russian party deep in the clothes box.
No big critics of the public broadcasters
In short: The experienced SRF reporters should have clearly declared the archive material as such to the fee payers. This is especially true when it comes to such a politically charged topic – and in view of the company’s journalistic guidelines, which prescribe “careful examination of facts and sources as well as transparency regarding the state of knowledge and the plausibility of sources used”.
The two ombudsmen Esther Girsberger (61) and Kurt Schöbi (65), who represent this verdict, are otherwise not known as major critics of public law.
