Democracy or Mediocracy?

An Essay in “Globalisation; Media and Communication”, Master of Arts in Communication, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne 2004



Norway: a democracy or a “mediocracy”? International media corporations & cross-media ownerships - a threat to democracy in Norway?

The media has from the start had an important role in any modern nation that desires to call itself a democracy. I will discuss whether large international media corporations and cross-media ownerships are threatening the Norwegian democracy, with the help from examples from comparable countries in Europe. With comparable countries I mean countries, mainly in Western Europe, with similar social, political and economical structures that consider themselves democracies. First I will define democracy and place the media in a democratic context, before looking at the contemporary European media industry, especially UK. Then I will take a short look at the organisation and history of the Norwegian press, before looking at these circumstances in relation to current debates. I will use some Norwegian sources, and some of the used quotes are translated by me.

What is democracy? Democracy has it roots in ancient Greek; 'demokratia' –meaning 'rule by the people'. Today the concept is complex and contested, both in justifications and practical implications. (Gutmann, 1995) The most common type of democracy in contemporary Western Europe is the representative democracy and within this a three way split of power: the executive, legislative and judiciary ‘power’. The significance of a free press is deeply rooted in the idea of democracy, and is ‘the watchdog over the workings of democracy' ('According to classic liberal theory, as expounded most famously by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbud Schramm in Four Theories of the Press, "the underlying purpose of the media was to help discover truth, to assist in the process of solving political and social problems by presenting all manner of evidence and opinion as the basis for decisions". In order properly to fulfill this purpose, the media needed to be free from government controls or domination, since its prime duty was to "keep officers of the state from abusing or exceeding their authority. It was to be the watchdog over the workings of democracy, ever vigilant to spot and expose any arbitrary or authoritarian practice.' (Petley, 2004)). It is often referred to as the ‘fourth estate’.

Europe

A report from 2003 by EFJ concludes that there are major threats in Europe’s media landscape. Some of the threats identified are political and private threats to public service broadcasting, power over global media in the hands of few, more and more media concentration, threats to emerging markets in Eastern and Central Europe and regulation getting weaker as media power grows (William, 2003). The rapport shows that in the United Kingdom, the Communications Bill, published in May 2002 and updated in 2003, will drastically liberalise media ownership and regulation (One controversial proposal is the lifting of cross-media ownership-restrictions, so that potentially, Rupert Murdoch’s UK-based News International could acquire TV-channels in the UK even though he already is a heavy player in the printed press). Petley (2004) argues that the media in the UK no longer can be called the ‘fourth estate’ – he says the reason for this is simple: self-interest ('The reason for such comprehensive abandonment of the ideals of the fourth estate can be summed up in one word: self-interest. Murdoch routinely uses his media to support governments that support his business interests.'), and he quotes John Kean who renames media to ‘the marketplace of opinion’ (Petley, 2004). Petley continues with examples from Murdoch's dealing, for example his Chinese ‘Star’ satellites deal. When his own HarperCollins wanted to publish a book critical of the Chinese by the former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, Murdoch stopped it, saying 'Let someone else annoy them'. Petley also quotes from Bruce Page's recent book 'The Murdoch Archipelago' about politicians and the press: 'fear moves them as fully as admiration' and 'find themselves in a dance of folly which has at least the potential to be a dance of death for democracy'. Petley concludes that the idea of the press as a fourth estate needs to be put to sleep once and for all.

James Curran (2002) says that media conglomerates have been able to persuade governments around the world to ease monopoly control (‘(…) a one-sided protection of our freedoms: a state of constant alert against the abuse of state power over the media, reflected in the development of numerous safeguards, not matched by an equivalent vigilance and set of safeguards directed against the abuse of shareholder power over the media.Indeed, one consequence of the current quiescence is that media conglomerates have been able to persuade governments around the world to ease monopoly controls. In the 1980s, lobbyists argued that these were redundant since the advent of new communication technology would lead to the break-up of media empires. Now the argument is more frequently heard that media ‘consolidation’ is necessary for success in the competitive global marketplace’ (Curran, 2002).). The European Parliament has also failed to put limits on the ownership of media (’ The European Parliament has, on more than occasion, expressed the need to deal with the megamedia threat in Western Europe; and twice the European Commissioner for the Internal Market has proposed a directive that would deal with the ‘merger mania’ and put limits on the ownership of media. Through late 1997, however, the powerful megamedia and their political allies had repeatedly beaten back the establishment of any such rules’) (Alger, 1998, p.213). It is almost inevitable that big media corporations like News Corporation, Disney or Time Warner will take advantage of liberal rules and use it to increase their already substantial multinational cross-media ownerships, by merging and converging with any type of media, expanding their control in already established areas as well as new markets. Dean Alger talks about a ‘Megamedia Era’ that started with Murdoch’s purchases of newspapers in the UK and the US in the 70’s. (Alger, 1998, p.5)

Norway

What about the Norwegian market? Norway is the best country in the world to live in according to the UN (BBC, 2002) with a population of only 4, 5 million. They are spread in a long thin country that borders to Sweden, Finland and Russia, and by sea to Iceland, the UK and Denmark.

One of the most important media commentators in Norway is professor Sigurd Allern. His book ‘Kildenes Makt’ (The Power of Sources) from 1996 is a major reference in Norway, as are his later works, despite media suspicion of his revolutionary past . In Allern’s book from 1996 he says that any debate about Norwegian press always starts with a ‘homage to the diverse press’, mainly because of two historical circumstances. Norway is sparsely populated, and the local newspapers have always been an important part of the identity of local communities and small towns (Allern, 1996, p.116). The other important historical circumstance is the close connection between the development of newspapers and political parties. Readers in the cities earlier had a choice between several different newspapers of different political colours (Allern, 1996, p.116). Most newspapers today are independent from political parties, but some still has ties to the left or right. Most #2 and #3 newspapers in many cities have disappeared today, but this ‘newspaper death’ was mild compared to others . Norway is currently number one in the world when it comes to newspaper circulation, with 559.81 per 1000 people (Nationmaster.com, 2004), and about 220 newspapers (Østbye, 2000, online). An important reason for the continued variety of newspapers in Norway is the ‘Pressestøtte’ (press subsidy), as well as tax exemptions (Østbye, 2000). (Professor Helge Østbye is also an important media commentator in Norway. ‘Helge Østbye (born 1946) is professor at the Department of Media Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. His main research interests are media structure and media development. He has previously written about the Norwegian media structure in 'The Media in Western Europe', 'The Euromedia Handbook' (London: Sage 1992, new edition 1997). He has also written textbooks in Norway media studies in Norwegian.’ (Østbye, 2000, online). ).

The Norwegian media legislation doesn’t allow more than 1/3 of the total newspaper and broadcasting market to be own by a single entity, this to prevent the concentration of media ownership in too few hands (Fosland, 2004). Not surprisingly, there are three major players: Schibsted, Orkla and A-pressen (Allern, 1996, p. 126-138). In 2000 they had 55-60 per cent of newspaper circulation as well as major shares of broadcasting (‘Two of the major newspaper owners (Schibsted and A-pressen), are major shareholders in TV 2, while the third important shareholder is the Danish multimedia company Egmont, which has been present in the Norwegian magazine market since the 1920s. TV 2 is a major shareholder in TvNorge, but 51 per cent of the shares are owned by the American group Scandinavian Broadcasting System (SBS)’(Østbye, 2000). They have also moved into the new media markets with for example online newspapers and portals.

Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik addressed the problems of market liberalism in a global world in 1998 (Bondevik, 1998):‘The perpetual pursuit of short-term profit by international currency brokers is increasingly being seen as a threat to democratic control.’ One can therefore argue he is aware, even though a new proposition by ‘Kultur- og Kirkedepartementet’ (the Ministry of Church and Culture) now wants to increase the limit for national media ownership from 33% to 40%, as well as making it harder for local and regional authorities to stop media concentration – with a regional limit of 60% (Eierskapstilsynet, 2004).

Norwegian broadcasting began with the publicly owned NRK (Norsk Rikskringkasting - Norwegian State Broadcasting). Like the BBC the NRK was to be a ‘public service’, unbiased and objective. In 1991 the privately owned Norwegian TV2 was allowed to go on air, with certain demands; – it had to reinforce the Norwegian language, identity and culture. Several channels also broadcast Norwegian television through satellites. NRK was turned into a joint stock company in 1996, and thus the channel NRK2 and several NRK Radio channels emerged. The NRK is still ad-free, but can now obtain sponsors for its shows (Allern, 1996, p.136). In Norway there is also one national private radio channel as well as many local radio stations. The report by EFJ from last year shows that NRK1 is the most popular TV channel (38%), but that TV2 has provided competition and challenged NRK’s position (31.5%). Norway’s cable market is dominated by Telenor (Telenor – the biggest telecommunication operator in Norway, and has a history as the state monopoly institution) and UPC Norge (42% market share), and Telenor is the main telecom provider, and active in the satellite and multimedia markets (Williams, 2003).

Allern concluded in 1996 that: ’The Norwegian media market is still more diverse than in many other countries. But the tendencies to concentrate are, as we have seen, strong. Large capital groups dominate.’ (Allern, p.142) and ’Cross-ownership is in reality being encouraged rather than prevented. It is the editorial teams in these corporations and chains that now primarily influence which news become news in Norway’ (Allern, 1996, p.143).

Democracy challenged

I have not seen any evidence that points against Allern’s conclusion from 1996 to still hold true. But why is this bad news for democracy? Media and democracy have mostly been linked together in debates about unfree media in totalitarian regimes. The government has historically been the main objective for the ‘watchdog’ to keep an eye on. This issue is still an important one, and in my search on the Internet for ‘democracy and media’ I got far more hits on this issue than my primary one about media companies. It is almost easy to dismiss any criticism about the media being too free, compared to the problems journalists face in other parts of the world. But in light of media concentration and globalisation, every country can be affected by the power and the reach of big, mostly western, corporations. The ‘watchdogs’ are meant to keep an eye on the government, but Julian Petley (Julian Petley is chair of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and professor of film and television studies at Brunel University in the UK.) (2004) says about British media that corporations and private interest have taken over many previous state functions, and among these, media corporations ‘loom ever larger and more powerful. As James Curran has put it: 'the issue is no longer simply that the media are compromised by their links to big business: the media ARE big business.'

The ‘True Globalists’ (Examples being Rupert Murdoch and Manuel Castells) says that large multinational corporations are best equipped to service the demanding communications needs, that the cultural homogenisation that naturally follows is positive because it highlights similarities rather then differences in people, and that a similar understanding of the world is a positive thing (Barr, 2002). ‘Some argue that conglomerate control is much more limited and much less worrying than state regulation (Beesley, 1996)’ (Street, 2001, p.128).

I will argue that when the media itself is ‘big business’, it gets a problem of integrity, since democracy needs the media to be a watchdog over both governments and market players. ‘If the public has reason to doubt the independence and integrity of news operations, a vital part of democracy is damaged’. (Alger, 1998, p.13). Silvio Berlusconi did a good job in destroying the integrity of the Italian press (‘(…) the private concentration of symbolic power potentially distorts the democratic process. This point is underlined by the way in which Silvio Berlusconi was catapulted into the premiership of Italy without having any experience of democratic office’ (Curran, 2002). I will also argue that the media need to be diverse and plural to make sure that as many different voices as possible get heard in the public debate. The media has a major influence on public opinion (’A number of social science studies have shown that the media are powerful agendasetters for the public and have a significant impact on the political prosess’ (Alger, 1998, p.5). When media companies become big business, it is natural for them to use the power they got in order to further their own political interests. We have seen examples of this from the News Corp. in the UK, where Murdoch has supported conservative and liberal political views in his newspapers (’(..) Rupert Murdoch, (..) was very influental in Britain during the Tory governments of Thatcher and Majors). When the big players are allowed to remain big and grow even more, it also becomes harder for new players to get a foothold. To start up a new media company you need receivers for your message, and if they are not there, the sender gets no money from advertising to continue sending the message (unless it is otherwise funded). One argument is thus that new voices are muffled already in the start, a claim supported by CNN founder Ted Turner (Ted Turner wrote in the Washington Post in USA recently that the latest liberalisation proposal over there would "stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete" and “if these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN”.) .

‘The number of mass medias has seen an explosive increase, but the UN resolution concerning ‘free flow of information’ is in reality a freedom primarily reserved for those with resources, i.e. large industrial countries like the USA’ (Allern, p. 112).

In Norway, the three big media companies (Schibsted, Orkla and A-Pressen), are nothing compared to the international ‘mega media’, but they are still three major voices. Despite regulations it is still difficult to start competing newspapers in Norwegian cities (One example is ‘Bodøavisen’, who died just after a few months when it tried to compete against ‘Avisa Nordland’, who is the merge of the former #1 and #2 newspapers in the city of Bodø). However, the three big players in Norway are basically on Norwegian hands, and Curran (2002) argues that we are still in an early stage of global media concentration – the market is still fragmented, he says (‘(…) we are still at a relatively early stage of what will almost certainly be a continuing process of global media concentration. While the dynamic shift has been towards the increased global integration of media markets, the global media system is still fragmented. The ownership of television, radio and the press, in most European, Asian and Latin American countries, is still predominantly national rather than global – something that cultural globalisation theorists repeatedly ignore’ (Curran, 2002).). Another argument is that the media has a very strong ethic base, with common guidelines written down in a ‘Caution Plaque’ (Vær Varsom plakaten - ‘This Plaque states: ‘One of the most important institutions in a democratic society is a free and independent press.’ The Plaque also states that the press preserves and performs a number of important, democratic tasks such as information, debate and social criticism. The press is to protect free, open debate, free flow of information and free access to sources’ (Allern, 1996, p.39).) and in a common understanding of what defines a news story (The norms of news institutions exist partially as unspoken, common forms of understanding amongst members of the press and broadcasting, about what defines a news story and what rules of genre it must comply with. We also find these norms stated as explicit ethical guidelines concerning what defines good press ethic; the Norwegian media’s Caution Plaque is an example of the latter’ (Allern, 1996, p. 19).). On the other hand, one can possibly argue the same for UK, where the Times has a strong historical significance. Now it is in the hands of the Australian American Rupert Murdoch.

New Media and ’the return of voice’

In the age of globalisation sometimes the talk about ’old media’ and ’new media’ make it seem like the ’old’ media is dead, but we still watch TV, and we still read newspapers (even the printed version). The New Media, as in CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) and the Internet, can be argued in a technological determinist way as being the answer to the ‘crisis in democracy’ (Flew, 2002, p.184). Flew describes this crisis as a lack of control by the nation state because of globalisation, less participation in political parties and a reduced commitment in civic and social institutions (latter as described by Manuel Castells). Malcolm Waters (2001, p.94) says that ‘the nation state might be thought to be the chief victim of globalisation’. These are great democratic problems, and the argument about the Internet being the answer to them is oversimplification. It is true that the Internet and especially the World Wide Web allows people to communicate on a global scale in an equal setting to enjoy a liberating freedom of speech – as there is no real censorship. ‘Everyone’ is on the ‘net’ if we are to believe the hype. 'Millions have flocked to the Net in an incredibly short time... (..) The spiritual lure of the Web is the promise of the return of voice.' (Levine, 2000). On the net people have a voice and they are using it, and it might spill over in other areas of democracy because of the easy availability to information, from both NGOs (Non Government Organisations) and government institutions. The Internet therefore has a potential to be a good ‘media-champion’ for democracy, with possibilities like E-democracy, E-government and global debate. The problem of course, is that the Internet is not available for about 92% of the population worldwide. In Norway however there were 2.68 million users in 2002, which means that 589.51 per 1000 people are Internet users, #5 in the world (Nationmaster.com, 2002). This number suggests that Norway has a better chance of using Internet for democratic purposes than most countries in the world. Flew however says that the value of Internet must not be overstated, as it has not ‘ushered a new age of ‘athenian’ democracy’, but that there have been changes in contemporary political life if Internet is seen as a part of a wider mediasphere (Flew, p.183).

It is true that when we look at new media, we need to take into account that the ‘old’ media has converged with the new. Newspapers have web pages, radio stations can transmit to anywhere in the world due to digitalization of sound, and television companies are moving into the interactive era, using both the Internet and mobile phones, but this is why the Internet is also part of the problem. Rushkoff (2003) is almost utopian when he talks about his ‘network-enhanced democracy’, but even he says that it will require a new way of thinking (‘The implementation of an open source democracy will require us to dig deep into the very code of our legislative processes, and then rebirth it in the new context of our networked reality. It will require us to assume, at least temporarily, that nothing at all is too sacred to be questioned, reinterpreted and modified. But in doing so, we will be enabled to bring democracy through its current crisis and into its next stage of development’ (Rushkoff, 2003, p.57). The Internet is not cut off from the rest of the world; it is very much a part of it – and already in the grasp of the ‘media moguls’. They own the big media ‘brand’ names and they are the ones that most people know about – the ones that people seek out for news. People still read Rupert Murdoch’s ‘The Times’ – it doesn’t really matter if they read the printed version or the digital version. The major media corporations are getting more and more access to the world, as they have the money and the political power to do so. Their voices are heard in a much greater scale and much louder as well.

Globalisation

The Internet is strongly linked to globalisation, it is perhaps even the greatest tool of globalisation. Anthony Giddens (1998, p.30) says it well; ‘The most important change is the expanded role of the world financial markets, increasingly operating on a real-time basis.’ People might be debating in real time chat rooms, but the media-markets are never asleep. Critics say that globalisation is the worst form of cultural imperialism, and is in reality not a globalisation but an ‘Americanisation’ (Barr, 2002). Albert Einstein once said; ‘Information is not knowledge’. Songok Han Thornton agrees: ‘If the Net fails to produce a virtual community at the national level, it all the more fails on a world scale. The idea of a "global village" is a geocultural misnomer. The Web is controlled and populated by First World nations that "push" information and values onto an all too receptive periphery. As Herbert Schiller and Cees Hamelink argue, this global imbalance is widening. Indeed, within the geocultural core there is another kind of "push" taking place: that of blatant Americanization’. (Thornton , 2002)(Songok Han Thornton is a doctoral candidate in the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies at National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung). This globalisation knows no borders, is under no restrictions from governments and thus also makes Internet a ‘democratic foe’ in the case of national identity and culture.

‘A propagandist system will always have a tendency to split the world in two. ‘Us’ vs. ‘them’ and ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’’ (Allern, 1996, p.32).

Allern quotes from the ‘Propaganda’ model by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (1988): ‘The question is not whether the media’s freedom exists, but what its limitations are and how it’s being used.’ They say that the most important task of the mass media is to manufacture consent with the ruling system, and that the tool for this is news, being the ‘product’ of the ‘deal’ (‘Those segments of the media that can reach a substantial audience are major corporations and are closely integrated with even larger conglomerates. Like other businesses, they sell a product to buyers. Their market is advertisers, and the 'product' is audiences, with a bias towards more wealthy audiences, which improve advertising rates. [....] In short, the major media -particularly, the élite media that set the agenda that others generally follow - are corporations 'selling' privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers and the product (Chomsky)’ (Underwood, 2004). Allern says that: ‘A ‘critical journalism’ that considers its task to be to clear the capitalist system of grime may achieve a high status. Journalism that is critical of the system itself, is ignored or marginalised’ (Allern, p.34). This point is highly relevant in the case of the major media becoming the major world media, and the Americanisation.

Democracy or ‘Mediocracy’?

My arguments have been very much in the pessimistic tradition of what professor Trevor Barr calls the ‘Neo IT Marxists’ (Barr, 2002), I would much rather have been optimistic ‘fresh start’ – but found that hard in light of my research. Ideas like ‘Democracy’ and ‘Freedom of speech’ are core values of western civilisations. The media in all its variations has historically been the greatest champion of these values, and western societies have not considered nations with censored or controlled media to be democratic countries, the idea being that a truly democratic society needs a diverse media that is independent and free from political interests and the censorship of governments. In the current ‘information age’, cross media-ownerships and huge international media moguls are busy changing this champion into a ‘Black Rider’ – the bigger range and power it gets, the bigger a threat it becomes, especially when economic interests coincide with political ones. Street (2001, p.271) says that ‘democratic media do not, in and of themselves, create democracy. Democratic media need a democratic policy, and vice versa’. But instead of putting restraints on ownership of media companies, they are being loosened in many western European countries, eagerly lobbied and forced into place by the media owners themselves. Norway is not a member of the EU, but has close ties to it, and may become a member in the not so distant future. Norwegian protective laws may then have to be removed in the name of ‘free trade’. Helge Østbye believes the old actors will continue to dominate the field, possibly with more international dominance (Østbye, 2000). The Norwegian new law proposal points in this direction - not so much as to rename ‘democracy’ to ‘mediocracy’, but it is a great concern that the very entity that should tell us democracy is under threat is the one we need to be vary of.

Other References


ALGER, DEAN, 1998. Megamedia. How Giant Corporations Dominate Mass Media, Distort Competition, and Endanger Democracy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc: UK.

ALLERN, SIGURD, 1996. Kildenes Makt. Ytringsfrihetens Politiske Økonomi. (The power of sources. The political economy of freedom of speech.) Pax forlag: Oslo.

BARR, Trevor. 2004. Lecture: Forces for change: convergence and globalization. Swinburne University of Technology, February 2004

FLEW, Terry. 2002. Newmedia – an introduction. Oxford University Press: Melbourne.

GUTMANN, AMY, 1995. Democracy, ch. 19, pp. 411-421 in ‘A companion to contemporary political philosophy’ by Goodin, Robert E. and Philip Pettit. Blackwells: UK

LECHNER, FRANK J. AND JOHN BOLI, 2004. The Globalization Reader. 2nd ed. USA: Blackwell.

LEVINE, L, Locke, C, Searls, D, and Weinberger, D. 2000 The Cluetrain Manifesto, Persues Books.

STREET, JOHN, 2001. Mass Media, Politics and Democracy. PALGRAVE: USA.

WATERS, MALCOLM. 2001. Globalization. 2nd ed. London: Routledge 2004.

WILLIAMS, GRANVILLE, 2003. European Media Ownership: Threats on the Landscape. A Survey of who owns what in Europe. Supported by the European Commission. September 2002. Updated 2003. The European Federation of Journalists: Brussels.