SRF deletes videos of convicted presenter Hans Jucker – criticism of historical reckoning
SRF removed clips featuring sports presenter Hans Jucker, who died in 2011 and was convicted in 1971 of abuse of minors. According to the NZZ, deleting the material is the wrong approach.
SRF removes Jucker videos from archive – lawyer calls for context rather than deletion
Swiss broadcaster SRF has removed all video clips featuring the late sports presenter Hans Jucker from its platforms and social media channels following revelations about him. According to the NZZ, this included a "best of" compilation from 2011 featuring his tirades, laughter fits and career moments. Jucker was convicted in 1971 by Affoltern district court of sexual acts with young people and received a suspended prison sentence – and showed little remorse.
Zurich media lawyer Mirjam Teitler has sharply criticised this approach in a guest commentary for the NZZ. Archived journalistic contributions are part of contemporary history and must remain accessible. "Selectively erasing historical recordings is a demonstrative gesture of moral discomfort" – but not the right answer, writes Teitler.
Censorship or reckoning?
Teitler draws a comparison with the Harvey Weinstein case. When his misconduct triggered the worldwide #MeToo debate in 2017, film distributors and streaming services faced the same fundamental question: is it permissible to show works such as "Pulp Fiction" or "Shakespeare in Love" in which a convicted sex offender had participated? The decision was made against censorship – the films remained in distribution, Weinstein was ostracised and convicted.
The same principle must apply to SRF, argues Teitler. Deleting footage does not undo what happened. It is rather a failed attempt at moral self-absolution. Anyone who wants to honestly reckon with history cannot make it disappear.
Uncomfortable questions for SRG
In her NZZ commentary, Teitler also raises the question of who at SRG knew about Jucker's crimes. If those responsible had reviewed the matter at the time and decided that Jucker posed no danger to employees, the continuation of his employment would have been justifiable. Swiss criminal justice, after all, posits that resocialisation must follow a served sentence – this includes economic advancement and social integration.
From a legal perspective, SRG's handling of the past is also problematic. Jucker's crimes were adjudicated in criminal proceedings and he died in 2011. He can no longer comment on the allegations raised against him by Tamedia newspapers. Precisely for this reason, the reporting walks a fine line between necessary processing and a posthumous media pillory.
Contextualise rather than delete
Teitler cites the handling of Jürg Jegge, the educational reformer and author of "Dummheit ist lernbar" (Stupidity Can Be Learned), as a positive counterexample. After Jegge faced criticism in 2017 over sexual abuse of students, his publisher Zytglogge initially withdrew all remaining books from its catalogue. In 2018, the same publisher released "Ist Dummheit lernbar?" (Can Stupidity Be Learned?), a critical examination of his work – contextualisation rather than erasure.
This must be the guiding principle for a public service broadcaster like SRF, writes Teitler. After all, SRG is also an audiovisual archive of Switzerland. Organisations are a reflection of society – for better and for worse. Human abysses can never be completely regulated out of an institution. "An institution's responsibility does not begin with the lofty but naive aspiration to banish evil from its own archives in retrospect," writes Teitler. What matters is what an institution does when it learns of wrongdoing.
SRF announces investigation
Investigations by Tamedia newspapers revealed that Jucker was able to build a career at SRF despite his 1971 conviction. The broadcaster now plans to have the case investigated. According to the NZZ, the Jucker case raises questions about SRF's general handling of sex offenders – particularly as the employment of another convicted man has also come to light. Past court rulings showed how quickly media can overstep legal boundaries when reporting on such cases.
Source: NZZ