Attitude instead of restraint 10 million initiative: These media are now involved in the referendum campaign
The media are once again positioning themselves more visibly in the referendum campaign on the SVP 10 million initiative - with editorials, manifestos and journalistic support.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- Swiss media are increasingly taking an open stance on the SVP's 10 million initiative - from clear rejection to clear support.
- Critics warn of the consequences for the free movement of persons, the economy and stronger state control of immigration. At the same time, individual media outlets are actively using the debate to mobilize political support.
- Media researchers see this as a trend: opinion is once again increasingly becoming part of branding, community building and business models.
The media have been involved in the debate surrounding the SVP's 10 million initiative for several days now - sometimes with clear criticism, sometimes with clear proximity to the Yes camp. Most recently, the "Tages-Anzeiger" published an editorial on the proposal.
In it, editor-in-chief Raphaela Birrer initially agrees with the SVP on one point. The high level of immigration has consequences: for the housing market, for infrastructure and for social cohesion. Since the introduction of the free movement of persons in 2002, Switzerland's population has grown by around 1.7 million people.
However, Birrer is not convinced by the SVP's solution. A population cap at 10 million inhabitants sounds simple, but in her view it falls short. The initiative is less a sustainability proposal than a new edition of well-known SVP demands: a tougher asylum policy and ultimately the termination of the free movement of persons with the EU.
The editorial is also controversial for another reason. In the past, the "Tages-Anzeiger" has not always been consistent when commenting on votes. Editor-in-chief Birrer made use of her veto right on the SRG initiative, for example, and demanded a pro-contra confrontation. Now, however, the paper is taking a visible stance.
NZZ warns of distribution battles
The "Tages-Anzeiger" is not alone in this. Fabian Schäfer, head of the liberal "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", also rejects the initiative. At the same time, he criticizes the No camp. Their slogan of the "chaos initiative" is too shrill and threatens to cover up the actual arguments against the proposal.
Schäfer sees the problem above all in the long term. A fixed population cap in the constitution would permanently force the state to control immigration. In his view, the result would be a "monster of administration": authorities would have to decide which industry and which region would receive how many foreign workers in future.
This is exactly where the major conflicts would begin. How many skilled workers would hospitals, retirement homes or industrial companies still be allowed to recruit? For Schäfer, the fact that even SVP President Marcel Dettling has already brought exceptions for agriculture or tourism into play shows how difficult it would be to implement the initiative.
The left-wing "Wochenzeitung" took an even more offensive stance. At the beginning of May, WOZ published a "Manifesto against SVP Switzerland" and explicitly called for mobilization. In it, the proposal is described as a "destructive initiative". It warns of isolation, restrictions on the free movement of persons and a return to conditions similar to the former seasonal worker statute.
According to WOZ, the manifesto has also received prominent support, with signatories including footballer Lia Wälti, writer Martin Suter and the band Züri West.
Right-wing media looking for contradiction
On the other side are media that are much closer to the Yes camp. The "Weltwoche" under former SVP National Councillor Roger Köppel regularly publishes articles that question the arguments of opponents. The "Nebelspalter" takes a similar stance, highlighting contradictions in the No camp in several online articles and supporting the bill in its journalism - while showing advertising clips from the Yes camp.
Markus Somm is particularly conspicuous. The editor-in-chief of "Nebelspalter" expressly argues not as an SVP man, but as an FDP member. He criticizes, for example, that the free movement of persons has brought less economic benefits than is often claimed. He also explains the housing crisis in Zurich more in terms of immigration than too little construction activity.
Media scientist Vinzenz Wyss is not surprised that the media are once again taking a more visible stance in referendum campaigns. He told blue News that political commentaries are "journalistic offers of interpretation and orientation" - in other words, more than mere private opinions. Editorials certainly have the task of making an attitude recognizable.
At the same time, Wyss sees a change in the media system. Many traditional newspapers have freed themselves from former party ties and now see themselves more as a forum for a politically mixed audience. Clear voting slogans have therefore become rarer.
Wyss warns against blurred boundaries
But there is also a counter-movement. Opinion is once again becoming more of a brand, a way to bind a community - and in some cases a business model. According to Wyss, things get tricky where the line between journalistic classification, political campaigning and economic interests becomes blurred.
This is particularly evident on platforms such as YouTube or Tiktok. Political influencers often rely on exaggeration, reach and camp thinking. Balance is not always the focus, and sometimes false information is circulated to mobilize one's own political camp. Recently, for example, claims such as: Asylum seekers would receive a "free GA", the majority of all judges are left-wing or the SVP initiative would lead to deportation.
Wyss therefore warns against blurred boundaries: "This becomes tricky when the line between journalistic classification, political campaigning and paid advertising becomes blurred for the audience." Traditional media would be well advised to make a clear distinction.
In accordance with its journalistic guidelines, blue News does not publish any comments on votes and maintains a critical distance from authorities and political decision-makers in the interests of its own integrity.
Correction note: An initial version stated that "Tages-Anzeiger" editor-in-chief Raphaela Birrer had also used the veto right for the 13th AHV pension. This is false. Tamedia published a negative editorial on the subject.
