Professional media play a key role in a democracy. They enable citizens to form opinions based on complete information, to assess social circumstances and developments, and to help shape them in the democratic process. The quality of the democratic decision-making process and social dialogue depends largely on the quality of the information and the style of discourse cultivated by professional media.

In a digital media society, professional media have the special task of reducing complexity, providing clarity, checking facts, being transparent about unclear facts and sources, and separating the essential from the non-essential.

The SBC’s public service broadcasting is guided by the common good. It is committed to the public as a whole. The basis and benchmark is the enlightened, democratic constitutional state with all its fundamental values and obligations. These include, in particular, the Federal Constitution (freedom of the media and freedom of expression, programming autonomy), the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The SBC licence requires us to inform, educate, entertain and offer high-quality content for all parts of the population. In doing so, we have a duty not only to report on events and developments, but also to explore them in depth, contextualise them and question them critically. We promote discourse on all socially relevant issues and stimulate public debate. We present Switzerland in all its diversity and international connections, bring people together and foster identity. We engage in dialogue with the public on an equal footing.

The SBC sees its role as providing information by covering and contextualising a wide range of regional, national and global events that are important and of interest to its audience – in a way that is understandable, critical, timely and engaging. In addition, SBC’s cultural, sports and entertainment content inspire and connect people in Switzerland.

Accuracy and diversity of opinion, perspective and topics are central to SBC’s reporting, as are the representation and reflection of the diversity of Switzerland’s people, cultures and languages. We give space to different perspectives and ensure that we reach all people across their diverse lived realities, as required by SBC’s programming strategy.

We take advantage of the opportunities offered by new technologies and ensure that they are used in a way that aligns with our credibility standards. We see it as our responsibility to familiarise our audiences with the opportunities and risks of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and to inform them about the ongoing debate on data and digital ethics in journalism.

Credibility is our greatest asset. Our journalistic output is based on three principles: objectivity, diversity and independence.

Objectivity in reporting means taking into account the available facts and arguments and only presenting information that is believed to be true to the best of our knowledge and in good faith. Objectivity requires journalists to have knowledge of the subject in question and the ability to contextualise. It requires diligence in checking facts and sources, as well as transparency about what is currently known and the plausibility of the sources used. Objectivity requires fairness in the way different perspectives and opinions are presented. It ensures that individuals and institutions are given the right of reply when allegations are made against them (‘audiatur et altera pars’).

Objectivity also means presenting content in a way that is clear and easy to understand. SBC employees adhere to the principle of truthfulness and avoid any distortion or omission of essential information.

Diversity in content means presenting facts, arguments, assessments, experiences and opinions in a nuanced way. A diverse offering is characterised by a broad spectrum of topics, guests and approaches. The requirement to reflect a range of views also requires that Switzerland is presented in all its diversity and plurality, and that all regions are represented.

The SBC is editorially independent and free of political, economic or religious influence. Independence in journalism means that editorial teams do not favour or protect any ideology, party, institution or interest group. Anyone who is involved in editorial activities at SBC maintains a critical distance from all political, economic, cultural, scientific, social and religious groups.

We are guided by the public’s right to be provided with a picture of the world that is as accurate and diverse as possible. We see ourselves as professional journalists. Our role is that of a critical or participatory observer, not that of a protagonist. We therefore do not align ourselves with any cause, not even a good one. We report on topics that are relevant to our audience, but we are not part of any campaign. Audiences can rely on our fairness, professional distance and journalistic integrity. We regularly reflect on our stance and our choice of topics, contributors, protagonists and perspectives, and we critically examine our output to identify any potential ‘blind spots’. Our journalistic integrity also requires internal independence: journalistic decisions are made by the responsible editors, not by the organisation.

SBC programme makers know that credibility and integrity are their most precious assets. They are therefore always aware of their professional role. They live by the standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines and demonstrate professionalism at all times, always maintaining professional distance, and never acting in a personal capacity. Their personal convictions play no role in their decisions or their journalistic conduct. At its core, their journalistic stance relies on critical self-scrutiny. They act as observers of the world’s events, while maintaining close engagement with the people and realities they report on. They report on what they believe to be true at that moment to the best of their knowledge and in good faith. They see themselves as conveyors of informative, sporting and cultural content, as well as entertainers and discussion partners for the users of their services. SBC employees make a clear distinction between their professional role and their private commitments (e.g. political activities or voluntary work).

• News programmes are factual and analytical. SBC employees distance themselves from all ideologies and interest groups.
• In social and cultural reporting, personal approaches open up interesting perspectives on a discussion or a work. This must not compromise journalistic distance, however.
• In sports reporting and the presentation of music and entertainment shows or radio programmes, emotion and enthusiasm are part of the content.

However, presenters maintain a critical and rational distance, especially when it comes to political and socially relevant topics. As programme makers, they adopt an objective and fact-based stance and refrain from expressing personal opinions. This also includes refraining from using ideological, political, religious and advertising symbols in journalistic appearances, as these could give the audience the impression of personal bias. Exceptions to this principle (e.g. in religious programmes) must always be signed off by the responsible editor.

In talks, digital audio or video formats, and on social media, content creators can reveal more facets of their personality and journalistic position. But no matter how committed and “close to the story” they may be, SBC  content creators do not act in a personal capacity or without critical distance, but are always professional – in line with their role and their public service remit.

When engaging live with audiences on everyday topics, in interactive elements such as game shows, more light-hearted current affairs topics such as weather and sports, and in music programmes, hosts present themselves as recognisable, distinctive personalities. They form an emotional connection between the live programme and the audience.

Because all households in Switzerland pay a licence fee, we want our public service output to reach everyone.

For us, this means:

• We report and tell stories where our audience and our communities are.
• We deliver quality across all channels.
• To do this, we leverage the strengths, characteristics and diversity of the channels available to us.
• We engage with our audiences and communities and actively involve them in our discussions and newsgathering.
• Our journalistic discourse, and our planning, newsgathering and production processes are geared towards creating content for digital and linear formats.
• Our content is technically accessible and can be easily found thanks to systematic metadata management.
• Our journalistic criteria are justifiable and transparent.
• Relevance, professionalism, independence, diversity, accessibility: compliance with the five quality standards set out in the SBC licence is regularly reviewed.
• We specifically review our content, choice of topics and guests, approaches and questions for bias, ‘blind spots’ and systematic partiality. To this end, we consciously apply ‘debiasing’ methods as developed by scientists.

In order to meet the ethical and quality standards set out in Article 4 of the SBC licence and those defined in the Content and Services Charter, the SBC has introduced a quality assurance system that is binding for all editorial units. Every employee, together with their line manager and colleagues, is responsible for supporting this process and actively participating in it.

We regularly provide insights into our work and explain how we do our job.

The SBC licence requires us to make the full diversity of society visible and heard across its programming. This includes the diversity of topics, perspectives and experiences as well as the diversity of those who are given a platform – whether in terms of gender, origin, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability or religious affiliation.

The SBC does not discriminate against any individuals or groups of individuals. We do not perpetuate stereotypes, avoid discriminatory attributions and framings,  adapt to social developments and ensure our reporting uses inclusive, gender-neutral language and imagery.  We do this in a consistent yet unobtrusive way. We differentiate according to channel, format and target group to avoid giving the impression of being part of a campaign. Critical self-reflection and careful approval processes prevent unintentional sexism or inadvertent discrimination.

Diversity is therefore a journalistic quality criterion based on the requirement to reflect a range of views.

When it comes to experts, we strive for a balanced ratio of male and female experts. The target is 50:50.

We also consistently incorporate other diversity characteristics when seeking out experts and stakeholders, such as age and migration background.

Equitable representation of our diverse society is a hallmark of journalistic diversity and quality.

At SBC, the choice of topics covered is determined by the criteria of relevance and audience interest. This weighting must be reflected in all published content.

There is no single, definitive standard for assessing relevance. The following criteria serve as a guide:

• Topicality / news content
• Political, economic, cultural, scientific or social significance
• Geographical, cultural, economic or political proximity
• Significance of the protagonists involved
• Representative character
• Exclusivity
• Longer-term significance

Audience interest cannot be defined conclusively either. The following considerations serve as a guide:

• Proximity to the audience’s lived reality
• Public attention (‘everyone’s talking about it’)
• High level of interest in digital communities
• Emotional or dramatic quality
• Surprise effect
• Availability of expressive audio, image and text documents

The relevance aspects and audience interest must be weighted differently depending on the publication channel.

For current affairs formats with a high news focus, political, economic, cultural and social significance take precedence. For entertainment stories, the level of fame or public visibility is a key factor in determining relevance. In sports reporting, the emotional experience value can be given greater weight. Audience interest must also be taken into account appropriately in incident-driven news items and tabloid stories (crime, accidents, sex, people) without compromising journalistic principles.

The choice of topics, angle, focus, guests and execution are always carefully considered and journalistically justifiable. We also use the findings of data analyses when selecting angles and narrative formats.

Historical content from the archives is added to SBC’s online offering in an effort to provide interested users with extensive opportunities for in-depth research. As unaltered historical documents, the programmes and content reflect the social context of their time and may be contrary to current conventions in their style, language or message.

At SBC, we understand the term “news” to mean both news in the narrow sense and analysis of current events including background information and in-depth analysis – covering all subject areas and genres. News value can be derived from the facts and events themselves, but also from new statements, perspectives, comments and reflections on known facts, as well as from our own investigations and reporting. News can also place familiar topics in a new context.

The SBC does not exclude any topics from its reporting. The decisive factors are the manner of reporting and the choice of appropriate angles on a topic. The weighting and thus the choice of topics constitute a central added value of our reporting and vary depending on the distribution channel.

All forms of journalism are conceivable, and topics can be presented in a wide range of different ways. Depending on the channel, publication medium and topic, certain forms are more suitable than others.

Fake news can also be a reason for coverage if they are widespread and believed by many – for example, in the form of fact checking. (see also 4.5 Dealing with fake news and 7.2 Fact checking).

In order to attract attention, protagonists, interest groups and lobby groups are increasingly pushing their issues according to marketing criteria and event management considerations. They attach just as much importance to the presentation or staging of an issue as they do to the content.

We are familiar with these methods and do not allow ourselves to be exploited. When reporting, we ensure transparency where necessary. This also means that we maintain distance when dealing with public figures. It is not only actual bias that is problematic, but also perceived bias. Frequent and regular contact is unavoidable for newsgathering purposes, and may even be desirable. However, this must not lead to undue closeness or a relationship of loyalty. It is also important to maintain distance from public figures on social media. We engage with high-ranking, influential and prominent individuals with the same courtesy, critical scrutiny and professional distance as we do with all others.

SBC employees disclose any personal or business relationships with issues, public figures or institutions to their managers.

When there is media hype around a topic, it is our job to assess its relevance and maintain a sense of proportion. The fact that an event or topic is widely discussed and causes a stir says little about its significance. Thoughtful, reflective coverage rather than reactive reporting is the guiding principle here.

We report in a calm manner in terms of both content and tone (different standards apply to live sports coverage).

In the case of particularly large or questionable hype, we can address, explain and contextualise the hype itself. Even if media and public interest wanes, we continue to follow up on the relevant aspects. Especially with hype-driven topics, it is often worthwhile to follow up once the excitement has subsided and the consequences become apparent. By explaining the mechanisms of the media, we can also raise awareness and strengthen the public’s media literacy.

We continuously follow important topics and pick up on them when there is something new to report. We do this even – or especially – when things are happening away from the headlines and other media outlets are not covering them (e.g. neglected conflicts). Some topics require a medium- or long-term view (e.g. keeping election promises).

Particular attention and care must be taken when reporting on crimes. If criminal proceedings are discontinued or if suspects or accused persons are proven innocent in the course of the proceedings, this must also be reported appropriately in the interests of fairness and impartiality. The same applies if it subsequently transpires that persons have been wrongfully removed from office or dismissed.

Legitimate embargoes must be respected. This applies in particular to deadlines that give the media time to prepare, for example to explain a report or announcement at a press conference. Respecting embargoes can be key to maintaining trust between information sources and our editorial teams, and is often what enables us to access advance information in the first place.

We consider embargoes that serve only to favour certain media over others to be unjustified. If we consider an embargo to be illegitimate, we contact the source institution at an early stage so that it can notify other media outlets accordingly.

If an embargo is broken by numerous other high-reach media outlets, we are no longer obliged to observe it.

If the SBC believes that there is a predominant public interest in reporting, it may also decide to deliberately break an embargo.

Wherever possible, the senior editorial management within SBC consult with each other before breaking an embargo. In such cases, the relevant manager must be consulted.

If an embargo is accepted, it must be clear that SBC employees are free to verify, supplement or use information in a different context at any time, provided that the source is not compromised. An exception applies to embargoes imposed by the Federal Supreme Court. In this case, investigations may only be carried out after the embargo has expired so that the parties can be informed first. An embargo applies only to the agreed information and only until the defined point in time.

We do not accept news blackouts that hinder or prevent our freedom to choose topics. We coordinate our approach to news blackouts with the relevant authorities, when it is necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing of victims and other parties involved. If law enforcement agencies request that we refrain from reporting in whole or in part in the interests of solving a crime, we comply in cases where there are compelling reasons for doing so (see 7.1 Checking sources, 9.10 Editorial secrecy, right to refuse to testify, 13.3 Publication bans). In such cases, consultation with managers is mandatory.

Dealing with audience reactions has an impact on SBC’s reputation and is therefore of great importance. Emails, other digital correspondence and letters should be answered without delay and in an appropriate form and style. Feedback and input are selectively incorporated into programming. Management of digital communities is described in section 3.2 below.

Audience reactions are a valuable source of information for assessing the impact and relevance of our content and for ongoing quality development purposes.

Enquiries received by phone or in writing from the public about TV, radio and online services are generally handled by Audience Services. If an editorial team wishes to take over the entire processing of enquiries concerning its own editorial department, it must define the relevant responsibilities and organise the procedures. If concerns are sent directly to the editorial team, Audience Services must always be contacted before a direct response is given in order to avoid duplication.

If Audience Services needs support from editorial staff to respond to enquiries, it sends out so-called expert enquiries.

Critical feedback is treated respectfully and openly, even if it is harshly worded, as long as it does not violate legal or ethical boundaries. In the case of abusive language, it is important to consider whether a response is warranted. We do not respond to anonymous emails (pseudonym as sender). In the case of threats, the responsible security and legal departments must be informed. In the case of complaints, the possibility of contacting the ombudsperson must be pointed out.

We are not obliged to respond to any kind of advertising material sent to us (e.g. books, DVDs).

We create communities around our journalism, i.e. around our topics and key figures. We work for and with our users, engaging with them as equals in open dialogue. We give users a voice on our platforms and make them contributors by involving them from the outset – not just as consumers of finished stories. We see the community as an integral part of our journalistic work: users are involved in news gathering, and their input is a source for stories and follow-ups. We also see them as contributors who can help shape our reporting. We always fact-check or at least review the plausibility of incoming information and materials before using them in our publications. We also always name sources.

We take our role as an interactive medium with a public service remit seriously: we use our content to spark discussions and create and administer spaces for debate on our own platforms and on social media. In doing so, we tailor our communications to the target audience. Our experts, specialist editors and correspondents actively participate in the relevant debates, contribute facts, provide background information, therefore demonstrating authenticity, approachability and competence.

We engage with criticism and disclose our editorial decisions. We set out what questions we are trying to answer, but also what we don’t know.

We actively seek out communities to ensure thematic diversity and tap into new user groups. We establish and maintain new, specific interest groups where it makes sense to do so. We strengthen our relationships with users by actively seeking dialogue and focusing on topics that engage them.

In the comment sections of our own or external platforms, we respond quickly to direct and factual questions and thank users for praise or constructive criticism.

We do not respond to provocation, non-constructive criticism or verbal attacks.

The netiquette for our own platforms and our third-party channels sets out mandatory rules of conduct. As soon as discussions threaten to drift off course, we post a comment urging objective discussion on the topic and referring to the netiquette.

We do not approve comments on our own platforms that violate netiquette rules. In the event of violations on our social media channels, we delete the comment in question.

We resort to blocking users only in rare cases. However, if netiquette is violated several times, a person may be blocked. In the event of a gross violation of netiquette (e.g. glorification of violence, racist or homophobic comments or spam), users may be blocked immediately and without warning.

The SBC does not tolerate hateful comments against SBC employees. The authors of such comments will be immediately blocked and legal action will be considered. Employees who are affected by hateful comments should contact their line manager. In the event of threats against SBC employees, the security service will be informed.

If topics flare up on our channels that go beyond the usual scope and spectrum of criticism and pose a reputational risk to SBC, such as widely orchestrated defamatory reactions and comments against content or individuals (‘shitstorms’), the responsible social media team in Communications must be notified.

Links to external websites on our own digital platforms and in posts on our social media channels are intended to supplement, expand on or explain a topic. They are placed exclusively according to journalistic criteria and may not be commercialised (see SBC licence Art. 18 para. 2 let. f).

External links must also be clearly designated as such. The terms of use state that the SBC accepts no responsibility for third-party content. We do not link to sites that go against our journalistic or ethical standards (e.g. sites that glorify violence or are harmful to young people). Each link is checked to ensure that the source is credible, relevant and necessary in the context of the reporting.

We exercise the utmost restraint when tagging individuals, organisations or activist movements in social media posts. Here, too, we maintain a critical distance from all political, economic, social and cultural groups.

If persons outside of the organisation wish to place links to SBC websites (e.g. to pieces about themselves) on their own websites, blogs, etc., the aforementioned terms of use apply.

The clear and unambiguous correction of errors serves to maintain editorial credibility. It is important that we correct errors quickly to prevent them from spreading in subsequent programmes, on digital channels and via archives.

Corrections on the channel or station are therefore mandatory, as we must assume that audiences cannot easily recognise an error as such. If we notice an error during a live broadcast, we correct it immediately if possible.

If we only notice a serious error afterwards, we correct it in the next edition of the same programme at the same point in time where it occurred in the previous programme. The same applies to podcasts and all other digital output. On our own platforms, we also point out the error in the text accompanying the edition containing the error and correct it if possible.

All corrections should be made as transparently as possible so that audiences can understand what has been changed, when and why.

When publishing political opinion polls before elections and votes, we adhere to representative sampling.

The following aspects should be mentioned in the context of reporting on opinion polls:

• Polling institute
• Commissioning organisation
• Survey period
• Method of data collection (in person, by phone or online)
• Statistical population (e.g. region, minimum age)
• Number of respondents
• Margin of error for individual statements
• Key wording of the questions

Interpretations of survey results must be clearly identifiable as such and must not appear as statements of fact. Opinion polls should generally be presented as snapshots and not as forecasts. If the margin of error of a survey allows for several possible outcomes of an election, this must be pointed out in the reporting. Events that may influence opinion formation should also be mentioned.

Opinion polls may only be published until ten days before the end of the voting period.

Reporting on politically controversial or economically and socially sensitive topics is subject to the same journalistic principles and approaches as all other topics. However, particular attention must be paid to the tone and style of such content. This also applies to the use of design elements such as images and sound (music and ambient sounds). The potential damage to our credibility is considerable if we make mistakes here – including in terms of form – or use the wrong tone. Editorial responsibility for sensitive topics also includes the duty to weigh up the possible effects of reporting on the individuals or groups concerned.

Anyone working on sensitive topics must inform their line managers. In the case of stories that could implicate SBC in a controversy that could damage its reputation, it is also imperative to inform the head of genre and consult the senior editorial management of the respective unit.

The SBC plays a key role in shaping the opinions of Swiss voters in the context of elections and votes. This is particularly true at national and cantonal level, and to some extent at local level too. That is why the requirements regarding accuracy, diversity of opinion and fairness in reporting are particularly high in this area.

Special rules apply in the run-up to votes: SBC: editorial teams are careful to ensure that both sides of the argument are fairly represented in their overall coverage and that their reporting contains a high level of relevant, factual background information.

The basic coverage in the run-up to national votes includes reports on the positions of the “Yes “ and “No“ camps and the Federal Council’s media conference. The recommendations of the parties represented in the Federal Council, which are usually decided at party conferences/delegate assemblies, and the recommendations of the parties that have parliamentary groups in parliament are also taken into account.

For reporting beyond the mandatory material, enhanced editorial standards apply on our channels.  We take a cautious approach to covering events, rallies, and celebrity appearances designed primarily to attract media coverage. This also applies when sporting or cultural events are used as a vehicle for political messaging and action.

The closer the date of the vote, the more important it is to exercise care, objectivity and diversity of coverage. In debates on national issues, we ensure that the different perspectives of the language regions and social groups are represented.

Reports on votes that are dictated by current events and justified from a journalistic point of view are possible at any time, even shortly before the vote. In this case, however, the news must be highly relevant.

The increased requirements for accuracy, care and diversity is coordinated between the regional units; the specific implementation may be adapted to the relevant editorial context.

In our overall reporting on a proposal, the different positions must be given appropriate space and their central arguments must be presented. The requirement to be fair and to present a range of views applies.

Particular editorial standards apply to all discussion formats, talk shows and individual appearances by key figures in referendum campaigns. Care must be taken to ensure a diverse and fair line-up throughout the entire campaign.

In the case of initiatives, the actual, complete and sometimes cumbersome name is often less familiar to the public than modified versions (e.g. ‘anti-burka initiative’ instead of ‘Yes to a ban on full facial coverings’). For the sake of clarity, we often use the familiar short form. It is crucial that audiences understand which initiative we are referring to.

These provisions are binding for all genres, formats and channels.

The basic considerations and guidelines for reporting before votes also apply by analogy to reporting before elections.

With the aim of ensuring appropriate and fair reporting on candidates and parties, the regional units establish specific rules that are adapted to their regional context. They communicate these rules in a transparent manner to the parties and candidates in good time. In doing so, they also distinguish between proportional representation and majority voting systems. In the case of national elections, the key parameters and deadlines are coordinated between the regional units. The specific details may vary depending on the respective regional circumstances. In the case of cantonal and municipal elections, the relevant rules are established at regional level.

We do not offer parties a one-sided platform during election campaigns. Before national elections, individual appearances by candidates in news and current affairs, entertainment, cultural and sports programmes must be agreed with the senior editorial management during the heated election campaign phase. During this period, as before votes, particular editorial standards apply to all discussion formats, talk shows and individual appearances by key figures.

Throughout the election campaign, care must be taken to ensure diverse and fair representation, which is also based on whether a party has parliamentary groups in parliament. In the final phase before an election, individual appearances by candidates that would provide them with a one-sided platform are no longer permitted, except in the case of highly relevant news. The same rules apply to cantonal and local elections.

In the case of second rounds of voting, which usually take place shortly after the first round, the deadlines are set in consultation with the senior editorial management.

Special rules apply to the admission of parties and candidates to election broadcasts. The criteria are journalistic and political relevance (e.g. previous balance of power).

If the number of participants in election panel discussions has to be limited  for media-specific reasons and in the audience’s interest, this is permissible. The exclusion criteria must be objective and transparent (e.g. a party with a small number of seats in parliament). Candidates excluded from the panel discussion should at least be mentioned there if possible.

The news analysis is a core element of journalism. It offers added value over purely factual reporting. It also helps the audience to contextualise the significance of an event or development and to assess the issues involved. News analysis can take the form of a short, quick initial assessment or a more detailed, in-depth analysis. It can be presented as text (written or spoken) or as a Q&A, as well as a duplex/moderated discussion in a programme, in a podcast and, finally, in the form of an analysis video/explanatory audio. Analyses are clearly identified as such.

News analyses require a high level of subject-specific expertise. They are therefore usually produced by colleagues with specialist knowledge, correspondents or the specialist editors responsible for a particular subject area. At Swissinfo, analyses may also be written by external experts and are identified as such.

News analyses contain the factual information needed to understand a topic. They reflect the authors’ assessment based on their experience and expertise. However, the focus is on arguments that are presented, justified and weighed up against each other. Conclusions may be drawn from this assessment, it is not a matter of personal opinions or views.

Commentaries are possible at SBC. They are reserved for major topics of fundamental importance from Switzerland and abroad. Comments in the form of voting or election recommendations are not permitted. Commentaries must always be clearly designated as such and must be based on verifiable facts and arguments.

In contrast to news analyses, a commentary reflects the author’s own assessment to a greater extent. However, this must always be presented transparently and justified with arguments. Personal opinions are irrelevant.

Commentaries are always proofread by a member of the editorial board or a duty editor/daily editor and must be approved before publication.

Digital platforms, non-mainstream media and social media have become increasingly important in recent years. In this environment, varying interpretations of societal developments and scientific findings spread widely. These media and viewpoints reach parts of society.

We cannot ignore these views, but neither must we present them as equally valid opinions. The SBC practises fact-based journalism and is committed to scientific evidence. Accordingly, we only give a platform to people who reject scientifically proven facts in justified exceptional cases (approval of the senior editorial management).

At the same time, we must take a stand and speak plainly, especially on these issues: lies, misinformation and fake news must be called out.

We treat religious content essentially the same way as others. When reporting on religion, we distinguish between beliefs and institutional aspects. Core beliefs enjoy special protection, but religious institutions and their representatives are subject to the same scrutiny as other social actors. This means that we treat religions and churches as critically as all other schools of thought and institutions. However, we are aware that the tone of reporting in particular may offend the religious segment of the audience. We therefore do not ridicule the core beliefs of religions. Satire is permitted, however.

When dealing with controversial religious issues, we avoid any form of discrimination and preserve the dignity of all those involved, including in our use of visuals and choice of wording.

Artistic freedom is a precious asset in an open society and should be restricted as little as possible. It is of great importance in SBC’s programming as an expression of freedom of expression. This applies to all forms of art.

However, the SBC does not provide a platform for artistic products that spread unfiltered hatred or incite violence against individuals or groups of people. Works that perceptibly glorify violence or contain discriminatory, sexist or racist content are therefore only made a subject after thorough editorial consideration and with due regard for the protection of children and young people in the media.

Satire as an art form is also a permissible – and indeed desirable – means of entertainment and democratic debate in SBC’s programming. It falls under SBC’s programming autonomy and is protected by artistic freedom and freedom of expression. It must be used in a manner appropriate to the channel and must be clearly recognisable as such to the audience. The factual core of the satirical statement must not be untrue or defamatory.

The journalistic principles of fairness and plurality of perspective do not apply to satire. Demands for equality of treatment cannot be met as satire by its very nature is one-sided, exaggerated, provocative and therefore potentially offensive. Furthermore, satire is fundamentally critical of all ideologies and political positions and deals with them in a correspondingly pointed manner.

Therefore, the provisions on elections and votes (see 4.2 / 4.3) do not apply to satire. Subjective expressions of opinion by satirists are possible at any time, as long as they do not contain explicit election or voting recommendations.

Satire sometimes also addresses religious topics. Legal standards governing programme content draw a distinction between core beliefs and religious institutions, including their dignitaries. Only core beliefs enjoy privileged protection (see 4.6 Religious content).

Satire must be clearly recognisable in news and current affairs formats and explicitly designated as such. Its content and tone are the responsibility of the editorial team in charge. Consideration is given to how it will affect audiences and whether it fits into the relevant editorial context.

We report on the SBC, i.e. on affairs affecting our own organisation, with restraint in terms of scope and deliberately rational in tone. We disclose that the outlet providing the coverage belongs to the SBC. In cases that could affect trust in the SBC as an institution, reporting should be transparent, with a clear separation between news content and internal communication. Coverage of internal matters must be guided by public-interest journalism and not serve as self-justification or PR.

In principle, the same criteria apply as for reporting on other organisations and institutions: the crucial factors are newsworthiness and relevance.

Reporting on internal processes must be agreed with the senior editorial management. All publications or broadcasts about SBC are proofread and approved by a member of the editorial board or by a duty editor/daily editor.

Advertising and sponsorship clients as well as media partners do not receive preferential editorial treatment. Bookings and partnerships may not be linked to editorial conditions or influence over programme content. There must be strict separation of editorial content and commercial interests. Any form of influence by advertising or sponsorship partners on the choice of topics, tone or placement of editorial content is prohibited.

We only enter into media-, publishing- and event-partnerships if it can be ensured that they do not compromise independent reporting or the free choice of topics and access to topics.

SBC’s range of services includes comparing specific products in individual formats if such product or service comparisons are of interest and/or benefit to audiences. In doing so, we adhere to the principle of refraining from anything that could be interpreted as (indirect) advertising for these products. Product presentations or comparisons are not permitted in news and current affairs programmes.

Anyone who influences market competition through product-critical reports is subject to increased editorial standards (Federal Act on Unfair Competition UCA).

Product tests or comparisons must never give the impression of being linked to commercial interests; editorial independence always takes precedence.

We exercise the utmost restraint when mentioning brand names, for example in sports reporting or at cultural events. We refrain from verbally mentioning promotional add-ons.

Exceptions are necessary if there is a clear added value in terms of information for the audience or if the mention is necessary for comprehensibility. In these cases sponsors may be mentioned (e.g. mention of team or stadium names). This may also be the case if events have a long tradition or if the audience would not know what is being talked about without the addition. Whenever possible, we avoid conducting video interviews in front of logos or product images.

In interviews with or reports profiling company executives, it may be permissible to present them with the visible company logo in the background (e.g. in front of their company’s headquarters) for context. Special regulations apply to sports programmes and formats with sporting content.

We do not align ourselves with any cause, not even a good one. In line with this principle, the SBC does not collect donations itself. We do not call for participation in crowdfunding campaigns or link to fundraising campaigns either.

Exceptions are fundraising campaigns by Swiss Solidarity and other initiatives approved by the regional units.

When reporting on humanitarian initiatives or charitable organisations, this is done solely on the basis of a social or journalistic interest, not to support a campaign.

Stories about people profiled by the SBC may inspire some members of the public to make a donation to these individuals. However, for reasons of privacy protection, the SBC does not pass on the contact details of individuals featured in its programming to third parties. We record the contact details of those willing to donate and forward them to the individuals portrayed.

War, terror and violence, but also accidents and natural disasters, often lead to disturbing images and audio footage. When selecting and presenting such recordings, we are guided by the following principles:

It is not our job to provide a embellished picture of reality. Events that are shocking should be allowed to shock. An unflinching portrayal is often necessary to do justice to a situation. Sometimes such recordings are not only newsworthy, but also have a documentary character and are therefore important.  However, events involving the publication or broadcast of violent footage require a careful assessment of their relevance.

In all depictions of violence, we take care to respect the dignity of the victims and their families. Images and sounds must not be used to sensationalise events. Legal regulations must be taken into account (e.g. Art. 135 SCC and Art 4. para. 1 RTVA).

Accordingly, footage depicting violent scenes should not be shown for longer than necessary. We exercise the utmost restraint with regard to disturbing footage. Footage of dying people is not presented and deceased persons are not shown in a recognisable manner. Violent scenes are not repeated.

The SBC is also required by law to protect children and young people (see Art. 5 RTVA). Particular care must therefore be taken with programmes aimed at children and young people.

In the case of shocking or disturbing footage, users must be warned in advance by means of appropriate measures such as text passages, lead-ins or trigger warnings.

In the case of depictions of graphic violence or brutality, managers must be consulted.

Depictions of violence and other potentially problematic content – such as sexuality, drug use or self-harm – may also occur in fictional formats such as feature films and series, as well as in reports and documentaries. They are assessed in accordance with the Federal Act on the Protection of Minors in relation to Films and Video Games (PMFVA) and the associated industry guidelines.

The content is logged by the responsible editorial teams and youth protection officers of the regional units.

An age rating is published in the programme information. It influences the placement in the programme and, if applicable, the use on on-demand platforms.

Reporting on homicides, especially those within a family context, is handled with particular restraint and assessed on a case-by-case basis. We always respect the dignity of those affected and their relatives and avoid any form of sensationalism. In our news and current affairs reporting, we do not unnecessarily interview close relatives or neighbours and do not report rumours. Generally, we do not mention names or show photos of perpetrators or victims.

We do not report on suicides. Exceptions are possible:

• If the act was public (e.g. self-immolation in public)
• If the act was combined with other criminal offences (e.g. kidnapping)
• If the person is a public figure

We refrain from mentioning details about the nature of the suicide and do not show the location of the incident, such as the bridge from which someone jumped to their death.

Suicides may be discussed as part of a public debate (e.g. on euthanasia or suicides involving military service weapons kept at home). When reporting on suicides, reference should be made to psychological support services (e.g. La Main Tendue, Dargebotene Hand or Telefono Azzurro).

When reporting on accidents and disasters, we provide factual and accurate information. We take care not to spread unnecessary fear and panic (for example, among people whose relatives may be among the victims). We report with empathy and respect, without dramatising the suffering of those affected or exploiting it emotionally.

In the early stages of a disaster, contradictory and false information is often circulated. At this stage, it is particularly important to question facts and figures and to always include information on sources when disseminating them.

SBC editorial teams take care to ensure that relatives do not learn the names of victims from our content. We treat those who are grieving with respect and show images of relatives of victims only with the utmost sensitivity and restraint (no close-ups). In interviews with those affected or eyewitnesses, we take care to ask sensitive questions.

In the event of accidents and disasters, rescue measures for victims and those at risk take precedence over the public’s right to information. The physical and psychological integrity of those involved must be respected at all times, including that of emergency services personnel.

We also show accidents at sporting events as sensitively as possible and from a respectful distance. When reporting on serious accidents (involving fatalities), we do not use video footage, especially not in slow motion, but rather a still image or a series of still images. Exceptions must be approved by managers.

We do not publish or broadcast any statements in our programmes made by persons held hostage – possibly under duress.

On the one hand, the dignity of the hostages must be respected: no one should be portrayed in degrading conditions. Furthermore, hostages are not free to decide what they say and how they say it, but they are left to bear the consequences. On the other hand, by presenting such footage, we must not indirectly become accomplices to a crime.

We exercise the utmost restraint with regard to videos or audio footage of kidnappings. Broadcasting is only considered if the dignity of the kidnapped person is protected. In all cases, it must be approved by the responsible senior editorial management. Executions of kidnapped persons are not shown.

Special rules and regulations apply in the case of child abductions in Switzerland (see 7.8 Police appeal images and videos).

Since politically or religiously motivated terrorism primarily seeks to achieve a propaganda effect and rampage killers seek notoriety, the media are not merely observers but also actors in this field. We must therefore ensure that perpetrators are given as little opportunity as possible to draw attention to themselves and – in the eyes of fanatical individuals – even attain hero status. When depicting this type of violence, the guiding principle is “as much as necessary – as little as possible”.

The SBC therefore refrains from publishing images and names of attackers and rampage killers, unless they are leading figures in a network. The same applies to propaganda material or recorded video messages. The senior editorial management may allow exceptions.

Depictions or terms that could unintentionally promote fear, polarisation or social division have to be avoided. We take care to use objective, unemotional language and refrain from speculation.

Furthermore, care must be taken not to adopt the perpetrators’ wording and demands. For example, the phrase ‘claiming responsibility’ for an attack, which is regularly used in agency texts, must be avoided.

If the perpetrators’ wording is nevertheless adopted, it must be clearly identified and, if necessary, qualified. Terrorist groups often use legal terms to give the impression that they are acting in the name of justice (‘punishment’, ‘judgment’, ‘execution’, etc.).

Before publishing or broadcasting pieces or investigations that could affect national security, the senior editorial management must be consulted.

«The first casualty when war comes is truth.» In times of war, most reports come from sources that release them with a strategic objective. This also applies to reports that reach us via other media. It is therefore essential to check their content for plausibility, to declare the origin of information and to be clear and transparent about any uncertainty concerning the source. We avoid any language or images that could uncritically reinforce propaganda, regardless of which side it comes from.

Particular attention must be paid to the choice of words. Individual air strikes do not constitute a ‘war’. Conversely, linguistic trivialisation of acts of war must be avoided.

When it comes to embedded journalism, we exercise particular restraint and transparency. We only allow ourselves to be ’embedded’ and only participate in such missions if we cannot obtain the relevant information, images and audio in any other way. In other words, there must be genuine added value. We are also transparent about the conditions that led to the reporting in question (see 11.6 Gifts and invitations).

The safety of journalists takes precedence over editorial interests.

In more and more countries, the freedom of foreign media professionals is limited and they may even find themselves in danger. Visas and residence permits are rarely or no longer issued. Correspondents are monitored, threatened or expelled from the country, and sometimes even arrested. Those around them are also at risk, particularly their contacts, informants, interlocutors, translators and local helpers.

None of this should prevent us from reporting truthfully and critically on all issues we consider relevant. When portraying authoritarian systems, we take care not to unconsciously adopt the propaganda or narratives of such regimes. Sanctions such as the refusal of future visas must be accepted.

However, our top priority is to protect our journalists and their informants and colleagues on the ground. We always weigh up whether publishing certain content could endanger local employees and avoid information that could reveal their identity. This means that if necessary, interviewees must be anonymised; in exceptional cases, this also applies to reporters. For particularly sensitive topics, it may be advisable to report from the home editorial office rather than from correspondents in the country itself.

SBC journalists respect personal rights, in particular the privacy of individuals and personal information about them. We avoid any unnecessary exposure, sensationalist reporting or emotive portrayal of private matters. However, if there is an overriding public interest in a person, the violation of privacy may not be unlawful, as freedom of information and freedom of the media (see Art. 16 f. Cst) take precedence.

The threshold is lower for public officials, other public figures and celebrities: the more exposed a person is, the more intrusion into their privacy they must tolerate. However, the most intimate aspects of private life (e.g. sexuality, religion, health) are also particularly protected for this group of people.

In any case, managers must be informed if there is to be an intrusion into the protected area of privacy (duty to provide justification).

If this has not already been done in advance during the background interview, the interviewee must be provided with the following information (if known) before the interview:

• Where the interview will be published or broadcast and, if applicable, distributed
• The main thrust of the piece
• How the interview or quotes from it are likely to be integrated (see 9.6 Types of background interviews)

In the interests of transparency, the interviewee will be informed, on request, of what other positions – but not specifically which individuals – will be featured in the piece (if known at the time of gathering information for the piece).

It is essential that the interviewee is given the opportunity to comment on the key points. Media professionals should question the interviewee’s statements and opposing views should be put up for discussion.

The abridgement of interviews is subject to the usual journalistic rules of fairness. An interview should be shortened in such a way that critical viewers and listeners would consider the abridged version to be a fair summary of the longer version. The author should select the passages in which the interviewee expresses themselves most clearly on the central issue (best argument).

As a rule, it can be assumed that the interviewee is aware that only excerpts from the interview will be used. If the interviewee requests to be informed about the selected parts of the interview, this can be done in writing or by telephone. An interviewee has no right to be shown the entire piece in advance. Only in exceptional cases we can guarantee that the entire piece will be presented (for example, in the case of a particularly sensitive profile that requires a special relationship of trust). However, it is important to note that even in such cases, the interviewee cannot have a say on the text of the piece or the selection of quotes. These are non-negotiable. Authorised audio recordings and notes from interviews must be kept.

When adding text to interview questions retrospectively, the original question may be streamlined but not distorted. If significant new aspects arise between the interview and publication or broadcast date, the interviewee must be given the opportunity to comment again.

Upon request, the interviewee has the right to read their own quotes before publication and to find out in what context they will be published. When dealing with private individuals with no media experience, the possibility of authorising quotations must be actively pointed out. Interviews in Q&A form are submitted for authorisation (without title, lead and image). Factual errors or incorrect wording must be corrected. However, under no circumstances should entire questions be omitted or changes made that distort the meaning at the interviewee’s request.

Before an interview is published in written form, the conditions – for example, the rules for authorisation – must be agreed with the interviewee.

Spontaneous interviews, for example when leaving a conference room or after the arrival of a sports star at the finish line, are permissible with people who are accustomed to dealing with the media. However, the rule of best argument applies to spontaneous, on-the-spot interviews.

Special respect must be shown to children and people who are victims or witnesses of a traumatic event. No pressure must be exerted to obtain an interview or statement.

In principle, spontaneous, on-the-spot questioning is only permissible if all other forms of contact have failed. We only use this method if the context of the topic is absolutely clear to the interviewees.

Ringing the doorbell with a recording device or camera running is only permissible in cases of exceptional public interest – and if all other methods of interviewing have failed – and must be approved by the senior editorial management.

If no agreement can be reached on the use of interviews, interviewees may withdraw an interview. However, they cannot withdraw the information contained in the interview. In this case, we may quote the statement in indirect speech.

Deadlines must be respected when withdrawing an interview. Withdrawing an interview shortly before a planned broadcast (if the withdrawal jeopardises the broadcast of the report/programme) is abusive and does not have to be taken into account. Withdrawals must be justified; general or subsequent tactical withdrawals will not be accepted.

For media-savvy individuals such as politicians, managers, press spokespeople or celebrities, the right to withdraw an interview is restricted, especially if the interview was properly agreed on (topic, interview date, form of publication). However, statements that are obviously false may be withdrawn by media-savvy individuals.

The right to withdraw is also restricted in the case of larger-scale projects, such as a long-term documentary about a person’s career. Accordingly, before the start of the collaboration, these protagonists must be informed in detail about the scope of their participation and the restriction on withdrawing from such a project arising from the consent they have given. As justification, they are informed about the complexity of the project.

Being transparent with audiences is important: if the withdrawal of an interview influences the way something is presented, this should be disclosed where appropriate.

Anyone who is to be photographed or filmed in focus and filling the frame must give their consent. In practice, willingness to give an interview is sufficient consent. It is important to remember that personality rights may be infringed by the act of recording itself, not only by the subsequent broadcast.

People who clearly and voluntarily place themselves in the public eye (e.g. participants in a media conference or demonstration) and people who are recorded by chance or happen to be in the frame (e.g. passers-by in front of the Federal Palace) must accept being filmed or recorded without being asked.

Anyone making audio or video recordings of recognisable persons in places that are not readily accessible to the public must obtain their consent. SBC cameras and microphones must be clearly labelled.

When filming in front of a court, customs or police building, the faces of those involved must generally be made unrecognisable. Exceptions apply to public figures. In the courtroom, where filming is usually prohibited during proceedings, courtroom sketches are a suitable means of addressing the lack of visual material. Care must be taken to ensure that the drawings are not excessively lifelike and that the intended protection of privacy is maintained.

When photographing children or particularly vulnerable persons, the explicit consent of the parents, guardians or legal representatives is required.

Private homes and other places where individuals are staying or residing, such as hospitals, detention or rehabilitation facilities, enjoy special protection (see 6.1 Respect for privacy).

Audio and video recordings at private funeral services or religious services, shocking images of accident or disaster scenes, and recordings of persons incapable of acting (e.g. injured or sick persons) or incapable of judgement, constitute an invasion of privacy. If there is a public interest, details must be discussed in advance with the persons concerned, their relatives or those responsible.

We do not publish or broadcast images of deceased persons who are recognisable. Even if the relatives have given their consent, we respect the dignity of the deceased.

Exceptions apply to historical documents (e.g. photographs of a pope lying in state or images of a slain dictator).

Recordings made with hidden cameras in secret or private areas and secret audio recordings of non-public conversations, as well as their distribution, are generally prohibited under Art. 179bis ff. of the Swiss Criminal Code. Case law recognises that secret image and audio recordings may be justified if, among other things, there is an important public interest in the publication of a fact and this can only be proven with hidden recording devices.

Hidden image and sound recordings must always be discussed in advance with the relevant senior editorial management. Approval is only granted on a restrictive basis.

The broadcasting of visual and audio footage recorded secretly by media outlets abroad can also be legally problematic. The consent of the senior editorial management must therefore also be obtained in this case.

Whether and to what extent private websites, internet forums, social media and the like are to be regarded as public spaces is legally contentious.

According to the Federal Supreme Court, a statement is public if it can be perceived by an indefinite number of people or by a larger group of people who are not connected by personal relationships. Social media posts that are not specifically restricted to a limited audience are therefore public in the eyes of the Federal Supreme Court.

We are cautious about publishing such content. Whenever we use online content, we check whether its dissemination could violate personal rights, data protection or digital security.

If posts or videos produced by private individuals outside a professional context are republished, a careful weighing of interests between public benefit and potential stigmatisation must be carried out.  We exercise great restraint when publishing content that is likely to expose a person. There must be a clear public interest in publication.

Every person is presumed innocent until they have been found guilty by a legally enforceable judgment (see Art. 32 Cst). Defendants are therefore alleged perpetrators – for example, there is suspicion of fraud, but no fraud has been proven. Alternative wordings to ‘alleged perpetrator’ include suspect, arrestee or – depending on the stage of the proceedings – the accused. In the case of accused persons, it is important to note that the person concerned is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.

In the case of convicted persons who appeal to a higher court, the information ‘convicted in the first (or second) instance’ is important. If the accused denies the charge, this must be mentioned.

We attach great importance to the correct use of terminology in accordance with the principles of criminal procedure. The following terms apply in criminal proceedings:

• During the criminal investigation and court proceedings, the suspect is referred to as ‘the accused’ – and not, for example, ‘the murderer’ or ‘the fraudster’.
• If someone has been ‘detained’, he or she has not yet been ‘arrested’. Arrest can only be said to have taken place once an arrest warrant has been issued.
• If a person has been reported to the police, they are ‘reported’. They are only ‘charged’ after criminal charges have been brought by the competent authority.

Even after a final sentencing, the correct terms must be used. An accused person is then either ‘acquitted’ or ‘convicted’.

Prison or penitential sentences only exist in a historical context. Today, courts sentence offenders to either a ‘custodial sentence’, a ‘fine’, a ‘penalty’ or ‘community service’.

The SBC is cautious about naming offenders and victims. The fact that other media outlets have named the person does not in itself establish sufficient public notoriety to justify naming them.

The names of alleged perpetrators who are the subject of criminal proceedings and of victims of crimes or disasters are not disclosed as a matter of principle. The presumption of innocence (see Art. 32 Federal Constitution & 6.9 Presumption of innocence) and the protection of the victims’ privacy are important legal rights. The naming of names has a significant impact not only on the individuals named, but also on their relatives.

We generally refer to suspected or convicted offenders in such a way that they cannot be identified. Addresses or photographs of houses that could enable identification must not be published or broadcast.

Exceptions to the rule of withholding names and identities are possible:

• In cases of overriding public interest
• For people in the public eye, such as politicians, public officials and other celebrities whose names and images are widely known (the more prominent a person is, the more likely it is that the mention of their name is justified)
• If the name is already so well known that not mentioning it would cause confusion, or if it is used as a code name for a case (however, mentioning a person in other media does not automatically release us from our obligation to exercise restraint)
• If the person concerned agrees to the information being publicised (please note: we may have to protect those concerned from themselves)
• If the report only makes sense if the function or name is mentioned (for example, if the president of a road accident victims’ association causes an accident while intoxicated)

In the case of offences and crimes that occurred a long time ago and that have been atoned for, there is a fundamental right to be forgotten (see 13.4 Dealing with requests for deletion). This means that such offences should generally no longer be mentioned in connection with the person concerned.

In the case of offences, attacks and terrorist attacks, there is a high level of public interest in the background to the crime and the perpetrators. As with other topics, we want and need to report as accurately and transparently as possible. This includes mentioning the nationality of perpetrators and victims. In this way, we create transparency and prevent speculation, rumours or misinformation. Information about ethnicity or religion is mentioned if it is relevant to the offence.

Discrimination and incitement to hatred are punishable offences in Switzerland. When reporting on racism, we ensure that racist statements do not have a propaganda effect by incorporating them in context. Statements from the political opposition, victims or investigating authorities also provide a counterweight. In addition, we take care not to propagate racist symbols or slogans.

In order to publish a news item, we need a source that is unequivocally authorised, legitimate and verifiable. If we do not have this, the SBC in principle applies the double-source policy. This means that, as a rule, information cannot be published unless it can be verified by two independent sources.

An exception is made for unconfirmed reports of high relevance that are prominently featured on reputable online portals, in credible international media and on social media: in such cases, we may publish the information, provided that the source is credible and the news is plausible. At the same time, we must verify and follow up on the report in question (see 8 Dealing with artificial intelligence (AI)).

A second source is not necessary for printed interviews from credible sources.

Police and official communications published with a source reference do not usually require follow-up investigation either.

In the case of breaking news and rapidly developing and changing news situations, we place particularly high demands on source transparency. At the same time, particular caution is required when dealing with sources, images, video and audio material of all kinds (see 7.2 Fact-checking).

We only address rumours in justifiable exceptional cases. These must be truly important issues that attract a great deal of attention. We report on them objectively, briefly and with restraint. We consistently refer to our sources and point out in a clear and transparent way that these are rumours. We avoid speculation based on rumours.

As a general rule, the more difficult and unreliable the source, the more important it is to ensure transparency. Controversial facts must be presented as such. We only bypass the two-source rule with great caution and after critical reflection. These principles are important because false reports damage our credibility.

Particular caution is required with content that is disseminated via social media, private chats or platforms of unclear origin. We are clear and transparent about uncertainties or difficulties in investigation and the reliability of sources. Unconfirmed information is identified as such; sources must be authenticated and cross-verified.

With the increasing spread of digital content – including manipulated content, deep fakes and deliberately misleading representations – the clear distinction between verifiable facts and unverified information is becoming increasingly important. Fact-checking is a core task of journalism. It is therefore the responsibility of editorial teams to always scrutinise facts and question the credibility of sources. If doubts arise, fact-checking is necessary.

Fact-checking must be based on traceable, verifiable sources and must not convey any opinion or stance.

In order to understand the positions taken, it is important that contributors are not only named in their official capacity, but that any further interests are also transparently declared where necessary.

For politicians, for example, their board mandates or other offices in organisations or institutions may be relevant, depending on the topic. In the case of judges, party affiliation may be mentioned if their worldview is significant in the proceedings (for example: which members of the Federal Supreme Court ruled that naturalisation decisions by ballot box vote contravene the Federal Constitution?).

The same applies to experts from politics, business, science, culture and sports: they help us to explain events or facts. However, their assessments are also linked to evaluations and sometimes to tangible interests, which we must disclose (for example, a financial expert whose bank has close business ties to the company being analysed, or a scientist whose research is funded by an interest group). This disclosure should be adapted to the relevant vector (e.g. lead-in on the radio, info box in the app).

Source transparency also means that we do not provide any dishonest information about the whereabouts of our reporters (reporters, correspondents, etc.) in our content. For example, if our Middle East correspondent is commenting on current events in Israel from Zurich, we must be transparent about this.

In audio reports or journalistic pieces, the audience assumes that the ambient sounds used were also recorded on site. We therefore do not use archive ambient sounds that originate from elsewhere (e.g. bells ringing from Bern Minster in a report from Cologne Cathedral). If it is absolutely necessary to use archive ambient audio material, the sounds in question must be identified as such.

The requirement for source transparency also applies to visual and audio recordings.

Agency images (videos or photos from EBU, AP, Keystone-ATS, etc.) need to be labelled in line with contractual agreements with the agencies. In principle: videos should be labelled if technically possible and/or sensible; photos must be labelled. This applies to TV, web/app and social media. It makes sense to mention the source when it is part of the news or when the material is exclusive and usually cannot be verified.

Material provided by the public must be identified as such.

Staged audio-visual elements that do not influence the content of the message do not need to be declared. However, staged elements that are relevant to the content must be identified (‘re-enacted scene’ or ‘symbolic images’). Staged elements are also possible in radio pieces. As a general rule, a staged presentation must not distort any key factual elements.

Archive material must also be labelled: for audio sources, the information necessary for understanding (date, place, circumstances, etc.) must be declared. Images from the previous day are labelled with ‘yesterday’; images from further back in time are labelled with the exact date where possible and otherwise with ‘archive’.

Before webcam feeds are integrated into SBC’s online platforms, checks must be carried out to ensure they are operated in compliance with data protection regulations (see Art. 3 ff., Federal Act on Data Protection FADP).

The requirement for transparency also applies in journalistic formats to pseudo-live situations and staged elements.

There are no pseudo-live broadcasts in SBC formats. Pre-recorded interviews or conversations in a programme are never presented as if they are taking place live. Pieces that are formally live in nature but are clearly announced as recordings (e.g. “Before the programme, I spoke to our correspondent”) are not a problem.

If re-enacting scenes (e.g. with actors) is unavoidable in reports or documentaries, this must be transparently communicated or be clearly recognisable to the audience. Such staged elements are only permissible if the events actually took place.

If reconstructed scenes are used in reports for security reasons, it must be clearly explained in the image, credits or accompanying text which parts have been reconstructed.

When using algorithms and/or artificial intelligence in our journalistic output, we adhere to the principles defined in Chapter 8, Dealing with Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Symbolic images are used to illustrate general contexts of meaning or action (e.g. elderly people for the topic of OASI, an operation for the topic of health). Care must be taken not to fall into stereotypes (for example, not every pensioner has white hair and walks with a walking frame). We also avoid unnecessary stereotypes (e.g. high heels for female managers).

The principle of diversity also applies to the selection of symbolic images: we ensure that different age groups, genders, cultural backgrounds and lived realities are represented.

Symbolic images must not evoke discriminatory or culturally insensitive associations, especially when it comes to topics such as religion, migration or gender.

When using symbolic images, care must be taken to ensure that no association with specific persons or events is possible. It is important to check that the images are truly symbolic in nature or whether they also convey an (unintended) concrete message. For example: a segment about sexual misconduct by teachers is illustrated with archive footage of school buildings, and it is stated that teachers committed serious offences behind these façades. The residents of village X will recognise their own village school building. For them, the symbolic image conveys a specific message.

Purely symbolic images that do not depict an event (e.g. aerial photos of the Federal Palace, piggyback train on the Gotthard ramp) do not need to be identified. For AI-generated symbolic images, the rules in section 8 (and the associated instructions) apply.

The police and law enforcement agencies occasionally post images of wanted or unidentified persons on the internet. We do not broadcast or publish such images or videos, because images shown by the SBC have a much greater denunciatory effect than if the police publish them on their own website.

Exceptions may be made in cases where suspected violent offenders who pose a threat to the public are being sought.

Assistance is also useful in cases of kidnapping, which may be solved with our support. The SBC is a partner organisation of the Federal Office of Police fedpol’s kidnapping alert system. In the event of a kidnapping, we are obliged to assist the authorities in their search. The procedure, responsibilities and formal and content-related details are regulated in special guidelines.

If police appeal images or videos are to be made public or if the authorities trigger the kidnapping alert, the senior editorial management must be informed.

In some of our content offerings, we ask users and the public to send us images, videos or audio recordings that we can use in our output. This form of user-generated content requires particular care:  the source and the facts must be verified, if possible through personal contact.

Where possible, this content should also be checked for possible manipulation and any violations of copyright and/or privacy laws. If verification is not possible within a reasonable period of time, we are obliged to provide additional transparency (for example: “These recordings by eyewitnesses were made with a mobile phone camera and allegedly show the bombers”).

In the case of pieces that document sensitive events (e.g. violence, disasters, accidents), we also check the authenticity and consent of the persons depicted before using the material.

User-generated content must be clearly labelled as such when published. User-generated content must never replace editorial fact-checking: journalistic responsibility always remains with the SBC.

User-generated content is not usually remunerated. Remuneration may only be paid in justified cases. This is based on the standard rates for the industry (see 9.2 No purchase of information).

As a technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to facilitate journalistic work and can thus help to improve our journalistic output. When we use AI, we always ensure that our journalistic credibility is not compromised.

The use of AI places increased demands on us. We meet these demands in a responsible and transparent manner. The standards and values defined in the Editorial Guidelines also apply to the use of AI.

Developments in the field of AI are dynamic, and the general framework and regulations are changing rapidly. The specific regulations on the use of AI tools are set out in the continuously updated AI guidelines. They should therefore be consulted regularly – and whenever there is any uncertainty. We also bear editorial responsibility for content that has been researched, created or edited with the aid of AI.

We are particularly cautious when using generative AI tools, as the output often appears correct but may contain false information. Source checking and fact checking are therefore essential. AI-generated output must also always be checked, verified and supplemented with our own expertise on the basis of journalistic criteria. This also includes checking the output for possible bias.

No unfair methods may be used to obtain data, news, information material, sounds or images. When gathering information, SBC journalists adhere to the principles of impartiality and truthfulness.

Impartiality does not mean abandoning a working hypothesis. It is permissible, and often advisable for the sake of focus, to begin an investigation with a hypothesis. Ultimately, however, only the facts determine whether a construct holds up or not. At the beginning of an investigation, it must remain open whether a hypothesis can be verified or falsified.

Journalists and editorial teams at the SBC do not engage in chequebook journalism.

They do not buy information from anyone in exchange for money. It is prohibited to pay for sensitive documents that may have been obtained illegally. Compensation for expenses and/or time spent by informants is permissible. All payments – including for any other (legal) assistance provided to SBC employees working in journalism – require prior approval by the senior editorial management or departmental management. In addition, receipts or supporting documents must be provided for these payments.

Persons who are already paid for their information and interviews do not receive any fees (e.g. media representatives, employees of a company or public authority, think tank staff, professors at Swiss universities). Payment for appearances on SBC programmes is covered by separate provisions. In consultation with managers, compensation may be paid for material (video and audio recordings, graphics, etc.) used in our content. The amount should be based on the recommended prices for programme purchases. In case of doubt, the responsible senior editorial management or department head should be consulted.

At the beginning of a background interview, journalists must clearly introduce themselves to the interviewees as SBC employees. They must state their role and outline their project (main focus, medium in which it is to be published).

Self-identification is not necessary for generally accessible information (e.g. evaluation of an advertised travel offer or a restaurant, visit to an exhibition).

When gathering information on social media, online forums or chat rooms (see 11.9 Private activities on the internet), the self-identification requirement only applies if journalists take an active role and, for example, steer a discussion in a certain direction. Anyone who conceals their identity violates the principles of fairness and transparency. In forums where it is customary for participants to remain anonymous, SBC employees may also do so.

Undercover investigations are only permitted in exceptional cases, namely when a topic is of high public interest and the information cannot be obtained by other means. Undercover investigations must be approved in advance by the senior editorial management. This also applies to employees who, in exceptional cases, travel to a country as tourists or under a different status because visas for journalists are refused for a long period of time and without acceptable reasons.

Interviewees must always be told if conversations by telephone or online are being recorded: secret recordings are punishable by law (see Art. 179ter Swiss Criminal Code). An unauthorised tape recording of a background interview can rarely be used as evidence in a dispute. For this reason, we obtain the consent of the participants at the beginning of the conversation or, alternatively, make notes. If necessary, a colleague may be involved to listen in. If this person listens in on the conversation, the interviewee must be informed. The more controversial the facts, the better they must be substantiated.

In sensitive cases, we provide the interviewee with a written summary. This applies in particular to statements made over the phone that are summarised in the piece.

Secret recordings provided by third parties are not used either. Exceptions must be approved by the senior editorial management (e.g. Ibiza video).

There are different types of background interviews – from highly official to extremely confidential. It is therefore important to agree before the interview on the publication or confidentiality level to which the content of the interview is subject. It should be noted that not everyone understands the technical terms we use in the same way.

Unless an exception has been expressly agreed, our sources speak ‘on the record’. This means that their statements can be used with their name and position mentioned.

If the source wishes and there are plausible reasons, it is possible to speak to them ‘off the record’ in exceptional cases (see 9.7 Assurance of anonymity): the content of their statements will be published, but their name will not be mentioned and their position will only be described in summary form (e.g. ‘a senior official at the Department of Justice’).

The third possible option is a confidential background interview, which is conducted ‘strictly off the record’ or ‘on background’. The statements made are used exclusively as background information for journalists. They are not quoted either directly or indirectly and are therefore not used publicly.

If a source is used ‘off the record’, managers may request disclosure in order to assess the authenticity of the information.

Anyone who knowingly speaks to journalists in a professional context and without express reservation is making a public statement. This means that this person cannot subsequently withdraw the entire content of a conversation. This applies in particular to media-savvy individuals. Journalists may quote these individuals in indirect speech (see 6.5 Withdrawal of interviews).

The rule of the best argument applies to quotes: the arguments that are most important from the interviewee’s point of view must be used.

As a rule, all persons appear in SBC publications under their real names (for exceptions, see 6.10 Naming names in criminal proceedings).

In exceptional cases, requests for anonymity may be granted. This is subject to the condition that the request for anonymity is based on a legitimate interest (e.g. informants from Afghanistan who fear the Taliban regime). There must also be significant public interest in what a source who wishes to remain anonymous has to say. In any case, the quality of the statement must be verifiable (second source). In addition, the persons affected or accused by the anonymous statement must have the opportunity to express themselves appropriately. Anonymous statements made on camera, on the microphone or in a written interview must be agreed with the supervisor and the senior editorial management. Transparency and openness are particularly important in political and social controversies. Masking and voice anonymisation (e.g. voice distortion, dubbed statements) are only used in justified exceptional cases.

In special cases, it makes sense for the editorial team to anonymise individuals for their own protection, even if they wish to appear openly. When using anonymous statements from third-party journalistic sources, SBC employees must verify their authenticity as far as possible.

Guaranteed anonymity must be ensured under all circumstances (see 9.10 Editorial secrecy, refusal to testify).

Employees must disclose their anonymous sources to their managers. Anonymous appearances by individuals, especially in connection with political actions or demonstrations, must be approved by the senior editorial management.

When gathering information, particular sensitivity is required when dealing with vulnerable persons. This applies in particular to people who are not in full possession of their mental or physical faculties at the time of the encounter or who are in a state of extreme emotional distress. It also applies in principle to children and young people. Children are more easily influenced than adults. Their judgement is not yet fully developed. They are unable to fully assess the consequences of putting themselves in the spotlight. Children often find it difficult to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They are therefore generally not suitable as witnesses. Because they are easily influenced, leading questions are prohibited. We do not use statements that could have negative consequences for a child. In case of doubt, we decide in favour of protecting the child.

Photographs of and interviews involving children require the consent of the parents (or both parents in cases of joint custody) or legal guardians.

As the boundary between children and young people is fluid, the rules listed above must also be taken into account when interviewing young people.

However, we may interview young people on topics on which they are capable of making judgements – usually those that directly affect them and their everyday lives (e.g. street surveys of young people about their leisure activities).

Eyewitnesses play an important role in investigating and reporting on extraordinary events (accidents, crimes, disasters, etc.). However, they are often in a state of emotional shock because of what they have witnessed. This applies in particular to relatives of victims. The audience should be able to assess the significance of a witness’s statement. That is why we always scrutinise the credibility of eyewitnesses and the plausibility of their statements.

When investigating a story, we often deal with sources who wish to remain anonymous. We protect our informants and do not disclose the sources of confidential information, even to law enforcement agencies (police, public prosecutors, courts, etc.). This right to refuse to testify is granted to us by law. Raw interview material is not handed over to the investigating authorities either.

Exceptions are made in connection with serious crimes or when people’s lives are at risk. In such cases, instructions from the criminal justice authorities are taken into account – in consultation with the senior editorial management and the respective department heads.

SBC’s journalism serves as a role model. Anyone who appears on the microphone or in front of a camera does so not as a private individual, but in a professional capacity. The standards of comprehensibility, correctness and articulation are therefore high.

The language must be immediately understandable. Instead of complex constructions, we prefer to use short sentences. We avoid nominalisations, participle-heavy constructions and foreign terms wherever possible.

The manner of speaking should be natural and not distract from the content. SBC journalists are not required to use stage language. A slight regional colouring in pronunciation is acceptable. A foreign accent may also be slightly audible, provided it is not so strong that it distracts from the content.

Language cultivation also includes the correct pronunciation of names. For names from languages that are not widely spoken in Switzerland, we also take into account what is customary in other important media and thus familiar to audiences.

The form of address used (informal or formal) is adapted to regional or format-specific requirements.

The SBC attaches great importance to correct spelling, style and grammar. When formulating news and news reports, we adhere to the basic rules of news journalism. Specifically Swiss words or phrases (helvetisms) are permitted.

Pieces that are translated into another language should be readable in the target language as if they were original texts. Additional explanations or clarifications are often necessary to make the adaptation easier to understand.

Interviews and discussions can take various forms and serve different purposes. However, discussions must always be well prepared and conducted in a professional manner.

In news programmes, conversations should be avoided in which the journalist is clearly ‘on unfamiliar ground’ and is therefore unable to ask critical questions or contradict false claims.

Exceptions apply in breaking news situations.

An interview must have a clear objective. The questioning should be based on the audience’s level of knowledge, not on that of the person asking the questions.

Many interviews are edited, so that often only individual quotes are used. We take care to use the best argument of each interviewee.

The necessary edits do not release us from our obligation to conduct a coherent, logical conversation with the interviewees and to be well-versed in the subject matter. Live broadcasts pose particular challenges: presenters must ensure that the discussion remains objective and fair at all times.

The presenter must correct any non-objective or unsubstantiated statements or false claims – or at least mention the opposing positions. Where accusations or allegations are made against third parties, the accused must be given a right of reply. If they are not available, the presenter must mention their position or presumed position.

Particularly in polarising debates, we ensure that discussions are conducted in a respectful manner and that time allotted for speaking is distributed evenly. The presenter ensures that all participants respect the established rules and that the discussion proceeds in an atmosphere of dignity and fairness.

Electronic and digital media must react quickly to new developments. However, speed is not an end in itself. “Be first. But first be right”: this principle applies especially to breaking news and in hectic situations. Combining journalistic instinct and critical reflection prevents mistakes and loss of audience trust.

If reports that do not meet our verification principles are circulated in important quality media and/or very widely shared on social media, we can refer to it. However, we consistently make it clear that this is unconfirmed information and, wherever possible, mention the sources from which it originates and who is circulating or sharing it. Rumours also have a significant impact on the flow of news today – and often even on political and economic decisions. We, too, often cannot simply ignore them. However, they must be clearly presented as such. We also only pick up on rumours if they concern relevant topics (e.g. the death of a prominent politician, a new military offensive, the resignation of a CEO).

For more on breaking news and dealing with rumours, see also 7.1 Source verification.

The media are part of society, which we seek to reflect in all its diversity. When social changes influence language, we address these changes and adopt a ‘moderate and contemporary’ style of expression. We do not perpetuate discriminatory stereotypes in images and audio, strive for non-discriminatory, gender-neutral and inclusive language, and respect equality, diversity and minorities.

Our spoken and written language should be engaging and creative, with varied formulations and terminology. We tailor the specific variants we use to the respective channels, target groups and regional circumstances.

In addition, we ensure linguistic and visual sensitivity in our portrayal of people with disabilities and barrier-free, accessible communication in our content (e.g. subtitling, audio description, simple language).

Hosts of SBC formats in the digital space face the challenge of having to act in a platform-appropriate way – punchy, personal, emotional, assertive, concise – in order to reach an audience at all. On the other hand, factual accuracy, diversity and independence form the foundation of our journalistic work.

Key here is our editorial ethos. The aim is to practise journalism with clear set of values without becoming one-sided. Our editorial ethos forms the basis of our reporting. It goes deeper than approach and opinion and is shaped by experience. In concrete terms, it means:

• Approaching matters and phenomena with an open mind
• Venturing into new situations in a spirit of self-discovery and exploration
• Gaining orientation by asking questions
• Remaining impartial or revealing bias or prejudice

Transparency is also part of our ethos: our hosts say where they get their information from, how they proceed, what their sources are and what they don’t know. We are also fair and we represent a broad range of views. However, this does not mean that everyone gets the same amount of airtime. It is our journalistic duty to weigh up and select. We also justify this in a clear and transparent manner. Our editorial ethos is not judgemental, but it may involve critical assessment. When hosts draw conclusions or offer an assessment, this must be clearly argued and coherently justified.

But no matter how committed and ‘close to the story’ hosts may be, they are neither speaking in a private capacity nor lacking professional distance, but always professional – as befits their role and their public service remit (see Section 1.3 Distance, emotions, proximity and ethos).

Like all citizens, journalists have the right to freedom of expression. However, this right is partially restricted for SBC employees. SBC journalists are, in a sense, ‘public figures’. This means that their behaviour is directly associated with SBC. Employment with the public service media organisation therefore entails a special obligation to be impartial and transparent. People in Switzerland must be able to rely on editorial decisions being made solely on the basis of comprehensible journalistic considerations – and not on the basis of external influences, private opinions or personal connections. We must therefore avoid conflicts of interest and any appearance of bias.

If there is a risk that ties to particular interests could influence our journalistic work, we recuse ourselves. This rule also applies if there is even the slightest appearance of bias. SBC employees disclose any conflicts of interest that could be relevant to their professional activities to their line managers. Employees are responsible for providing this information. The duty to disclose applies to all genres and departments.

Ties to particular interests should always be discussed when a new employee joins the company. However, the duty to disclose also applies if changes occur during the period of employment or if employees are assigned tasks whose fulfilment causes a conflict of interests. In such cases, supervisors may order the employee to recuse themselves.

Information about conflicts of interest may only be disclosed to third parties with the consent of the individuals concerned.

SBC employees have the right to belong to a party or association, club or federation, and under certain conditions to hold or apply for public office. They must inform their line manager of their memberships and, before applying for any position, clarify whether the office is compatible with their employment at the SBC (duty to disclose). In justified cases, the departmental management or senior editorial management may order recusal measures or determine that an office is incompatible with the professional activities, reputation and independence of SBC. As a general rule, the closer an office or mandate is to SBC reporting, the more likely it is that it should be declined. In any case, offices and mandates in the field of one’s own journalistic activity are exempt from this rule.

Positions in local institutions (e.g. membership of the executive of a small municipality or a school board) are usually unproblematic. The same applies in a family context, for example to a mandate in a family-owned public limited company. Consent cannot be refused if employees are required by an authority to accept a public office. Nevertheless, such commitments are also subject to the reporting obligation.

Editorial staff and those engaged in journalistic work may be ordinary members of political, economic, cultural, sporting or religious associations (parties, clubs, federations, etc.). However, they must maintain their impartiality and refrain from accepting mandates (parliamentary mandates, executive offices, representative functions, board mandates, advisory activities, advertising campaigns, etc.).

Engagements and mandates in professional journalism associations or in organisations committed to freedom of expression and media freedom are permitted. For officials, SBC recusal rules apply to reporting (see 11.4 Recusal rules).

Editorial staff and those engaged in journalism at the SBC do not participate in public campaigns with political objectives. They maintain their distance from interest groups and causes and avoid making political statements in public (see 11.9 Private activities on the internet).

The following political activities are fundamentally incompatible with our journalistic work:

• Acting as an initial signatory to initiatives and referendums (simple signing of initiatives, referendums and petitions is permitted)
• Membership of committees for initiatives and referendums
• Signing testimonials or public appeals in election and referendum campaigns
• Playing an active role in political and ideological campaigns
• Participation in surveys/enquiries by other media on current, controversial political issues (exceptions are approved by the senior editorial management)

The general principle is that we do not align ourselves with any cause, not even a good one.

External employees are not permitted to comment on politically or socially sensitive issues either.

SBC contributors, presenters and hosts do not report on people close to them, in particular family members and friends.

Personal interests are particularly sensitive in political and economic matters. However, recusal rules also apply to personal relationships and interests in the fields of culture, sport, science and entertainment.

They also apply to former employers, commitments, sponsorship partnerships, marketing agencies, institutions, industries, associations, publishers, event organisers and influencers with whom there is a personal connection.

SBC employees must avoid any appearance of bias. As a general rule, SBC employees should avoid reporting on people and topics with whom they have or had a personal connection. They must be transparent about their interests to their managers and recuse themselves (see 11.1 Disclosure of personal interests).

Exceptions to the recusal rule must be justified on objective grounds and approved by managers.

SBC journalists commit to not using insider information obtained in the course of their professional activities for their own benefit or to pass it on to third parties in any form.

Editorial staff and those engaged in journalism at SBC may not report on companies in which they directly own shares or other securities or from which they derive a direct benefit.

Managers with supervisory authority must report economic conflicts of interest to their superiors and recuse themselves from decisions that affect these interests.

SBC employees with journalistic responsibilities must, if there are concrete doubts about their independence, disclose their investment accounts to an independent trustee at the request of their management.

Gifts and perks can lead to loyalty and gratitude: SBC employees therefore do not accept any gifts that could compromise their professional independence and credibility. In principle, we maintain professional distance from people, events and companies. We avoid any appearance of bias.

We therefore do not accept invitations to trips, excursions and stays that are offered to us free of charge or at reduced rates. If an invitation gives us access that would otherwise be denied to us, but which we would like to use for important journalistic reasons, we cover the costs ourselves.

Gifts may be accepted if they are small tokens of appreciation that would be rude or disproportionate to refuse. In general, the value of gifts in kind and services should not exceed 100 Swiss francs. The acceptance of cash is prohibited in all cases. (See also the document ‘Corruption prevention at SBC – Guidelines on the acceptance and granting of gifts and other benefits (SBC anti-corruption guidelines’)).

Services from third parties, such as invitations to premieres and other social events, may be accepted with the consent of the line manager. Anyone who is placed on guest lists on a long-term basis must also obtain the approval of their manager.

We only mention services, restaurants, hotels, sponsors, events, hashtags, posts, etc. in our content if this is journalistically necessary and justifiable (see also 4.12 Mentioning brand names and 11.9 Private activities on the internet).

If third parties wish to support SBC’s programmes with goods or services, the sponsorship managers and departmental management must be involved.

Secondary and non-professional activities (‘secondary employment’) must not damage the reputation of the SBC and are subject to authorisation. All employees have a duty of loyalty to their employer, the SBC: activities outside of SBC must not give the impression that an employee’s independence or impartiality is being compromised. Activities that are closely related to the employee’s role at the SBC (e.g. podcast production for other media companies or SBC employees hosting corporate events) are particularly sensitive.

Participation in advertising – in particular through advertising, sponsorship appearances or promotional social media posts, whether remunerated or not – is incompatible with journalistic work at SBC. The same applies to participation in campaigns, whether as a testimonial or in any other active form. Advertising and commercial appearances as well as participation in campaigns are prohibited for SBC managers and all SBC employees working in journalism.

Moderating panel discussions, debates or online discussions is considered a secondary journalistic activity and must be approved by line managers.

Prior to elections and votes, the approval process is very restrictive. Hosting a panel discussion or virtual debate for a single party or interest group is not permitted. Chairing discussion events organised by former personal sponsors, for example in the field of sport, is not permitted either. However, hosting discussions in a specific field in which the SBC employee has particular expertise and if the key viewpoints on the topic are represented (in a balanced manner) on the panel is possible.

Leading discussions and hosting events, symposia or specialist conferences is only permitted on condition that SBC employees can maintain their journalistic role. In specific terms this means that topics are 1) openly and robustly debated and 2) the moderation or discussion is conducted without instruction from the organiser.

In order to avoid any appearance of bias in their journalistic work, SBC employees must demonstrate objectivity and professional distance from the organiser when appearing at events. Although employees are usually hired for events because of their SBC profile and expertise, they must make it clear that they are participating as private individuals and therefore do not represent the official position of the SBC.

The internet and social media offer excellent opportunities to showcase one’s work to a wide audience and engage with users. Anyone who uses digital platforms as an SBC employee inevitably exposes themselves, as their private and professional activities become intertwined in the eyes of other users. It makes no difference how many followers an account has, or whether it is private. If employees working in editorial or journalistic roles give the impression in their posts that they are biased on a particular issue, they raise doubts about the independence and impartiality of SBC reporting and thus jeopardise the SBC’s editorial independence.

Depending on their role at SBC (two circles, see below), employees and managers have an increased duty of care when it comes to their activities in the digital space. The following questions need to be considered: What is an expression of my personality vs. what makes me dependent or vulnerable? Where does my personal enthusiasm end and advertising or even partisanship begin? When am I part of an ideological campaign?

Anyone at SBC who has influence over journalistic content must maintain a critical distance. SBC’s journalistic principles also apply to private social media activities. This applies in particular to any groups whose demands are fundamentally political, economic or social in nature. In particular, election and voting recommendations are not permitted.

Particular restraint is required in one’s own journalistic field, be it in the areas of news and current affairs, culture, sport or entertainment.

The more influence employees have on SBC’s journalistic output, the more explicitly the principles described above apply.

We therefore distinguish between two groups of employees:

Group 1 – Employees and managers who have any form of influence on the content, design and/or presentation of SBC’s editorial output. This also includes all employees and managers who represent the organisation in public, in particular members of the Executive Board and company spokespersons.

Group 2 – All other employees and managers who have no influence on SBC’s editorial output and are not perceived by the public as representing SBC.

For Group 1, the above principles and restrictions for private activities on the internet apply in full.
The restrictions do not apply to employees in Group 2. However, as SBC employees, they are aware that they are perceived as part of the company and that their activities may therefore be associated with the SBC. They are aware of the importance of editorial independence and may voluntarily adhere to the principles of diligence and critical distance set out above.

The final editorial review of our products is part of our editorial quality assurance process.

Whenever possible, all published content (texts, posts, moderation, video and audio, etc.) is approved by a responsible member of the editorial team. The person who approves a piece assumes joint responsibility for any recognisable errors and violations of standards. If conventional approval is not possible, we apply the dual control principle (cross-checking by another team member). In case of uncertainty, it is advisable to consult the next level of management.

Special rules apply to conversations in live broadcasts (see 10.2 Asking informed questions).

For productions that have been translated from another language, the approval must also be carried out by a linguistically competent person in order to avoid misunderstandings or translation errors.

Editors may shorten, supplement or reword texts and reports written by their employees. Where possible, the author should be consulted when changes are made.

Care must be taken to ensure that no errors creep into the content when changes are made, especially when translating or shortening statements in presentations, headlines, titles, trailers or press announcements. Abbreviations must not violate any agreements made with contributors. The best argument principle must be followed.

Editorial responsibility must also be ruled when our published content is used across multiple channels or platforms.

When content from one (primary) channel is adapted for publication on other channels, particular editorial care must be taken with regard to titles, headlines, introductions, leads, abridgements and additions. Clear agreements and rules are therefore needed between teams, authors and content recipients. In the case of sensitive topics, the author of the ‘original product’ should be contacted before the adaptation is published, if possible. In the case of time-critical publications where this is not possible, increased editorial standards apply to the author and the person approving the product.

When content is reused across language regions, the content itself but also the cultural and linguistic contexts must be carefully reviewed. Translations and adaptations must not alter the editorial message.

SBC journalists have access to material provided by others within the organisation. Published material is generally available to everyone, unless restrictions are specifically noted. Raw journalistic material may only be used after consultation with the author or the responsible editorial team.

Before using third-party material, any restrictions must be taken note of, for example restrictions due to privacy protection or copyright.

It is often difficult to assess whether freely accessible material (especially online) is protected by copyright or not. We may only use copyright-protected material without the consent of the author in exceptional cases: namely, when it is used in the context of a quotation or for the purpose of news reporting. The relevant requirements are defined by law and must be taken into account.

Material sourced from users or third-party platforms (e.g. social media, online archives, international partners) must be credited visually or in text. Where possible, the origin, date and context of the material must be verified (see 7.1 Source verification).

SBC journalists strive to lead the way when it comes to reporting on important events.

Conversely, we respect exclusive reports by colleagues from other media companies and mention them accordingly (e.g. “As reported by the NZZ in today’s edition …”).

The newsroom and the editorial teams of SBC news programmes are informed as early as possible about our own first-publication material, exclusive stories and interviews. This ensures optimal planning of a story’s lifecycle, i.e. a skilfully staggered publication of the topic across all SBC channels. Similarly, in case of high-profile exclusive reports, the Communications department must be informed in advance of publication.

In the case of exclusive investigations (e.g. international collaborations, or security or economic policy topics), coordination is required among all relevant editorial teams. The first publication is determined jointly in order to avoid duplication or internal competition.

The right of reply allows a person whose personality rights are directly affected by a matter to present their view (see Art. 28g Swiss Civil Code). If a right of reply statement is published, it remains open to the public as to who is right.

The right of reply statement must refer to statements of fact and be written in a concise form. If a request for a right of reply is made, it must be submitted to the legal department without delay so that it can assess the legal requirements.

Most published replies can be avoided if the criticised parties are given sufficient opportunity to respond in the piece.

If the requirements for a right of reply statement are met, it is usually placed in the same position in the next edition of the same format or published in the corresponding online publication. The reply statement must be identified as such. In a published reply, the editorial team may note that it sticks to its own version of events.

Anyone can submit a complaint to the Ombudsperson’s Office within 20 days of the publication of a piece. The Ombudsperson’s Office must complete its final report within 40 days.

After the proceedings before the Ombudsperson, the person who submitted the complaint may lodge an appeal with the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (ICA). The SBC can always refer an ICA decision to the Federal Supreme Court. However, complainants can only do so if they were directly affected by the published content in question.

If the ICA finds that the SBC has violated the legal provisions governing programme content or if the Federal Supreme Court confirms that a violation of such legal provisions has occurred, SBC shall refer briefly and objectively to the reasoned decision.

The following applies to all SBC units: if a decision by the ombudsman’s office or the the ICA is published, it must also be made available through internal channels so that lessons can be learned from mistakes.

If a person can convince a court that the imminent broadcast of a report violates their rights and causes them ‘a particularly serious disadvantage’, they can have the broadcast prohibited by means of an interim measure – in urgent cases, even without hearing the editorial team and at very short notice by means of a super-provisional injunction (see Art. 261 ff., in particular 265 and 266 Civil Procedure Code).

If such a measure is announced or issued, the senior editorial management or those responsible for the programme must be informed immediately. Where a ban is foreseeable, the legal department must be consulted at an early stage.

If a court has issued a super-provisional injunction against the broadcast of a report, we must comply with it. Deliberate disregard of the ban can only be considered in extreme cases.

In any case, it must be approved by the department management or the senior editorial management.

SBC’s online content is permanently available. This digital archive is in the public interest: according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the right to freely form opinions also includes the right to research past events.

The SBC is repeatedly confronted with requests from individuals who demand the deletion of older online content concerning them. The SBC adopts a deliberately restrictive approach to such requests, as it attaches greater weight to the public interest in the archival function of its online content than to the individual protection of privacy. According to the ECHR, the media also fulfil their role by keeping older online pieces available to interested media users. Anonymising an online piece is possible, but remains an exception.

To do so, the editorial team must consult the legal department, which assesses each case individually and decides on the request together with the relevant senior editorial management or department head.

If we anonymise a piece in exceptional cases, we make this transparent online and note this accordingly in the archive to prevent reuse.

For pieces published on third-party platforms (e.g. YouTube, Spotify, social media), appropriate measures (e.g. blocking, obscuring, explanatory text) must also be taken where possible.

The SBC supports its employees if they come into conflict with the law in the course of their professional activities and provides them with legal assistance.

If charges are brought against editors or legal proceedings are initiated, the department management or senior editorial management must be notified immediately.

Legal protection is not granted in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

The law also sets limits on journalistic newsgathering and publication: if an investigation or publication could have criminal consequences (e.g. trespassing), the department management or the senior editorial management must be involved.

Under the Radio and Television Act, the SBC is required to retain published content, in some cases for up to four months from the date of publication or broadcast. This retention requirement also applies to all raw journalistic material (including newsgathering documents, unedited interview recordings, etc.).

Raw journalistic materials and documents relating to pieces that are controversial or have the potential for legal disputes must be retained for longer in the organisation’s own interest.

For example, anyone wishing to bring proceedings before the Press Council can do so up to three months from the date of publication. For civil claims, longer time limits may apply, depending on the specific claim being asserted. If proceedings are actually initiated (ombudsperson, ICA, Press Council, OFCOM supervisory proceedings, criminal law, civil law, etc.), all documents must be retained until the end of the proceedings.

The author is responsible for retaining and securing the data material.

For sensitive data (e.g. unpublished statements, covert investigation, confidential documents), increased access protection must be ensured.