Reykjavík Grapevine - 31.07.2015, Page 10

Like Us!
10
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 11 — 2015
Politics | Bright?Media | A dying? NEWS
IN
BRIEF
Although Iceland seems to be
struggling to address growing
pains from increased tour-
ism, the city is at least making
a token effort. Responding to
the cluster-fuck caused by tour
buses driving through narrow 101
lanes, the Reykjavík City Council
has banned all vehicles longer
than eight metres from driving
through downtown streets.
In other news, the nurse’s
wage dispute continues. Last
month, Parliament passed legisla-
tion banning nurses from strik-
ing, which in turn led to mass
resignations. A recently proposed
government offer was rejected
by the nurses, who instead want
another round of talks with the
State Negotiator. Minister of
Finance Bjarni Benediktsson
has, however, suggested that
there is nothing more to discuss.
Meanwhile, Minister of Health
Kristján Þór Júlíusson has said
he’s currently looking into hir-
ing foreign nurses to keep the
hospital operational.
The police commissioner
in the Westman Islands, Pá-
ley Borgþórsdóttir, just gave
us another reason to rest easy.
In anticipation of the annual
Þjóðhátíð festival in the West-
man Islands, Páley sent a letter to
relevant response parties, telling
them not to talk to the media
about reported sexual assaults.
We’re waiting for a similar order
banning scientists from talking
about global warming, so that
the problem will go away and we
can get back to burning fossil fuel
with reckless abandon.
Speaking of animals, the
Icelandic Seal Centre reports
that the super sweet mammal’s
numbers are on the decline, for
unexplained reasons. Ecologist
Sandra Granquist has called for
a more extensive and detailed
survey next year, which she con-
siders “very necessary.”
What lead you to believe social
media was having this censorship
impact on Iceland’s journalists?
At what point were you reading,
watching, listening to Icelandic
media, interacting over social me-
dia with Icelanders and thinking,
‘“The journalists seem to be hold-
ing back; the online conversations
seem to be very volatile?”
Back in 2011-12, I and other journalism
and media teachers at the University of
Iceland participated in an international
questionnaire about journalists. The idea
was to sort of map out the media cultures
in different countries. That international
study included a question about public
censorship, and then we added one in
Iceland about self-censorship, which was
partly due to the fact that, after the finan-
cial crash, there was an investigation by
Parliament into reporting in the Icelandic
media during that time, trying to analyse
how something like this could happen.
So one of the findings was that we had a
lot of self-censorship of journalists. They
had become buddies with these wealthy
bankers, they took everything at face
value and they were being criticised for
it. So I thought, ok, what does this mean?
That the Icelandic system is so oppressive
that we really have no editorial indepen-
dence? How do we define self-censorship
and what is our experience of it?
So you sort of found that many
mainstream journalists started to
conform to the commentary from
bloggers and on social media?
Yes, forty-five percent of the Icelandic
journalists said that their self-censorship
played a part in their daily routine and
work conditions. Prominent and influen-
tial bloggers and figures of social media
became sort of “shadow editors” on what
stories the journalists would consider
pursuing or the people they would talk
to. These shadow editors will point to a
journalist, claiming to be impartial, and
say, “Well you’re always interviewing
these kinds of people, like from the Social
Democrats or Progressive Party.” These
accusations might be true or not true, but
what I’ve found is that this has an impact
on who the journalists decide to ulti-
mately talk to. Often, the journalists said
in my interviews that they would think,
“Ok, what’s going to happen if I bring this
guy up once more? Will I be accused of
being one-sided?” So in that sense, you’re
seeing an influence on the news values.
Who is an example of one of these
shadow editors, and how might
they have influenced any of the
journalists you interviewed for
this study?
One journalist mentioned Egill Hel-
gason and Illugi Jökulsson, who are sort
influential personalities. Illugi is pretty
left-wing, and Egill, he’s just sort of his
own institution with his television pro-
gramme.
I think the most interesting thing
I saw was that some journalists didn’t
pursue issues that went against the
mainstream opinions expressed on the
Internet. For example, in the case of the
leak, when the Minister of the Interior
[Hanna Birna Kristjánsdóttir] resigned
last year and the press got
very invested, DV espe-
cially—they got a prize for
that—there were many
journalists that had res-
ervations about the case.
They wondered if there
were other aspects of the
investigation to be looked at as well, like
the criminal history of the asylum seeker,
but this was against the mainstream of
the discussion. Many wanted to raise
questions that might be legitimate, but
also controversial, and they admitted to
letting them be. They saw other reports,
and the conversation as it was on social
media, and said, “We’ll just go with it.”
In terms of politics, it means rais-
ing questions that might be legitimate,
but could leave a journalist branded as
having tried to defend a certain political
viewpoint—be it immigration or gender
equality. Because of mainstream pres-
sure here, if you don’t take the “correct”
approach to it, and ask the “correct” ques-
tions, in order to be politically correct,
you can be interpreted in many bad ways.
I’m not against political correctness.
But to not talk about something just be-
cause it is impolite is not right.
So some of these seem like uni-
versal pressures on journalists:
the political correctness, being
influenced by mainstream conver-
sations. But I imagine in Iceland
it’s polarized because it’s such a
small population, in a small area.
A reporter in New York probably
doesn’t worry so much about
Bob from Arkansas comment-
ing, tweeting or writing critical
Facebook posts about his story.
But in Iceland, it’s so much closer
and immediate. Do you think that
has a greater affect on Iceland? On
top of this, Iceland has the second-
most Facebook users in the world
per capita.
Yes, and in many places the media’s com-
ment sections are making journalists
think twice. The idea of reporting on
something and then having a commenter
say horrible things about you is part of
the equation. In Iceland, someone tags
your name in a comment on Facebook
and all of the sudden everyone’s in on it.
They can see who you are, who you know,
pictures of your family.
Do you see this impact of social
media users on journalists as an
overall positive one or nega-
tive one?
I see it more as a negative one.
I think most journalists in tra-
ditional media want to pursue
the truth and that should be
the main goal. Yet these so-
cial media users, many are
self-proclaimed experts who have no re-
sponsibility to back up their statements,
believe they have more credibility to tell
the story than the journalist themselves.
So when you see a publication
like DV putting a picture of the
Prime Minister on the cover, with
a headline meaning something
like “Threated To Harm Iceland,”
and then distributing it for free to
households, doesn’t it make you
kind of grateful that there are
people out there on the internet
criticizing those decisions? Are
you sort of surprised that any
publication in Iceland would have
done that?
I am grateful and I think it’s necessary to
criticise something like that. But here’s
what I mean about the critics jumping to
conclusions: the Prime Minister has been
very difficult to get ahold of, he doesn’t
give interviews. DV has distributed the
paper for free several times over the last
few months because they have new own-
ers, it’s a sort of promotional tool. If the
Grapevine wanted to get more readers,
don’t you think it would be a good mar-
keting tool to put the Prime Minister on
the cover, the one who sort of never gives
interviews?
Afterwards I thought, they [DV] are
going to have a very hard time defending
this, especially against these criticisms
that are already pre-supposed. But it just
irritates me how quickly people jump to
conclusions and make generalizations.
How do you see social media trans-
forming and altering the conversa-
tions that Icelanders have about
politics, immigration, gender
equality, etc.?
It’s hard to predict of course, but I imag-
ine it will sort of normalize over time.
I think you will get more civilized dis-
cussion on social media. Right now the
public responds to media like they do the
witty guy at the water cooler who has
something sharp to say. But there’s a dif-
ference between simply calling the Prime
Minister an “asshole,” and offering some-
thing greater on the matter.
Here at the Grapevine we are, admittedly, more prone to
over-sharing than self-censorship (see our recent story
“Mystery Of Weed-Stuffed ‘Dildo’ Solved,” and any res-
taurant review concluding illegal substances would have
enhanced the meal). But according to Birgir Guðmunds-
son, associate professor of journalism at the University of
Akureyri, journalists working in the country’s mainstream
newsrooms are holding back or omitting information,
perspectives and worthwhile investigations in pursuit of
fitting a more politically correct narrative. Birgir says this
narrative is reinforced via social media, where popular
bloggers and commentators function as “shadow editors”
of journalists. In 2011, he asked the country’s journalists if
they regularly found themselves self-censoring. Forty-five
percent of them responded with a “yes.”
Words by Alex Baumhardt
Illustration by Hrefna Sigurðardóttir
Study shows bloggers and social media
commenters may have biggest impact
on what Iceland’s journalists say, and don’t
PRESS