On February 13, 2022, the Swiss electorate rejected a new media law entitled "Package of measures for the media" by 54.6 percent.
The private media companies would have received an additional CHF 178 million from the
state - i.e. from the taxpayer - every year.
The "NO to state-funded media" association, which led the campaign against the media law, argued as follows at the time:
The media law is a raid on the state coffers and makes the media dependent on the state and discriminates against free media.
It would also lead to even more "media uniformity" and cement the existing media monopolies.
Now comes another attempt at additional media subsidies in a new guise:
The Swiss parliament passed an amendment to the Postal Act on March 21, 2025.
This change is intended to increase state funding for the early delivery of subscription newspapers
from the current CHF 50 million to CHF 85 million.
A further 35 million is planned
for private radio and TV stations, for the education and training of journalists and for
the private press council and news agencies.
Over the next seven years, this would subsidize the same-regulated media with a total of -
believe it or not - 1.47 billion Swiss francs.
On April 29, 2025, the referendum against the amendment to the Postal Act was launched under
the leadership of the "Team Freiheit" association.
In the meantime, other civil rights organizations are supporting the referendum.
These include the "Friends of the Constitution" and the "Teachers' Network Switzerland".
You will find the signature form and further information on the referendum in the blue info box below the item.
Signature forms can be submitted by July 3, 2025 at the latest. In an article in the "Schweizerzeit" edition of May
16, 2025, ETH student Mihajlo Mrakic explains why we must fight against the changes to the Postal Act.
Now listen to the article in abridged form:
In 2022, the people clearly rejected the Media Act.
Today, we are faced with the same old problem, only in new packaging - because parliament
apparently does not want to accept referendums.
Old problem, new packaging
There was great joy at the time. It was believed that the decision had been made and the message was clear:
No more subsidies for rich publishers, no watering can principle that ultimately strengthens the
big players with the argument of "media diversity"!
But today, barely two years later, we are back on "field one". The same issue,
repackaged, slimmed down, but with the same thrust:
Public money for private media companies. The new law is more modest at first glance.
It speaks of "targeted promotion" and "strengthening media diversity in the regions".
But the structures remain the same. Once again, it is the large publishing houses that would benefit the most.
Small, independent media do receive symbolic amounts. But the lion's share goes to where the
power over public opinion is already concentrated.
This does not promote diversity, but further cements a one-sided media landscape.
Yet the range of media on offer today is greater than ever before. The argument that media funding
is necessary to save democracy does not hold water.
We live in an age in which there are countless opportunities to form your own opinion.
At the same time, fewer and fewer people believe that the media report objectively and independently.
Instead of calling for new subsidies, the industry should seriously ask itself why confidence is eroding -
and how it could be won back with more breadth of content, critical self-reflection and genuine diversity.
State subsidies are not a solution here, but part of the problem.
Weakening of democracy
It is also particularly problematic that Parliament is simply ignoring the clear rejection by the people in 2022.
Instead of taking the message seriously, the law is being reintroduced bit by bit, until in the
end almost everything we fought against is back.
This is a deliberate undermining of democratic decisions - and not an isolated case.
We see this with the framework agreement with the EU, where the Federal Council does not want a mandatory referendum. Similarly,
initiatives and referendums are not being implemented.
If popular decisions are disregarded and a referendum can only be enforced with great effort and by collecting
signatures, then parliament is trampling democracy underfoot.
The fight goes on
Today we have to fight again. Not just against a law, but for the principle that referendums count.
- That a "no" remains a "no" that does not simply degenerate into a "try again" by Parliament.
That is why I am saying "no" this time too, because I believe in a diverse, independent media landscape and because I am convinced
that genuine independence does not come from the state purse.