The major Swiss media outlets (SRF, Tages-Anzeiger, Blick, Watson) have reported on this, but mostly under headlines that classify Baud as a propagator of propaganda or conspiracy theories (e.g., SRF: “Russia's mouthpiece,” Blick: “Between censorship and Putin propaganda”).
I would at least have expected a critical examination of the legality of the sanctions; that was almost exclusively in the Weltwoche (Köppel interview) or in letters to the editor. The mainstream media largely adopted the EU's wording. That's creepy.
The Swiss Federal Council would do well to show a little more backbone in the face of this Kafkaesque European bureaucratic autocracy. Baud makes it clear in the interview that none of the accusations made by these bureaucrats are true. I am not aware of any evidence having been presented by them. So I would expect the media to at least give both sides sufficient consideration.
We remember well that also in the case of the American activist Charlie Kirk (whose death in September 2025 and the subsequent refusal of the EU Parliament to grant him a minute's silence caused outrage), labels such as “radical” or “disinformer” were often used instead of debating specific statements. The pattern appears to be the same: quotes were taken out of context to disparage the person, which then is classified as a “security risk” and removed from the public sphere (in Baud's case through account suspension and entry bans, in Kirk's case through platform bans or political ostracism).
Rochus•1mo ago
I would at least have expected a critical examination of the legality of the sanctions; that was almost exclusively in the Weltwoche (Köppel interview) or in letters to the editor. The mainstream media largely adopted the EU's wording. That's creepy.
The Swiss Federal Council would do well to show a little more backbone in the face of this Kafkaesque European bureaucratic autocracy. Baud makes it clear in the interview that none of the accusations made by these bureaucrats are true. I am not aware of any evidence having been presented by them. So I would expect the media to at least give both sides sufficient consideration.
We remember well that also in the case of the American activist Charlie Kirk (whose death in September 2025 and the subsequent refusal of the EU Parliament to grant him a minute's silence caused outrage), labels such as “radical” or “disinformer” were often used instead of debating specific statements. The pattern appears to be the same: quotes were taken out of context to disparage the person, which then is classified as a “security risk” and removed from the public sphere (in Baud's case through account suspension and entry bans, in Kirk's case through platform bans or political ostracism).