Reykjavík Grapevine - 27.07.2007, Blaðsíða 4

06_REYKJAVÍK_GRAPEVINE_ISSUE 11_007_INTERVIEW/MEDIA
An entity called “The Journalistic Ethics Com-
mittee” operates under the aegis of the Ice-
landic Press Council (IPC), of which almost
every Icelandic journalist is a member. The
ethics committee counts five members, three
representatives of the IPC and one each for
Icelandic publishers and the University of Ice-
land Ethics Organisation. Journalistic subjects
can file complaints to the committee if they
feel that the IPC’s ethical guidelines (an English
version of which is available on-line) have been
faulted in any way by a member of the press.
While the committee holds no legal pow-
ers and is restricted to simply reprimanding
journalists that they rule to have overstepped
“reasonable ethical boundaries”, it still is a
veritable force in shaping Icelandic discourse.
After all, its purpose is to decide what can be
said, when, and how.
Enter Helgi Seljan, investigative reporter for
the popular RÚV (Icelandic National Broadcast-
ing Service) TV news show Kastljós (‘Spotlight’).
Shortly before last spring’s parliamentary elec-
tions, Seljan presented a series of reports on
how the Parliament’s General Committee
had unprecedentedly granted full citizenship
to then-Minister for the Environment Jónína
Bjartmarz’s 21-year old daughter-in-law, on
what must be deemed “shaky” grounds. A
full on shit-storm ensued, one where Seljan’s
journalistic integrity was challenged not only
by the minister in question, but also by some
of his colleagues.
Bjartmarz promptly filed a complaint to
the journalistic ethics committee, who in turn
decreed that Seljan had gone against the IPC’s
ethical guidelines “in a serious manner”, while
leaving the verity of his reporting relatively
uncontested. Seljan and Kastljós, not happy
with the verdict, immediately contested it,
stating it was “completely unfounded”. They
furthermore claim that the verdict calls for
members of the press to treat elected officials
mildly during election season. Seljan spoke to
the Grapevine about the case in question and
the resulting verdict.
Could you explain the offending report?
About a month after the fact, I received infor-
mation that Parliament’s General Committee
had granted citizenship to a certain applicant,
among others, who had been in the country
for fifteen months on a student visa. This is
newsworthy in and of itself, as the law states
that foreigners must reside here for seven years
before they are eligible to apply for citizenship.
Parliament can only grant citizenship under
“special” circumstances, such as for humani-
tarian or family-related reasons.
We were then presented with evidence that
confirmed the grounds by which that specific
applicant was granted Icelandic citizenship, i.e.
to escape “travel constrictions”, as she planned
on studying abroad with her boyfriend, Jónína
Bjartmarz’s son. We also confirmed that the
General Committee’s verdict was completely
unprecedented, that no applicant had ever
received citizenship so quickly on these grounds
– to make it easier for her to study abroad.
To me, all this sounds extremely newsworthy.
When you add to it the fact that the applicant
in question had direct ties with a high ranking
Progressive Party Minister – who in fact has
her permanent legal address registered at that
Minister’s residence, and is her son’s girlfriend
– that is clearly a newsworthy subject. Adding
insult to injury, one of her main referents in
the application is that Minister’s very mother!
From the beginning, we [at Kastljós] based our
reporting on these grounds, and we stand by
it.
The ensuing reports, not only at Kastljós
but also in newspapers like DV, etc., all but
confirmed that the whole case smacked
of corruption. And nothing in any of the
reports has been factually contested, save
for some minor nitpicking…
That’s true. While no laws were broken, the
manner in which citizenship was granted is
suspect at best. Yet no one seems to care out-
side of the press. No MP has officially broached
the subject, and no claims for reform are being
made for a system that so obviously invites
corruption, with a three-member committee
making the final decision. This is especially
interesting since MPs have up until now spo-
ken of citizenship as a sort-of holy thing, that
it should be handled with the utmost care.
They’ve been narrowing the conditions for
citizenship for a long time. And yet, no one
says a word.
What happened in this case is what always
happens here – not that the phenomenon is
specific to Iceland – a giant wall of co-insur-
ance is formed by the MPs, regardless of party
lines. They will protect each other. Usually, they
first try saying that whatever’s being discussed
isn’t newsworthy, that it doesn’t deserve cover-
age; that it’s really no big deal. They avoid the
subject, as they avoid going after each other
and contesting each other. Thus, it’s left to
the press to discuss this thing. Yet they have
a duty to, just as we do.
The ones scrutinized in your report, Bjart-
marz and the General Committee MPs,
seemed upset that the matter was even
being discussed.
Yeah, people were angry. It’s important to stay
above water when the politicians start fend-
ing off reports, and it’s easy to lose track of
what’s important – which is probably exactly
what they want. They will place themselves
firmly into trenches, avoiding mentioning the
specifics of the case and the topics at hand,
instead opting to move the discourse onto
a personal level. Claiming they’re subject to
political attacks and smear campaigns, that
their personal lives are being scrutinized rather
than their actions. That’s a common reaction.
The way the thing blew up, it didn’t come as
a surprise, as this is a big story that was bound
to become controversial.
In hindsight, would you have handled
the story any differently? How do you
respond to claims that Bjartmarz’s person
was unfairly attacked?
I would have done everything just about the
same, although I perhaps would have braced
myself for the commotion that followed our
first report. We stand by it 100%. As for Bjart-
marz, the whole thing never had anything to do
with any one person; it didn’t even have to do
with the particular applicant in question. The
story concerned power, and how that power
was potentially misused by elected officials in
favour of one of their own. It concerns fair
procedure, and how everyone should be equal
in the eyes of the law.
The discourse surrounding this case soon
took a strange shape, but anyone who’s ob-
served the state of Icelandic political debate
longer than one second could foresee that.
It’s fairly common for participants to immedi-
ately focus on matters far removed from the
real subject at hand. It wasn’t us who put the
applicant, Bjartmarz’s daughter-in-law, in the
spotlight. That was done by MPs who were
trying to change the subject, to make it seem
like we were attacking a young girl, rather
than their own failure to follow due process.
You can see the same thing in the reac-
tions to the ethics committee’s verdict, where
a few individuals have taken that as complete
validation for themselves and harshly attacked
both the Kastljós’s editorial team and myself.
They imply that we had some sort of sinister
motive for broadcasting our report, and that it
was unfounded, yet aggressively avoid saying
anything about the specifics of that very report.
They’d rather discuss my level of education.
But I won’t complain, this frequently happens
and every journalist that takes himself seriously
has to be prepared for that.
Kastljós and yourself heavily refuted the
ethics committee’s verdict…
I don’t have a lot to add to the statement we
released on the day of the verdict. It can’t be
appealed, and the committee isn’t required to
explain their ruling any further. What’s left is
that they neither researched nor disproved any
of our sources, they didn’t seek out information
to verify our report, or Bjartmarz’ complaints
for that matter, so I don’t see why their judge-
ment should hold any weight.
Boiled down to its essence, our coverage
concerned a particular individual who had ties
to a politician. That individual was granted citi-
zenship on grounds that were completely un-
precedented, and after only a short stay in the
country. The ethics committee challenges this
and claims there was nothing suspect about
the bestowal, apparently without conducting
any research of their own. Indeed, their claim
isn’t backed by any sources. This de-validates
their verdict to such an extent that it can’t be
taken seriously. But that’s beside the point,
what’s really disconcerting about the verdict is
its apparent message to Icelandic journalists.
Which is?
The IPC and the members of the ethics commit-
tee need to give some serious thought to the
message they are sending out with the verdict.
It literally states that journalists should handle
politicians and matters concerning them differ-
ently in the time leading up to an election. It’s
like they are trying to interpret the journalistic
ethics guidelines to say that we can’t cover
stories such as this one during election season.
It’s almost as if they’re saying that we should
have waited until after the elections were over
to uncover the facts of the matter, which is
an absurd notion; that politicians should be
“handled with an utmost care” – or not at
all – while they’re in the process of running
for office. This is an unbelievable message to
members of the press, and I think the commit-
tee should come forward and explain exactly
what they mean by that. Their verdict can’t be
understood any differently.
I also feel that the IPC administration’s
silent treatment of this matter highly embar-
rassing and not in line with the council’s ac-
tions in similar cases. By no means do I need
for them to redeem me – I do not base my
self respect on their opinions. I do, however,
want to know if the IPC administration feels
the ethics committee’s methods and message
in this particular case were professional and,
indeed, normal. Does the head of the IPC agree
with his ethics committee that it’s best to hide
certain news away ‘til after election season?
How did RÚV react to the ruling? Are you
kept on a shorter leash now?
They’ve supported me throughout. Fortunately,
most of the media in Iceland is run by people
whose sole interest lies in telling news, rather
than pleasing politicians or those in power. I’ve
never encountered political pressure from my
supervisors at RÚV. And no, I am not kept on
a shorter leash. If they did that, I’d just find
work somewhere else.
Controlling the Discourse
by Changing the Subject
Text by Haukur Magnússon Photo by Gulli
“The story concerned pow-
er, and how that power
was potentially misused
by elected officials in fa-
vour of one of their own. It
concerns fair procedure,
and how everyone should
be equal in the eyes of the
law.”
Drífa ehf, Sudurhraun 12 C, 210 Gardabaer, Iceland, Tel +354-555 7400, Fax +354-555 7401, icewear@icewear.is
since 1972
ICEWEAR clothes and products are available at the following stores:
Reykjavík: Rammagerðin, Hafnarstræti 19 - Ullarhúsið, Austurstræti 3, Reykjavik – Thorvaldsenbazar, Austurstræti 4
Islandia, Kringlan Shopping Center - The Viking, Hafnarstræti 3 - Handprjónasambandið, Skólavörðustíg 19, Laugavegi 64
Ull og Gjafavörur, Hótel Sögu, Lækjargötu 2 – Hitt Hornið, Laugavegi 100 – Álafoss Verksmiðjusala, Laugavegi 1– Ísey, Klapparstíg 30
Other locations: Blue Lagoon, Svartengi – Rammagerðin, Flugstöð Leifs Eiríkssonar – Eden, Hveragerði – Geysir Shops, Haukadal
Byggðasafnið Skógum - The Viking, Akureyri – Mývatnsmarkaður, Mývatn – Mývatn ehf, Skútustöðum, Mývatn
Tákn Sport og Útivist, Húsavík - Sæferðir, Stykkishólmur - El Grillo, Seyðisfjörður – Álafoss Verksmiðjusala, Álafossvegi 23, Mosfellbæ
Price:
Ikr 9.990 ($ 160,-)
Tax Free Price:
Ikr 8.491 ($136,-)
100% Pure Wool Sweater,
fully lined with Waterproof
and Breathable lining.