Reykjavík Grapevine - 09.10.2009, Blaðsíða 10

The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 16 — 2009
10
Everyone knows it. The smallness of
Iceland leads to almost everything being
contaminated by personal connections
and considerations. Of course, the same
goes for the nation’s media—it’s affected.
Now, is the Icelandic media being held
hostage by its owners and their interests,
whatever those may be? Are there
effective attempts to control and shape
the local discourse?
Since last year’s TOTAL ECONOMIC
COLLAPSE, a lot of people have pointed
their fingers squarely at the local media.
Critics say that there was very little critical
analysis being done in the build up to the
fall, and that local journalists neglected
to review and investigate what was going
on due to political affiliations and/or
owner interests. A recent survey by the
local Market and Media Researching
Agency shows that Icelanders’ faith in
their media averages at 18.9 percent. In
comparison, 35.8 percent of the nation
express no faith in their media.
This can’t be normal, can it? At least
we didn’t think so. So we consulted with
a scholar, Sociology Professor Þorbjörn
Broddason, who teaches media and
journalism at the University of Iceland.
How does the Icelandic media work?
Icelandic mass media in many ways
resembles every other media system.
You’ve got all the ingredients. In
the printed press, we presently have
newspapers Morgunblaðið and
Fréttablaðið, tabloid DV and the business
centred Viðskiptablaðið. The interesting
thing is that all these papers wound up in
the hands of entrepreneurs who had very
strong interests to protect the Icelandic
financial system. The media used to be
hand in glove with the political system,
what with party press and all, then they
became hand in glove with the financial
system.
The owners of the printed press
are simply different families of
entrepreneurs; it’s all in the hands of
people who have invested in what is
written. That doesn’t mean that all
journalists are bent or corrupt, we simply
have to realise that they are all employed
by people who like to see the news
presented in a certain fashion. The only
thing that should be totally independent
is the state run TV and radio, which is
supposedly owned by the people. So this
is the scene.
Some argue that even though there are
reputedly no more party papers, the
current media is still dependant on and a
part of large power structures and actively
takes sides…
Absolutely. I think so. It’s in a subtle
manner, but they do take sides. There
is no denying that there are strong ties
between the Independence Party and
Morgunblaðið. It’s been the organ of the
party since its inception. Fréttablaðið
is constantly being accused of being
in service of the Social Democrats, or
perhaps it’s the Social Democrats that are
in the power of the owners of Fréttablaðið.
The media is simply an integral part of
the ongoing power struggles.
As someone who's studied the Icelandic
media environment for years, do you feel
ownership is an important factor?
Ownership is extremely important
and always has been, simply because it
interferes with freedom of expression.
People are always looking over their
shoulder—even if they don’t admit it,
even if they don’t admit it to themselves.
They are held hostage by the owner; it
is the owner who hires them. The mass
media may not be lying to you, but they
may be giving you a certain version of
reality.
For example, we were lead to believe
that banking was the only thing that
mattered in the country. There was
a lack of critical analysis about this.
More strongly put, there was complete
absence of critical analysis. And when
there were any doubts raised, someone
would jump up and complain, even make
threats. Either by advertising boycotts or
threatening phone calls.
The local media is often accused being
subjective. Why is that?
Is it accused, or is it true? Morgunblaðið
is obviously always read with its party
allegiance in mind, and Fréttablaðið has
in recent years been accused of being in
the service of their previous owners, the
Baugur family. And why is that? Because
there appears to be an affinity between
these parties. Assume they do have these
ties; then they should admit and come
clean that even in the news there can be
bias. In every Icelandic news story, there
will be this bias.
But you have to realise that no media
can achieve total objectivity. Honesty, and
the search of objectivity is what you can
demand of every journalist.
Davíð Oddsson (former Central Bank
chairman and PM of Iceland for the
Independence Party) has been appointed
editor of Morgunblaðið. People were not
happy. Why?
He is totally enmeshed in practically
every major problem that the Icelandic
nation has encountered during the last
twenty years. You simply cannot accept
him as an editor; it’s no use saying that he
is not going to interfere in this and that.
To me, it’s a tragic blow to Icelandic mass
communication that this was allowed to
happen.
He was hired because the owners
admire his undisputed qualities. They
agree with his opinions and they know
he is a strong advocate of their interests.
They do it at the cost of the credibility
of the paper, and a paper that has lost
credibility is not of very much use.
Why choose such a polarizing figure?
It’s incomprehensible. Except that they
seem to be focused on their particular
interests and they do not have any inkling
about journalism, they do not care about
journalism and they simply do not
know what journalism is. It’s very sad.
Morgunblaðið and the people would have
been much better off had he not been
hired.
Finally: Is Icelandic media corrupt?
No, the media is not corrupt, in the true
sense of the word. It is very far from
perfection, but not corrupt. Icelandic
journalists are decent people doing their
best.
I don’t think Icelandic media is in
any sense less professional than other
countries’ media. Our problem is the
smallness of the market and the proximity
of our relations. How would you think, as
a journalist, when every mass medium
in this small country is laying off people?
Would you rock the boat, would you print
nasty things about the owners? No, you
would think twice. You’ve got a mortgage
and kids in kindergarten. This has simply
always made life difficult for Icelandic
journalists.
Q: Will they ever stop
speaking about billions?
A: Blablabla … billions
… blablabla-blabla … billions and
billions and blabions, blablabions
and blablablabions. Blablabions?
Blablablabions. This was a random
sample from Icelandic public debate
in 2007. Here comes a random sample
anno 2009: BLABLABLA! BILLIONS!
BLABLABLA-BLABLA—BILLIONS
AND BILLIONS, BLABIONS AND
BABLIONS, BABLION YOU! YOU
BABLIONIC LITTLE BABLIONEE!
Ontology is the field within philosophy
where it is debated what exists,
and what it means for it to exist.
Ontological debate is not needed for
those who follow the news at all: what
exists is money. Even non-existent
money, which is the most discussed
sort, exists in its own special, but all
too real way.
There used to be an escape
route. For the better half of the 20th
century, there were countries where
people spoke of something besides
money. According to historians, well,
according to the pundits of neo-
liberalism anyway, people in these
places did not have much else to
speak about, no coffee-table items of
curiosity, and the little they had they
dared not mention out of fear that
a secret agent might overhear, and
wrong words uttered in their presence
might get you a one way ticket to
Siberia. A cold and dreary place where
people just worked, worked and
worked until they died, in the gloomy
silence of a Kiesloski film. Well, at least
they did not have to suffer this endless,
no but absolutely endless, delusional
talk of imagined things. Imagined,
made-up, gone with the wind, and still
as absolutely real as God used to be,
as made clear with every second word
uttered in this mad little place.
Now, since there is no place to visit
East of the Wall anymore, for those
wanting a brief pause from these
absurd non-items of fascination, what
is there to do?
Perhaps you’ve thought of staying
somewhere alone for a while. That
may help—you can rent a cottage, or
even borrow a place somewhere on
the countryside, there’s enough room
available in the small towns that used
to be fishing villages. Whether here
or there, though, can you be trusted
to think of anything else, even if you
lock yourself up without radio and
internet, bring food, bring some books
of poetry and give no one the address,
thoroughly hermitize for a few days?
Furthermore: Can you afford it?
Tourists pay billions every year to
escape talk of billions in a safari or
by hiking through the silent eventless
wilderness of glaciers. There will be
a bill. Try travelling in an area where
you don’t speak the language, you will
still hear billions mentioned on the
radio, in the café, in your sleep—billions
sound the same everywhere. And yes,
they also speak of money in the third
world, especially when you’re around.
They may not mention billions right
away; you’d get a break from that, if
you travel in Burma, for example. But
they’ll be after your dollars, explicitly,
on every street corner. You, who
hardly have any. You’ll likely have
to pay for food and lodging anyway
and one day anguish awaits you as
your minor fractions of a billion have
dispersed like … mercenaries. Those
opportunistic fractions.
The same goes for other ideas:
pursuing your studies, given that
your field is neither business nor
economics, it won’t get you far away
from the world of billions anyhow.
Study literature and you will find that
since the lost generation, writers
have tended to stay in any country
with an undervalued currency, fleeing
all booms like a herd. Paris became
popular when the Franc was low. Study
anything and you’ll spend the rest of
your life applying for sponsorships and
stipendia.
Activism sounds wholesome and
neat, but perhaps you just don’t see
yourself as an anarchist—perhaps you
endorse hierarchies, you may not be
anti-power as such, just anti-wrong-
powers. Anti-other-people’s-power.
You may not like the dress code, their
noises, you may not like all the fun they
seem to be having and you’re not sure
you’d get laid as an anarchist or that
the anarchists would like to lay you.
The police seem to get all worked up
about them—and besides, they seem to
be following the news too, getting all
worked up over other people’s money.
And you, you just want some peace.
It is not there. Our languages
used to be warzones, but they were
conquered by billions. And then
looted. There will be ceaseless talk of
billions everywhere until judgement
falls. Lucky for you, even if the 2008
economic crisis fell short of being the
end of the world, a rumour is spreading
in London that 2011 might just be
it. And if not, there is the looming
ecological catastrophe. Just hang in
there.
Interview | Media
LOuISE PETERSSON
juLIA STAPLES
Is Icelandic Media Being Held Hostage By Its Owners?
The Grapevine got permission from its owners to investigate
Opinion | Haukur Már Helgason
Catastrophology