Reykjavík Grapevine - 06.05.2011, Blaðsíða 6

In 1952, Israel’s premier, David Ben-Gurion,
offered the new country’s presidency to
Albert Einstein. Einstein, being a rather
bright fellow, politely declined, noting that
while he liked studying the physical world, "I have
neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal
with human beings." Unfortunately, Iceland’s political
class is not filled with Einsteins. Instead, in Iceland
the top-level political offices are routinely given to
political hacks with no particular experience or ex-
pertise in the field of endeavour of which they are
placed in charge.
I have often heard managers say that a good
manager can manage any enterprise, but practices
in other nations and events in Iceland’s recent past
make it clear that an advanced level of knowledge in
the substantive area in question is essential to proper
decision-making at the top levels of government.
When the person in charge is unable to understand
the opinions of his or her professional staff, how can
he or she effectively advocate the staff’s recommen-
dations to the cabinet? How can he or she ensure
that differences of opinion among staff are resolved
correctly? How can he or she detect bureaucratic
incompetence or corruption? (See, e.g., Minister of
Finance Árni Mathiesen, circa 2007, a veterinarian by
profession, yet he failed to sniff out the incompetent
greedy pigs that ran Iceland’s economy and banking
system into the ground).
In assembling his cabinet, an American president
usually bases his selection on—well, of course, that‘s
the name of the game—politics, but also on (this will
sound strange and unusual to Icelanders) qualifica-
tions! So, the Secretary of Education will likely be
someone who’s spent a lot of time in that field; the
current one, Arne Duncan, was CEO of Chicago Pub-
lic Schools for seven years. Robert Gates spent over
quarter of a century in the CIA and National Security
Council before becoming Secretary of Defence.
Icelanders don’t bother with this experience
nonsense. All you have to do to become a cabinet
minister is be an obedient member of the Fourparty
(Iceland has four major political parties, but since it
makes no difference which one of them is in power—
they all share the same hindquarters—this title simpli-
fies things). The rest will take care of itself, and one
day a Ministry—some ministry, any ministry—will be
yours. It’s a political entitlement; qualifications have
nothing to do with it.
Take for example the Icelandic Ministry of Health
(or ‘Welfare’ as it is now called, since the Ministry of
Social Affairs and the Ministry of Health were merged
into one). Its minister since 2010 is a teacher. His bio
lists 18 or 19 committee posts; of those only one had
anything to do with health. The previous Minister
of Health—who held the job less than a year—was a
journalist by profession. Her career included manag-
ing a salmon farm and numerous committee jobs.
She also “taught biology while studying at MR and
MH” (colleges in Reykjavík), which I suppose could
be stretched into a health-field-related qualifica-
tion…
Our Minister of Finance and Commerce, Árni Páll
Árnason, is a young-ish handsome hunk of a guy and
a lawyer by profession. His resume contains impres-
sive descriptions of various jobs that are available to
well connected Icelandic, preferably male, products
of the University of Iceland’s law department, but only
one position, an Icelandic bank board membership
(by definition a dubious honour) could qualify as be-
ing finance-related. Before becoming Finance Min-
ister last year, he was Minister of—…and the Musical
Chair is… Social Services!—from 2009–2010.
You will have noticed that these ministers’ tenures
are strangely brief. This also is the Icelandic norm and
one of the characteristics of a system that exists to
serve the politicians who created it, not the lowly
masses that pay for it.
You may be wondering—vow! maybe these peo-
ple are so smart that they can be Minister of Anything
anytime!? Health today, Education tomorrow, Agri-
culture next week? It depends on whom you ask, of
course. But no, they are not.
The ultimate cause of Iceland’s rampant bureau-
cratic incompetence is the parliamentary system cre-
ated in the country’s constitution. By requiring that
cabinet ministers be members of Alþingi, it narrows
the field of possible candidates to an absurdly small
number of individuals, all of whom have dedicated
their professional careers to their political parties.
The U.S. Constitution opens the field to the entire
population, and permits the President to select the
best candidates, regardless of their political affiliation
(e.g., Obama’s Secretary of Defence was also Bush’s
Secretary of Defence).
We must come up with a better system for select-
ing the top government advisors. Humility is not Ice-
landers’ strong suit, but I do wish that our politicians
would take Dirty Harry’s advice: “A man’s got to know
his limitations.”
The Icelandic
Entitlement Club
6
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 5 — 2011
ICELAND’S BIG BROTHER IN LAW?
Despite the government's seemingly 'good intentions', this newfan-
gled media law isn´t very thought through by most accounts. What
are your feelings on the subject?
Media | Law Opinion | Íris Erlingsdóttir
Examining Law
no. 38/2011
Passed by the parliament and quietly signed by the
President just before the country shut down for its
four-day Easter holiday, Iceland’s new media law,
Law no. 38/2011, hardly made a splash in the pub-
lic discourse. However, while legislation like the
Icelandic Modern Media Initiative put Iceland on
the map as a haven for the freedom of expression,
this newly passed media law has created a hub-
bub in the media world, with some likening it to an
Orwellian Big Brother.
The law’s purpose, as stated in its Article 1, is
“to promote freedom of expression, the right to in-
formation, media literacy, diversity and pluralism
in the media and to protect the media consumer.
The goal is also to establish common legislation
applicable to media of all formats.” There were
previously separate laws applying to print media
and broadcast media, and the print media law was
last updated in 1956.
Calling Iceland “a bit behind the times,” Minis-
ter of Education, Science and Culture Katrín Jako-
bsdóttir, whose ministry was responsible for draft-
ing the legislation, says that Iceland was one of the
few European countries that had yet to adopt such
holistic media legislation. Furthermore, she notes,
“If you look at the Special Investigative Commit-
tee report, the media was heavily criticised for its
lack of professionalism. It was really a time for an
updated legal environment.”

MEDIA GRIEVANCES
Best intentions aside, however, a number of me-
dia affiliates are unhappy with the details. Among
those who signed a petition urging the President
not to sign the law into effect are the largest me-
dia company in Iceland, 365 miðlar, (which owns
Fréttablaðið, the most widely distributed newspa-
per in Iceland, along with TV station Stöð 2 and
most of the nation’s radio stations), along with a
number of smaller media companies, including Út-
varp Saga, Sjónvarpsstöðin ÍNN, Stöð 2, Bylgjan,
Vefpressan (which operates the websites Eyjan.is,
Pressan.is, bleikt.is and menn.is), Vefmiðlun ehf.,
AMX.is, Sjónvarpsstöðin Omega, Sjónvarpsstöðin
Stöð 1 and Kaninn FM.
As per the law, all media in Iceland must now
register with a state-run media committee that
has the power to slap fines and prison sentences
on the noncompliant. This applies to “any medium
that regularly conveys editorial content to the
public […] among other things, newspapers and
magazines, along with their accompanying pub-
lications, websites, audio and visual media and
other comparable media.”
Although this definition of media seemingly
applies to bloggers or just about any Icelander
who shares Facebook status updates with the
public (as Haukur Már Helgason discussed on his
blog, haukur.perspiredbyiceland.com), Katrín says
the law does not have jurisdiction over personal
blogs or Facebook pages. “It applies to profes-
sionally edited media,” she says.
However, the distinction is especially impor-
tant given that the media must not only register
basic information, such as the name of media,
identification number, legal address, email, web-
site, name of the media owner, and name of per-
son responsible for running the media, but also an
editorial strategy. Failure to do so can result in a
200.000 ISK fine, for each outstanding day.
If a newspaper’s editorial strategy is to be ‘an
objective newspaper’, the media committee can
step in with fines if it decides that the strategy is
not being followed. Thus, if Morgunblaðið desires
to publish markedly anti-EU content, the paper
must register an editorial strategy stating that it is
anti-EU to avoid the media committee meddling
in their choice of overwhelmingly anti-EU inter-
viewee subjects, for instance.
Pressan contributor Ólafur Arnarson finds this
rather irksome: “The combination of the strict
requirements put on the media, which includes
reporting to the State Media Committee, and the
unprecedented powers the Committee holds to
invade media companies and their power to use
fines or even stricter measures—basically consti-
tutes a Big Brother environment in line with an
Orwellian nightmare.”
Ólafur continues: “It seems to me that it is pre-
posterous to write a detailed media law and leave
out the National Broadcasting Service.” He is re-
ferring to the fact that the National Broadcasting
Service, RÚV, is both financed by the State and
competes freely in the advertising market, a viola-
tion of EEA law regarding State support of pub-
lic service broadcasting. This is also something
that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has formally
asked Iceland to amend.
Echoing Ólafur’s complaints, Director of the
Union of Icelandic Journalists Hjálmar Jónsson
agrees. “There is a smell of Big Brother,” he says,
adding that he also believes there are a number of
important issues that the media law does not ad-
dress. Before the bill was signed into law, he wrote
an official letter to the Ministry on behalf of the
Union in which he detailed these inefficiencies.
For instance, he wrote: “It must be written in law
that it is not permissible to fire a journalist without
providing adequate justification that he [or she]
made a mistake on the job.”

PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE
Nonetheless, Friðrik Þór Guðmundsson, a journal-
ist and teacher in the journalism department at the
University of Iceland, points out: “While there are
state intervention elements that do not appeal to
media companies and/or the Union of Icelandic
Journalists, the public is probably not so much
against having a bureaucratic watchdog breath-
ing over the shoulders of the media.”
Also of greater concern to the media than the
public, the law puts strict rules on demarcating
advertising content from other content. To account
for the diverse methods of modern advertising,
the law creates a new Icelandic word: “viðskipt-
aboð,” which is the combination of “viðskipti” and
“skilaboð” (respectively, “commerce” and “mes-
sage”). This means that advertising now includes,
according to the law’s definition, “text, images
and/or sound meant to draw attention, directly
or indirectly, to goods, services or legal entity or
person engaged in commercial activities, in ex-
change for remuneration or other form of promo-
tion. Commercial messages include, among other
things, advertisements, sponsorship and product
placement.”
In addition to public lack of interest, Friðrik
notes: “Even journalists did not put up a big fight.
The Union of Icelandic Journalists sent in two dic-
tums, but meetings and discussions have mostly
been absent amongst journalists. This is peculiar,
but in line with the very limited class-conscious-
ness of Icelandic journalists. The fighting spirit of
2004 was certainly absent this time around.”
In 2004, Parliament passed a media law that
was unpopular due to limits it put on media own-
ership, and the President refused to sign it into
effect. This issue of ownership limits is markedly
absent from the new media law, which is also far
broader in scope. And as Friðrik Þór points out,
there are a number of positive articles, such as ed-
itorial independence from owners and the protec-
tion of sources, which are to the public’s benefit.

TIME WILL TELL
Minister Katrín says it’s natural for people to worry
when there is surveillance involved, but adds that
she doesn’t think there is anything to worry about
in this case. “We have no reason to believe that the
committee will use powers in excess.”
Nonetheless, it’s difficult to say what kind of
impact the law will have at this point. As Ólafur
says, the State Media Committee can either be
passive or aggressive. “Everyone seems to carry
the delusion that they will always stay in power.
They don’t contemplate what will happen if all this
power I have amassed ends up in other people’s
hands,” he adds.
Thus, until the future Media Committees take
the law on paper into practice, it is difficult to tell
whether Iceland has in fact acquired a Big Brother
in law.
Words
Anna Andersen
Illustration
Megan Herbert
“Calling Iceland “a bit behind the times,” Minister of Education,
Science and Culture Katrín Jakobsdóttir, whose ministry was
responsible for drafting the legislation, says that Iceland was one
of the few European countries that had yet to adopt such holistic
media legislation.”