Iceland review - 2016, Blaðsíða 76

74 ICELAND REVIEW
How much of a concern is the high
level of concentration of ownership in the
media, as well as political and commer-
cial interests on journalism in Iceland?
How much editorial independence is
there? Some politicians have complained
lately that RÚV, for example, is biased.
The ownership concentration of the
Icelandic media is high by any standards
and is of grave concern here, as indeed
everywhere in the western world. In fact,
all, or at least most, of the national media
have some—or are at least perceived to
have—ownership connections to political
interests. This has become very apparent
in several of my studies, and in particular
politicians believe the national media
to be unprofessional and biased in their
political reporting. The transition from a
party political media system to a market
media system came late in Iceland and
it was uncontrolled and traits of the old
system have influenced and characterize
the new condition, but in a much subtler
way than before. This is not to say that
there is not a fluid exchange of ideas and
many different viewpoints represented
in the media, and formal editorial inde-
pendence within each medium is respect-
ed. Indeed, editorial independence is
protected by law and stressed in the
ethical code of the Journalists’ Union,
but some evidence points to a degree of
self-censorship among Icelandic journal-
ists and an awareness about both compa-
ny commercial interests and ownership.
Trust in the media in Iceland has
declined in recent years, according to
polls. What are the main reasons for this
and is this in line with trends elsewhere
in Europe?
I think declining trust in the media is
an international phenomenon and one
can suggest many reasons. The short
answer is that a combination of two or
perhaps three megatrends has created
a sense of deception in the media and
people do not trust if they think they are
being deceived. These megatrends are
commercialization of the media with an
emphasis on selling media content; tech-
nological change, with all sorts of new
media and a blurring of lines between
journalism and journalism-like activi-
ties; and the third one could be seen to
be globalization. In Iceland we have, in
addition, this political market media sys-
tem that adds to mistrust and a sense of
deception. The state broadcasting com-
pany, RÚV, still retains a lot of trust,
in particular among the public, but less
so among politicians, particularly politi-
cians in the center-right block.
The parliamentary election is at the
end of October. What is the role of the
Icelandic media during elections and
how does it compare to the media in
other countries?
The role of the media is extremely
important and in most ways it’s similar to
the role of the media in other countries,
for example, Norway. But this role has
been changing somewhat and although
I have found in my research that tradi-
tional media such as television are most
important for the parties and candidates,
new media, in particular Facebook and
other social media, are also vital.
What is the status of the freedom of
the press in Iceland in general?
All-in-all, freedom of the press is fair in
Iceland, but it of course depends on one’s
frame of reference. While the public
broadcaster plays a major role, and most
of the formal framework is intact, it can
still be questioned whether the com-
mercial nature of the system, and lack
of government policy towards the media
as a whole, is limiting the diversity and
plurality of editorial content.
In recent years, several new news
websites, like Nútíminn, Kjarninn and
Stundin, have been established. Do these
sorts of websites have a future in such a
small market as Iceland?
There are a number of new media that
have been trying to get through and
establish themselves as independent
journalism outlets, not plagued with the
heritage of the political party media.
While often making important contribu-
tions to the general discussion in society,
they fail to produce a viable economic
model for themselves, even resorting
to accusations or reporting on alleged
political connections of other media, new
and established, and thus falling in the
trenches they originally intended to get
out of! The main problem of a free press
in Iceland is the same as in many other
countries: a new, viable economic model
for news reporting media companies has
not been found and in Iceland the situa-
tion is made especially bad by the lack of
any government support.
Some journalists have criticized the
country’s defamation law as a way to
silence the press. Are many cases of def-
amation filed in Iceland?
Yes. This has been a concern, in particu-
lar in the years leading up to the crash
in 2008. In the post-crash period this
has changed again. Perhaps I should say
that it was not only the defamation law
that was becoming worrying but also
the definition of privacy protection. In
the neoliberal market-oriented ideol-
ogy that characterized the boom years
prior to the crash, a person’s reputation
and private life were increasingly being
given price tags and the courts seemed
to go along with that line of reasoning.
But that pendulum seems to have swung
back now—but only after three rulings
on such matters by the European Court
of Human Rights and the introduction
of the new media bill in 2011. Today I
believe this is much less of a worry than
it was.
Freedom of speech has also been
recently discussed in the context of read-
er comments and hate speech on news
websites, in particular in relation to
discussion of Islam and the building of a
mosque in Iceland, as well as the LGBT
community. Are readers held accounta-
ble for their comments online?
There are some cases where lawyers have
collected comments in specific cases and
sued [the person who wrote the com-
ment] for defamation. That could also be
done in case of comments on discrimi-
M E D I A