INTERVIEW

“Switzerland loses sovereignty of information”: swissinfo director on the impact of potential defunding

14 April 2025
SwissInfo’s Director Larissa Bieler on why international public media remain essential today amid circulating misinformation and threats to press freedom, as the Swiss government rethinks the mandate of the international services of SwissInfo. 
Journalist interviewing man
Credit: SWI swissinfo.ch

In Switzerland, SWI swissinfo.ch – which is part of the foreign mandate of the Swiss public service media – has been under the scrutiny of politicians, who have questioned its relevance and the direct government funding allocated to it, which currently makes up half of its overall budget. It means, with the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation also under financial pressure, the future of SWI swissinfo.ch is uncertain, and there is the possibility it could see its budget halved, or completely gone.

But at a time of great turmoil in the information ecosystem, with mis- and disinformation circulating freely, and state-backed media machines spending billions in this arena, how might the demise of SWI swissinfo.ch impact the news ecosystem, both in Switzerland, and more globally?

PMA’s Editorial Manager, Harry Lock, spoke with Larissa Bieler, Director and Editor-in-Chief of SWI swissinfo.ch, for the latest episode of PMA’s Media Uncovered podcast, and they discussed the role of SWI swissinfo.ch, and what might be lost if it disappears. 

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Harry Lock: What is Swiss Info, what is its role in Swiss and international society and which services does it provide?

Larissa Bieler: I have to start with how is Swissinfo funded, because it’s important to know. So swissinfo [SWI swissinfo.ch] and the foreign mandate in Switzerland of the PSM of Switzerland is funded 50% by the government and 50% by the licence fee. So, it is a political mandate, but it is also operated by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC).

We have two target audiences. We have Swiss people living in Switzerland who are interested in Switzerland’s affairs around the world, and we have the Swiss abroad. These two audience groups are very different.

The main role of swissinfo serving Swiss living abroad revolves around the fact that they are participating citizens in the Switzerland’s votes and the political systems, but they’re not speaking the language or the national languages anymore, because they have been living abroad for so long.

Our role is to provide them with information, context about ongoing political debates… We have regular briefings informing them and empowering them to also participate in the Swiss votes.

Read more: The case for funding SWI SwissInfo

Two woman standing in front of a camera
Larissa Bieler (on the right). Credit: SWI swissinfo.ch

Regarding the Swiss target group, we have different values we provide. We are reaching audiences where press freedom is limited, so where audiences are hard to reach, mainly where we also have censorship, such as China or Russia, which is a specific challenge. We are not as big as, for example, the BBC World Services, but we have 10 languages provided. We have Russian, we have Chinese, we have Japanese, we have Portuguese, Spanish and English besides the [Swiss] national languages.

Then the other thing is Switzerland is one of the most globalised countries in the world. Even if the media policy debate goes in a different direction now in reducing the funding as well of the foreign mandate in Switzerland,the main thing is keeping [the] sovereignty of information of Switzerland. I think this is important. We have an important role in fighting the disinformation about Switzerland around the world.

So, we have a very specific task and challenge there to reach these audiences, as many people are depending on Swiss information. Not only journalists, but also people working abroad having an interest in knowing economically, culturally what’s going on in Switzerland.

HL: Why is international public service broadcasting still necessary?

LB: I think we’re living in a world with two major challenges.  The one is that we have a decline in trust in media. People are increasingly avoiding news, and at the same time we know that media have an important role in defending values, informing people to participate in the political system. We know that every public service media (PSM) is a pillar for an inclusive and healthy society as well.

And the second challenge, which is frightening, is the whole propaganda machines raised by many states and controlling the media. And we have to collaborate to fight this disinformation and to fight this censorship because it’s threatening media freedom.

Listen to Larissa Bieler on PMA’s podcast

HL: How is it possible to be able to compete still with those giants who, as you say, maybe are leaning more towards and influence, sowing mis- and disinformation, et cetera?

LB: I think it’s about building up an ecosystem and collaborating, exchanging information within networks such as the DG8. I think we have to work on projects together to fight against these challenges.

Secondly, we must also fight for regulations. I think the whole problem of big tech is also not to be forgotten in this ecosystem.  For example, we have propaganda systems infiltrating these AI LLM systems. AI is also a problem we have to handle. We have to collaborate to build a working ecosystem and to think about alternatives, such as startups like the Public Spaces Incubator, that is focused on building a public space in response to the threat of big tech.

Specifically, PSM play a responsible role in shaping and providing a media infrastructure, sharing it, building up value-based ethical infrastructure, and thinking of building new algorithms. And it requires solidarity, and it needs collaboration as a response to this propaganda and big tech, which are more and more playing a crucial role in this whole circulation and this whole ecosystem.

The issue is that making deals with big tech companies is only possible for big media companies. And when I say, thinking of startups instead of big tech, we have to build up and to provide regulation for new opportunities. It is for smaller and more local media because they are struggling [even more] and that’s ultimately threatening society.

Two red signs on a grey building – one says SRF and one says SWI
SWI swissinfo.ch premises in Bern. Credit: SWI swissinfo.ch

HL: Have you been too slow, do you think, in the past? Do you think international PSM have been too slow in the past when it comes to catching up big tech?

LB: Maybe we have been too slow at anticipating these fast-changing developments. PSM are looking inwards on their own digital transformation. These are enormous projects taking a lot of attention and energy. At the same time, social media platforms changed completely and reshaped the media ecosystem.

Let’s take AI for example, AI is not only a tool, but it also generates a new structural dependency for PSM. So, we have these dependencies on the production side. The financial crisis also plays a role, as we have to get more efficient as these dependencies are sharpened on the distribution side. The control of the third-party platforms on our pubic is frightening, but so is the control they have on our organisations, which is a major challenge. Thus, I would not say we were not fast enough. But I would say we have been too reactive.

Additionally, PSM should take a shaping role in these media ecosystems. For a very long time, they had the paradigm of being here for the market failures, which is not right. In this ecosystem, it’s not the right direction, nor the right mindset.

HL: What is the current situation of SwissInfo? Why are its sustainability and long-term viability under threat?

LB: SwissInfo is purely digital since 1999, but was founded before World War II, in 1935 at Swiss Radio International. It was very popular and was defending Western values in the world and being giving a voice of freedom as well.

The current situation is that we have a very tight financial situation in Switzerland as well, as in many countries. I’m not only speaking about inflation or the cost-of-living crisis, but this is ultimately a problem for media and PSM as well.

The current government started an austerity package last year, and suggested 70 measures in it, of which two concern Swiss media. There are many political parties with different interests. And within this whole austerity package you have this foreign mandate, which they wanted to cut [by] 100%.

“The real problem is that the current government has disconnected from the disinformation problem.”

It’s very contradictory to disinformation and the whole situation in the world. And now they suggested to cut 50% of our budget and ultimately stop governmental subsidies. Instead, they suggested to the SBC to pay for SwissInfo from the licence fee. It’s the same discussion happening in the UK. We are now in a consultation phase on SwissInfo and its foreign mandate.

Until May, there is a possibility to give statements to support and to speak against these cutting measures. And then we will go with the mandate into political process and at the beginning of 2026, the Swiss parliament will also be deciding on the future of SwissInfo.

The other issue is that the SBC is going through a huge digital transformation, while also facing budget cuts. The Swiss government decided the reduce the licence fee, in a similar way as what just happened in the US, through executive order without consulting the Parliament or any other stakeholders. The decision on the halving of the SBC budget will also be going through a popular vote in 2026. Additionally, we have to make important savings in the group of 270 million francs until 2029. In the end, the foreign mandate is in a difficult position because many people think that it’s not fair for them to pay an inland licence fee for a foreign mandate for people living abroad.

Generally, there is a tense climate with political pressures. The real problem is that the current government has disconnected from the disinformation problem. While there is a vast interest in security and sovereignty of information, they do not connect it to the global situation and these challenges.

HL: How are you advocating the role of public broadcasting in countering disinformation to politicians?

LB: In my opinion, in this fragmented market, PSM is the last mass media that remains close to popular interest in society, and contributes to it by defending values and fact-checking information in [this] situation of crisis. We have evidence for this aggressive disinformation driven by Russia around the globe.

I don’t really have an answer why the government don’t see this connection. I think it has to do with the political agenda, with different priorities, with the tight financial situation within Switzerland, of setting priorities. It is a complex situation.

There is no alternative to public media countering disinformation because of the decline of media funding. The issue is that there is a lot of money for media in Switzerland but it is going to big tech companies now. It’s the whole issue of online advertisement revenues, which are being vacuumed [up] by these big tech companies instead of going to media outlets. It’s not that the money is missing, the distribution is wrong because of the platforms’ power.

“The work done by a Swiss International media is going to become increasingly clearer in the future, as more geopolitical tensions and aggressive disinformation against facts and news are going to appear.”

We need a complete change of mindset away from competition, and to favour collaboration within PSM but also private media.

HL: What would you respond to the argument that SwissInfo is not necessary because there are other international public media doing a similar work?

LB: It is an argument I hear often, event within Parliament. First of all, all news content we have is related in some way to Switzerland. Second, the reachability to our audience also plays a role. As mentioned earlier, the paradigm changed from a destination game to a distribution game. Findability of our content is very important, and it is not something you build in one day. Our content is a very specific offering as it is linked to Switzerland because people are searching for such a content.

In comparison to other international public media, we have a clear strategic positioning and a specific relevance for our two target groups. The other thing is: thinking that people around the globe in the future will find information about Switzerland without a foreign mandate – it would just neglect the reality of the power of platforms and the power of the search function. What do you do if someone in Russia is searching something on democracy? It is about offering a reliable, trustworthy and credible source about Switzerland and the topics we cover.

I think the strategic positioning and the public value, the relevance seems to be very clear. But the thing is, we are in an ideological world. Our discussions are not based on facts and truth anymore. I think that’s frightening, but the worse the situation becomes, the more it will be clear and seen how important these foreign mandates are.

Magnum Session 2023. Credit: SWI

HL: Exploring both hypotheticals, whether there would be a 50% budget cut or a complete budget cut, what would the consequences of that be?

LB: Switzerland in my view, loses sovereignty of information, which we have seen in the past. We have evidence from Russia or China. There is an aggressive disinformation already within Switzerland.

The Swiss media landscape would be weakened. Budget cuts would mean we could lose around 100 journalists, as well as many freelancers, who would lose possibilities to work.

HL: Where does your hope come regarding the future of both SwissInfo, but also information and news?

LB: The work done by a Swiss International media is going to become increasingly clearer in the future, as more geopolitical tensions and aggressive disinformation against facts and news are going to appear. We have a lot of countries around the world who have limited access to information, or [where] press freedom [is] under threat. I think that it is somehow already part of our reality, or at least we’re not far from it, if you look at what happens in the US.

I think there will be an understanding as well of how this information and the reach of these audience is values. I really see hope in collaboration with other media and working together, such as the EBU’s “Your European Perspective” project based on content exchange, with sharing newsrooms. Initiatives like this give a lot of hope. In my view, government should regulate platforms’ power and besides this, we have to develop algorithms.

In regard to funding, there is also hope in alternative ways of financing media. Recently, the University of Geneva launched a media and philanthropy initiative. This form of support to media is promoting a third way of media financing that goes beyond market dynamics or beyond public support.

But what is really giving me hope, is the young generation. They have a media competence which is new. They bring a shift in competencies but also of awareness and a culture shift.  And they have a critical thinking, which is going to be hugely important for the future, in order to divide real reliable sources from non-reliable sources. As we have seen, it’s a generation that wants to contribute individually but also collectively.

More Features
Related Posts