Politicians in Switzerland have recently concluded it would be a good idea to cut funding for swissinfo.ch, the successor to Swiss Radio International and the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC).

swissinfo.ch, an online multimedia news service, is also my former employer.

The decision is wrongheaded. swissinfo.ch is currently supported 50 percent by the SBC and 50 percent by the government. No international service? For a country that punches far above its own weight - home to the United Nations, some of the world's biggest banks and pharmaceutical companies - it seems like a very shortsighted proposition.

Over the past decade, funding for the SBC's international service has already been dramatically cut- from around CHF50 million to CHF26 million currently. The Swiss abroad, English-speakers in Switzerland and anybody with an interest in comprehensive coverage of Switzerland deserve better.

I'd encourage you to add your name to the petition to save swissinfo.ch.

Below is a letter I wrote in support:

It was with great dismay that I read of plans by Switzerland’s cabinet and parliament to cut funding for swissinfo, the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, from 2012 on.

swissinfo and its predecessor organization, Swiss Radio International, have for decades played a formative and decisive role in projecting Switzerland’s image abroad. In a world in which the availability of information is proliferating rapidly, but in which the reliability and comprehensiveness of privately-owned news services becomes increasingly in jeopardy, the elimination of a robust international service for the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation is nothing short of wrongheaded.

I speak from a unique perspective. As a Swiss abroad, I have a strong interest in keeping up-to-date with news from my homeland. Major international news services report on Switzerland occasionally- perhaps on a hot button issue like bank scandals or the recent referendum to ban minarets. If that’s all that happened in our great country, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Fortunately, it’s not. I had the privilege of having been employed as a journalist in swissinfo’s English section between 2008 and 2010. Only swissinfo reported in nine languages, explaining clearly and coherently news and political events, sport and our country’s diverse culture. Only swissinfo reported on what the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation is doing to restore infrastructure in war-torn West Africa and to rebuild livelihoods in Bangladesh. Only swissinfo carried an exclusive interview with UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld and only notwithstanding Switzerland’s domestic media, which does not carry reports in English, Chinese, Arabic or Japanese, only swissinfo comprehensively explained the political and legal nuances surrounding banking secrecy.

The media landscape around the world is changing rapidly and at the same time, governments face enormous fiscal challenges. I am not unaware of this, nor are my former colleagues in Bern, Geneva, Lugano and Zurich. Governments are naturally seeking to save money. But this is the wrong place. Both public and private broadcasters are increasingly expanding their online operations. It’s the medium of the future.

What sense does it make to cut this service? Who benefits? Who loses?

Switzerland is a small country but it punches far above its own weight. It is an international centre of finance and business, attracting thousands of high-calibre foreign employees. We are home to some of the world’s biggest banks, pharmaceutical companies, particle accelerators and tennis players. Three of our cities are ranked among the top ten in the world to live. The beauty of our landscape is as renowned as our neutrality and our humanitarian traditions.

Rather than cutting swissinfo, Switzerland’s politicians ought to be making plans to expand the service- in particular the departments telling Switzerland’s stories in the world’s major languages. Imagine no BBC World, no Voice of America or no Deutsche Welle. What league should Switzerland be in?

I implore you to stand strongly with swissinfo, the Swiss abroad and anybody with an interest in our country, and to oppose the shortsighted decision to cut funding to the international service of Switzerland’s public broadcaster.

January can be a drag. The days are short and the temperatures are cold.

Things generally get better in February. After a busy autumn and pre-Christmas - complete with trips to the Middle East, Bangladesh and a couple of hops to Canada - 2010 has settled in quite nicely.

On the news front, it's been interesting: we've had a very anticlimactic sailing race (overshadowed by those pesky Olympics), a surprise escalation in Switzerland's spat with Libya and I took a closer look at whether Twitter is a useful tool for journalists.

Swiss billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli lost the America's Cup after years of legal wrangling. Bertarelli, a biotech scion, had matched his team, Alinghi, against Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison. Both teams probably spent hundreds of millions on massive multi-hull yachts, that as I wrote a couple of weeks ago "look like insects and are the size of apartment buildings". Really. They had 50-metre sails.

Bertarelli, unfortunately, sailed with a traditional sail. Ellison built a carbon fibre wing 80 percent longer than the one attached to a Boeing 747. It allowed BMW Oracle to decisively win two races in a row.

Switzerland has annoyed Italy by blocking certain Libyan citizens from obtaining Schengen visas. They've taken advantage of a solidarity clause, which allows them to essentially block people from travelling within the 26-nation bloc. Libyans can still enter Schengen countries but need individual visas.

The Italians are upset and say Switzerland has dragged them into a bilateral dispute. The Swiss aren't saying much at the moment.

I spoke with a Swiss journalist a week ago who took part in an experiment. She and four other journalists holed themselves up in a French farmhouse and tried to report the news using Facebook and Twitter. The results were less than successful.

Part of the problem, and I'm hardly the first to point this out, is that Twitter is saturated with useless information. Useful things do pop up but are buried under mountains of repetition and less-than-insightful commentary. One of the blogs I read likened the situation to pre-Google search, in that there's a lot out there but no means of sorting through everything.

I'm still undecided about how Twitter can help me. Breaking news, perhaps. And trends. But there's no clear indication to me that there's a lot of value, at least easily-accessible value, for people who want to find out useful things about the world.

One of the experts I spoke with suggested I take off my journalist hat when thinking about the value of information- think of it as a tool for people to keep track of what's important to the people who are important to them.

I'm reminded of the fact that I personally know few people I follow, or that follow me.

On November 29, Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets on mosques. The country has four mosques with relatively inauspicious spires.

As in other parts of Europe, the Swiss right found a symbol around which to rally opposition for what it, and apparently 57.5 per cent of voters, perceive to be a symbol of radical Islam.

Coverage from swissinfo.ch, The New York Times, LA Times,  Turkey's Hürriyet and The Jerusalem Post.

On Thursday, I took part in a discussion on the Kojo Nnamde Show on Washington, DC's NPR station, along with American University's John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

The conversation is here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This is the first of two stories from a reportage to Romania the other week. Despite a nearly open labour market across Europe, medical professionals in one of the continant's poorest countries are choosing to stay home.

Romania's nurses stick close to home

Romania's nurses don't earn much and although they can work almost anywhere in Europe, better salaries may not be enough to lure them away from home.

The former Eastern Bloc country of 22 million seems an ideal picking ground for cheap medical professionals for Switzerland.

And it could be, if voters choose to extend a labour agreement with the European Union to new members Romania and Bulgaria on February 8.

"I think they want to stay in the country but they are not very well paid here. And the work is not so easy," says Lamise Bectemir, the head of the paediatric oncology ward at the Marie Curie Children's Hospital in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.

There is a great wealth disparity here. The problem for Bectemir and others who consider themselves part of the middle class is that relatively meagre salaries don't translate into low costs of living. Nurses in Romania earn between €500 (SFr750) and €1,000 per month.

At a McDonald's restaurant a few minutes from the hospital, a hamburger meal costs around 18 lei, or roughly SFr6.50 ($5.60).

That's less than half the price of the same sandwich, French fries and soft drink in Switzerland, but for the city's nurses it is a relative luxury. They could earn up to five times more in a Swiss hospital.

Romania's wages are an expression of the country's ongoing growing pains almost two decades after the collapse of Nicolae Ceauşescu's communist regime.

For all the talk of new money in Eastern Europe, Bucharest's buildings cast a weary shadow and its prodigious boulevards and traffic circles - crumbling edifices to the former dictator's brand of grandiose totalitarianism - teem with a few luxury trucks and many more of the modest Dacias, the national everyman's car.

more...

© 2010 Justin Häne Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha