Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.12.2011, Blaðsíða 6

6
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 18 — 2011
Any thoughts or ideas on how immigrants could our should be rep-
resented in the local media? Do you think it's necessary to denote a
criminal offender's place of birth? Why? letters@grapevine.is
Iceland | Media
Calls for Media Policy On Cultural diversity
Diversity policies have been in place in Europe since the '60s. Isn’t it time the Icelandic media follows suit?
Words
Zoë Robert
Photo
Hvalreki
The Integration and Immigrants’
Participation conference, held last
month in Reykjavík, focused among
other things on immigrants' repre-
sentation and participation in the
local media. The issue has received
renewed attention in recent months
in relation to coverage of a number
of criminal cases in Iceland in which
it was emphasised that the crimes
were committed by foreign nationals
or those of foreign origin. Spokes-
persons for immigrant groups have
condemned this emphasis, arguing
that it is unnecessary, reflects preju-
dice and reinforces stereotypes.
AbSENCE OF MEdIA POLICy ON
CULTURAL dIVERSITy
Helga Ólafs, one of the organisers of
the conference, is writing her PhD dis-
sertation on media representations of
immigrants in Icelandic newspapers.
According to Helga Ólafs, the absence
of a media policy in Iceland on cultural
diversity is a contributing factor.
“Diversity policies have been in place
in Europe since the 1960s. The funda-
mental principle of the Nordic public
service system is to embrace the entire
population, but in order to fulfil that prin-
ciple, the Icelandic national television
needs a policy regarding cultural diver-
sity,” she says.
“In the Nordic countries policies have
been set forward due to pressure but the
fact is that there is almost no pressure
in our society and the discussion limited,
according to my research, to mostly re-
volving around whether to mention na-
tionality in crime news.”
Helga Ólafs says that Morgunblaðið
adopted a set of guidelines (the only pa-
per to officially do so) in 2002 following
an incident when nationality was men-
tioned despite it being irrelevant to the
story.
43% dECLINE IN COVERAGE OF
IMMIGRANTS
Still, Helga Ólafs and other speakers
at the event say that discussion about
immigrants lacks diversity and is often
linked to crime. In fact, there has been
a 43 percent decrease in articles on im-
migrants from 2007–2010, according to
a content analysis of the Icelandic mass
media by Media Watch.
Furthermore, they argue that immi-
grants overall have very little presence in
the media. “What is a bit troubling is that
there are so few immigrants in the me-
dia. They are really seldom interviewed
and there are very few articles written
by immigrants,” Helga Ólafs says. “Addi-
tionally there are no immigrants working
in the [Icelandic language] media apart
from one on [television station] ÍNN.”
She explains that the decline in cov-
erage can be partly attributed to news-
papers shrinking and immigrants return-
ing to their country of origin following
the economic crash.
Nonetheless, Helga Ólafs says hiring
people with immigrant backgrounds in
the media would be one step towards
the media better reflecting multicultural
society. “It would be very positive to have
an immigrant on the screen and also for
Icelanders to get used to listening to for-
eigners speaking Icelandic with an ac-
cent,” Helga Ólafs says.
“[But] we must keep in mind that di-
versity is not only being able to count the
number of ethnically different faces on
screen. The important question is how
they are portrayed, how they are part of
the story.”
LANGUAGE IS A bARRIER
Helga Ólafs points out that the language
is a barrier particularly when it comes to
television not just in immigrants being
hired to work in the media but also when
it comes to the media interviewing them.
Helga Ólafsdóttir, an MA student in An-
thropology at the University of Iceland
(not to be confused with the aforemen-
tioned Helga Ólafs), who has also con-
ducted research on the topic, agrees
with Helga Ólafs.
“Immigrants are hardly ever spoken
to as just normal members of the public
and one of the reasons for this is the Ice-
landic language,” she says.
“There is a strict language policy at
the national television station, which
is actually quite limiting for Icelandic
journalists too because they get lots of
criticism if they don’t use the language
correctly or even if they interview people
who lack some knowledge of Icelandic
or use it in an ‘improper way,’ so many
are scared of interviewing immigrants,
I think, because of their accent or be-
cause the person might not be under-
stood so they will get lots of emails ask-
ing ‘why did you interview this person?’”
NARROW REPRESENTATION OF
IMMIGRANTS
Helga Ólafsdóttir adds that when im-
migrants are spoken to it’s usually in
relation to problems and in cases where
they are spoken to because of special
knowledge or interest, they are still
asked where they are from despite it be-
ing obvious that they live in Iceland. “It
always has to be emphasised, ‘you’re a
foreigner,’” she explains.
Similarly, Helga Ólafs says that the
representation of foreigners needs to be
broadened. “Minorities are all too often
treated as issues, not as people,” she
says.
A LOT OF WORK TO bE dONE
Fréttablaðið Editor Ólafur Stephensen,
who was a discussant in one of the ses-
sions on media, agrees that there is a lot
of work to be done.
“In many ways we have reflected the
fact that Iceland is becoming a multi-
cultural society, but we’ve been pretty
much focused on the negatives and on
the problems of integration and changes
in society,” he says.
“We need to shift our focus away
from portraying people who are born
elsewhere and who have moved here as
a departure from the norm to portraying
them as normal people living here. That
is probably one of our important tasks
ahead—to reflect how people of foreign
origin are living here in Icelandic society.
We want to do better because we want
to reflect all groups of society.”
“What is a bit troubling is that there are so
few immigrants in the media.”
Iceland in the international eye | December
It looks good on the plate, but
something simply doesn’t
taste right.
Much of the international me-
dia is hailing Iceland as an example of
how to squeeze through the crisis tunnel
and come out the other side grinning like
a Cheshire Cat. As SPD candidate George
Kerevan points out in his Scotsman article
from November 25: “…this week, it was the
ultra-orthodox Germany that the fickle
bond markets turned on. In Reykjavík
they have a right to smile…”
So should we all be guzzling cham-
pagne with our defrosted chicken?
An early November AFP headline
reads: “Key lesson from Iceland crisis is
let banks fail.” Three weeks later, the Fi-
nancial Times (FT) runs with: “Iceland:
out of the deep freeze,” and then there’s
a whole host of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ blogs
trumpeting Iceland as the only place in
the world where citizens have made a real
difference. The ever-optimistic Birgitta
Jónsdóttir points out in her Guardian ar-
ticle on November 15 that it will be, “up
to the 99% to call for a national vote…so
that we inside the parliament know exactly
what the nation wants and will have to fol-
low suit.”
Sounds fantastic, but will it really
make a difference when the Icelandic
court system rules against the people?
In the words of the FT: “Iceland will now
repay the Dutch and British government
for money spent compensating personal
deposits—despite an Icelandic vote in a
referendum in April to block the compen-
sation deal.”
And where on Earth is the media get-
ting its facts and figures?
The Scotsman proposes, “Iceland’s ex-
port surplus is growing like the clappers.
Hence the reason Standard & Poor’s says
it is safe to invest in Iceland again.” On
the other hand, a more cautious Reuters
whispers that, “two key problems to Ice-
land’s growth are that domestic demand is
f latlining and exports, despite a deprecia-
tion in the value of the crown [sic] are basi-
cally unchanged compared to 2008.”
You tell me? To coin an Icelandic knit-
ting metaphor: Who’s spinning whose
yarn? Could it be that there’s politics at
work here? In the media? Heaven forbid!
Shouldn’t we be grateful for the FT’s
healthy scepticism: “Iceland has a long
way to go before it becomes a pin-up for
post-crisis recovery…private sector invest-
ment is only about half the level it was in
2008, while public sector investment is
falling.” And little brother Reuters con-
curs: “…the government and the creditors
of the collapsed banks own the new banks.
This distorts the allocation of capital, with
banks unwilling to lend to businesses oth-
er than their own.”
But I ask you. Who really owns the
banks?
The only reason that unemployment
figures are presently just below 7% is
because, in the words of Reuters, “a large
number of companies, which are being
kept in business only because they are
bank-owned, would go bust. Unemploy-
ment, down from a peak of about 10 per-
cent to six percent, would start going up
again.”
The ever-cheerful AFP says: “After
three years of harsh austerity measures,
the country’s economy is now showing
signs of health despite the current global
financial and economic...” Paul Krugman,
the US Nobel-laureate economist told the
AFP that Iceland has its krona to thank for
the speedy recovery. “In Iceland, the gov-
ernment was actually in a sound position
debt-wise before the crisis.” Doesn’t that
make you want to shake Mister Haarde’s
hand?
On the other side of the Richter Scale,
Michael Hudson, everybody’s pessimistic
US economist, points out in an interview
with GRTV, that “since the last census a
few years ago, 8% of Iceland’s total popula-
tion has had to emigrate to avoid the debt
plunge…Most of the Icelanders of working
age have left for Norway and other coun-
tries in order to find work. The situation
in Iceland is becoming as bad as it was in
Latvia…where they’ve forced one third of
the population to plan to emigrate in the
next few years. The approval rating of the
Icelandic government by its people is re-
ported to be 10%. That’s even worse than
the US approval rating of congress.”
From the sidelines, Reuters adds that
the “[Icelandic] government recently said
it was focused on export-driven growth,
but its plan lacks detailed measures,”
and according to the FT, one reason why
investments are not being stimulated is
because “capital controls remain in place.
Removing them could boost activity, but
the omens are not good.” Apparently we
shouldn’t hold our breath. “The last time
Iceland introduced capital controls, in the
1930s, they were not lifted until 1993.”
A little further into his GRTV inter-
view, the enigmatic Michael Hudson
makes a tragic ‘whoops’ mistake. He says
that Iceland has a population of 800,000
people. Well, if only he were right—unless
there are 500,000 individuals mingling
with the Huldufólk (the hidden people).
Of course I know that success stories
are relative, and numbers can be adjusted
according to (nudge nudge) variables.
I don’t want to finger-point, but there
should be all manner of MBA number-
crunchers on hand who are quite fey in
presenting long-term debts as assets…
Well, I guess I have no choice but to
eat my attractive yet weird-tasting chicken
and see how I fare in the morning. Here’s
a little secret: Much of the frozen chicken
for sale in Iceland isn’t even Icelandic. Just
ask Mister Strauss-Kahn of the IMF (cluck
cluck).
Can the 99% Really defrost A Scrawny Icelandic Chicken?
MARC VINCENz