The concept of media pluralismencompasses many aspects, namely defining editorial freedoms and ensuring that measures are taken to give citizens access to different sources of information and references, so that they can form their own judgement without the unfair influence of opinion-forming and opinion-determining organisations and service providers. In particular, public broadcasting is obliged to reflect a broad and diverse spectrum of political views and opinions and to take into account interests of social minorities. While, in the second half of the last century, pluralism was guaranteed by a large number of economically and politically independent newspapers, and their numbers sometimes dwindled into diversity. This is no longer guaranteed today due to the centralisation of media production. In addition, omnipresent social media offers little independent and enlightened journalism. The process of concentration of ownership makes a need for internal pluralism more pressing. Rules and practices of internal pluralism show the extent to which newsrooms are aware of the democratic value of internal pluralism and how leading news media operates with, and for, internal pluralism. From the perspective of democratic equality, different views, and opinions should be represented, generally irrespective of the requirement for the newsroom to follow a particular editorial mission statement. The question of representation of all residents, citizens in media and journalism, is primarily a question of democracy, especially direct and indirect equality of access. The lack of diversity in sources, perspectives, gender, and origin is particularly evident in Switzerland, where there has been a long period of labour and refuge migration. The high proportion of inhabitants with a migration background and the growing pluralisation of life courses are in stark contrast to media workers in leading positions, who appear as extraordinarily homogeneous. In addition, journalistic work in newsrooms also tends to have a homogenising effect. Professional success and advancement primarily result from adaptation. In any case, the diversity debate does not yet seem to have really arrived in journalism and the media industry.
It is clear from the interviews that media organisations that are willing to address a population that is as broadly based as possible are striving for pluralism. Conversely, the editorial staff is also willing to link this internal pluralism with a certain profile. However, editorial offices barely possess the instruments, measures, and routines to instrumentally ensure such diversity. Here too, daily pragmatism dominates. The extent to which diversity can spread depends very much on the entrepreneurial will to take it into account in personnel decisions.
Diversity, then, should not only be pursued in terms of personnel but also sources of information. Media professionals, with the exception of specialists that are designated as part of the editorial team, are generally not in a position to judge the positions of experts and other persons providing valid information. The experts are not independent, but, due to their epistemological backgrounds, hold certain positions and interests in their professional, scientific communities, even if they do not like to admit it. Anyone who has been an expert once has a good chance of being asked to be an expert again. As a rule, media professionals are happy if they have found someone willing to distinguish themselves as an expert. With those willing to be designated as such, despite not possessing diverse epistemological exposures, a problematic role of “expert bureaucracy” is complicated for the media workers by the Covid-19 crisis. Although media professionals in Switzerland are well trained in their profession, the socio-cultural and socio-structural homogeneity of specialists and experts in newsrooms precludes a holistic view in adequate scientific coverage of current topics and issues.
