ISSN 1392–0561. Informacijos mokslai. 2008 47
Media, market, state and politics in Norway
Dr. Robert Vaagan Oslo University College, Faculty of Journalism, Library and Information Science PO Box 4, St.Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway Phone: 47 22 45 26 65, fax: 47 22 45 26 05 E-mail: [email protected]
The article builds on Hallin & Mancini (2004) who have used a democratic corporatist model to analyze the media markets of several Northern and Central European countries, including Norway. An analysis of the Norwegian media market is presented, focusing on five key issue areas: changes in media usage, financing, technology, ownership and legislation. The analysis partially supports one of the key features of Hallin & Mancini’s model, i.e. the fairly interventionist role of the Norwegian authorities in the media sector. This is nonetheless tempered by the high level of marketization in most issue areas examined. Overall, there is therefore some reason to argue that “market is king” in Norwegian media. Keywords: Norwegian media market, media usage, financing, technology, ownership, legislation, marketization
1. Introduction and microeconomic issues on the supply and the demand side, ranging from international This paper originated in a lecture I gave 18– trade, business strategy, pricing policies, 19 April 2008 at the Baltic-Nordic conference competition, and industrial concentration as BAMR: Setting A Comparative Baltic-Nordic they affect media enterprises and industries Media Research Agenda, held at the Vytautas (Doyle, 2002, p. 2). In this line of analysis Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania. I any given “media market” would include had been invited to speak on the subject of both the supply side – the media industry “Market-led reforms and the media in Nor� and its total output – and the demand side – way”. This phrasing suggested a belief in the the consumers and their purchases of media primate of the market and that this somehow products and services. Media economics may have brought about legislative reforms also include consideration of legal frame- affecting the media. As I hope to show, this works and state intervention, although the has to some extent taken place. By settling for emphasis is on economic variables. In Nor- the more general title “Media, market, state way, relatively little analysis has been done and politics in Norway”, I have expanded on so far on the media from this perspective several of my original arguments. (Roppen, 2004), but the distinct growth of
business journalism in all Nordic countries 1.1. Analyzing media markets suggests this may be changing (Kjær & and systems Slaatta, 2007). Media markets can be analyzed in terms of The broader field of media systems re- media economics, embracing both macro- presents a fusion of politics and economics.
22 This is the domain esp. of social scientists, tisan and other social divisions coexists political scientists and political economists. with a strongly developed mass-circula- For instance, Croteau & Hoynes (2006) tion press. use a dyadic paradigm in discussing global • this high level of political parallelism media business, distinguishing between a in the media coexists with a high level “market model” and “public sphere model”. of journalistic professionalization. The This is relevant for the Nordic countries latter includes a high degree of consensus which all have elements of both models. on professional standards of conduct, Another option is the triadic paradigm a notion of commitment to a common of Hallin & Mancini (2004). They have public interest, and a high level of auto- analyzed the media system of the Nordic nomy from other social powers. countries and several Central European • A strong tradition of limits to state power countries in terms of a “democratic, cor- (at the heart of the early development poratist model”. Further, they have used of press freedom) coexists with strong a “polarized pluralist model” to analyze welfare state policies and other forms of several southern Mediterranean countries active state intervention. and a “liberal model” typifying the US, These trends are to a large extent cor- UK/Ireland and Canada (Hallin & Mancini, roborated if we look specifically at the de- 2004, p.70). velopment of Norwegian media history. In The terminology and approach of Hallin figure 1 we note that in the years from 1980 & Mancini is particularly interesting, and till today, “the great change”, major issues as I shall discuss, developments since they include the appearance of local radio and advanced their model show that contempo- TV, video, satellite- and cable-TV, new pri- rary Norwegian media – print and online vate commercial TV channels such as TV3 newspapers, TV, radio and the Internet – are (1987), TV Norge (1988), TV2 (1992), PCs all in varying degrees shaped by the forces became common, the breakthrough of the of the free market but are harnessed, regu- Internet from the mid-90s, a vast expansi- lated and supervised by state intervention. on of the ICT industry, the emergence of This is a reflection of the mixed economies e-journalism from 1995, tabloidization of of all the Nordic countries, with their blen- the press, free newspapers, expansion of ding of public and private sectors. mobile phones, broadband, digitization including the terrestrial TV transmission 1.2. Norwegian media system. There were also groundbreaking Hallin & Mancini (2004, pp.143-145) ar- changes in the way media is organized. gue that the democratic corporatist model The NRK monopoly was disbanded, the prevailing in Northern and Central Europe – party press was dismantled, the cinema Scandinavia, the low countries, Germany, monopoly eroded, new channels and new Austria and Switzerland – is typified by media posed new management and super- three broad coexisting trends: vision challenges, a trans-media industry • A high degree of political parallelism, appeared with media conglomerates and strong tendency for media to express par- cross-ownership structures, Telenor and
23 Historical Media Media Media Years period period issues organization 1660- Autarchy Den- Printing imported Early printed books, papers, State censorship of all printed 1814 mark-Norway from Denmark. journals, magazines, novels. material 1537/39-1770. Censor- Emergence of Post service ship abolished 1814. Constitu- reading public tion 1814, §100 Freedom of printing. 1814- Constitutional Emergence of Important papers: National� Free establishment of news- 1850 monarchy with public political bladet, Morgenbladet, Stats� papers possible without royal citizenship rights. debate, freedom of borgeren, Den Constitutionel� prerogative Union Sweden- printing. Growing le. Steam ferries revolutionize Norway local/daily press, post routes oppositional press 1850- Industrialization: Technological New reproduction and Emergence of party press. 1920 from rural to revolution distribution forms: telegraph, Satirical press. State telegraph, industrial society telephone, photography, film, private telephone. Film and cin- phonograph, gramophone, ema become media industries. rotation press, cellulose-based Gramophone and music industry paper 1920- Inter-war period. Mass society Party press. Film industry. Party ownership, local authority 1950 WW2 with Ger- and mass com- Local cinema system. Radio management and state monop- man occupation munication, media industry. NRK public broad- oly in press, cinema and radio. become mass- casting (1933). Magazines, WW2 German occupation and oriented advertisements, propaganda media control. Illegal radio and press. Post-WW2 reconstruction of media 1950- Post-war period. Visual turn in all Party papers. NRK national Stability in organization and 1960 The Cold War types of media: radio monopoly. Cinema very ownership daily and weekly popular. New era for Norwe- press, film, TV gian film 1960- Breakthrough for state sub- Media preservation becomes 1980 Social democracy Zenith of ”Norwe- sidies: press support, public state responsibility gian system” procurements, film produc- tion, local authority cinema system. State radio+TV mo- nopoly public broadcasting 1980- Market economy, The great change Local radio, local TV, video, NRK monopoly disbanded, 2008 political liberaliza- satellite-TV, cable-TV, TV3 party press dismantled, cinema tion, deregulation, (1987), TVNorge (1988), TV2 monopoly erodes. New chan- privatization, com- (1992). PCs common, Internet nels, new media. Entry of mercialization breakthrough, ICT indus- foreign owners. Trans-media in- marketization, try emerges. E-journalism dustry appears with media con- globalization (1995). Tabloidization. Free glomerates and cross ownership. newspapers. Mobile phones. Telenor and Schibsted go global. Broadband. Digitization, Digitization and convergence. DAB, DTV/DTTV, multi- Hybrid ownership structures: channel pay-TV vs. license State/ private and mix. Foreign fee public broadcasting takeover of Orkla Media. Media Norge. NTV, RiksTV
Figure 1. Highlights in Norwegian media history. Source: Adapted from Bastiansen & Dahl (2003, pp.518-519)
24 Schibsted went global, digitization and subsidies and government support. The media convergence became catchwords, a third issue area is technology, including leading media house – Orkla Media – was paradigm shifts such as the switch from bought by foreign investors and renamed analogue to digital transmission technology. Edda Media, the remaining major Norwe- The fourth issue area is ownership where gian media houses joined forces in Media we find many private commercial media Norge. In digital-TV we saw the state companies coexisting with wholly state- and private commercial stakeholders join owned media, notably the Norwegian State forces in NTV and RiksTV – joint enter- Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), as well prises set up by the State Broadcasting as hybrid ownership forms with blends of Corporation NRK, the 54% state-owned state and private ownership. The fifth and Telenor and the private commercial en- last issue area is legislation and supervisi- terprise TV2. on that affect the media, e.g. the Editorial This interplay of politics and business, Independence Act (2008) but here it is also of state regulation and intervention versus relevant to consider the traditional self-re- free market, forces, is a mixture of active gulation of the press. and reactive Norwegian responses to deve- lopments outside Norway. As such they ref- 2. Media usage lect wider global trends that the Norwegian The data in figure 2.0 are based on a natio- economy, political system and citizens have nally representative sampling in 2007 of had to adjust to (Vaagan, 2006). Norwegians aged 9-79 years. In this article I shall confine the discus- We see that TV is clearly the most popu- sion to the last of the three points raised by lar medium followed by print newspapers. Hallin & Mancini, and operationalize it in terms of low/medium/high level of state 82% of the population watched TV on an intervention. Conversely, the free market average day in 2007, compared with 72% forces can also be measured in terms of which read print newspapers. Other media low/medium/high level of marketization. are the Internet (66%), home PCs (56%), These two indicators are cross-tabulated radio (53%), CD/MP3 (43%), books (23%), with 5 broad, overlapping issue areas that weeklies (14%), magazines (11%), VHS/ together can be said to set the agenda for DVD (11%) and comics (7%). If we con- Norwegian media today. The first issue area sider the most popular medium – TV – this is the media usage of the Norwegian public. has been distributed in Norway through This is an indicator of the way the market terrestrial, cable and satellite networks. The is moving, the changed media preferences switch from analogue to digital TV that is of Norwegians, esp. the rise of electronic, going on throughout Europe including Nor- interactive new media. The second issue way has increased transmission capacity and area is financing, esp. marketization, com- the number of channels and content. While mercialization and the growing importance satellite and cable TV to a large extent have of the advertising industry but also press been digitized already, this is not the case
25 Figure 2. Media usage on an average day in Norway. Percentage of population. Source: Statistics Norway 2008 in Norway with the terrestrial TV network ders enjoy no less than 231 newspapers where the Norwegian government is playing servicing a population of 4,7 million. After an active role (Vaagan & Wang, 2008). Japan, Norway ranks second in terms of In figure 3 below the main channels newspaper sales per thousand inhabitant broadcasting in Norwegian are listed. Of (World Press Trends, 2008). Yet circulation these, no fewer than 10 have started up and readership of national print newspapers since 2000. are generally in decline. On the other hand, Turning to the second most popular local and regional print newspapers are medium – newspapers – Norwegian rea- doing very well, so well that about 40 of
Figure 3. TV channels broadcasting in Norwegian. Source: Medianorway 2008
26 Figure 4. Readership of VG – Norway’s largest tabloid daily. Source: TNS Gallup 2008 them were bought in 2006 when UK-ba- In the 12-year period 1995-2007, TV sed Mecom PLC bought Orkla Media, as viewership has been fairly stable at around I shall return to below. At the same time, 85% while readership of print newspapers online journalism is thriving and readers are has declined from around 85% in 1995 increasingly turning to online newspapers to 75% in 2007. The percentage of radio (Ottosen & Krumsvik, 2008; Hjeltnes et listeners has plummeted from 70% in 1995 al, 2008). Typically, more readers are now to slightly more than 50% in 2007. This accessing the online version of the tabloid contrasts with the tremendous growth in the VG – Norway’s most popular newspaper - use of the Internet from only 10% in 1997 than its print edition. to 55% in 2007. An increasing number of Another feature of market-led develo- Norwegians watch IPTV, read online news- pments in the newspaper market is the rise in papers and listen to radio transmissions and free newspapers where Norway seems to be podcast, helped of course by broadband following a wider trend. Free dailies account capacity enjoyed by 2/3 of Norwegian for nearly 7% of all global newspaper circu- households. Norwegian media preferences lation and for 23% of circulation in Europe are more and more influenced by the Inter- alone (World Press Report, 2008). In Nor- net, both office and home PCs and mobile way, there are presently 35 free newspapers, devices. Norwegians use the Internet for a all of them small and local editions, full of variety of reasons, mostly for e-mailing, advertisements, and with little or no editorial accessing news, information and banking, content. The Norwegian Media Authority as wee see in figure 5. consequently does not see free newspapers Young netizens are very active, and from as its responsibility. Yet The Competition 2007 cyber societies are included in official Authority which supervises advertising, does statistics. According to the web informati- not agree and considers free newspapers as on company Alexa, the top ten websites in newspapers, not advertisements, and accor- Norway in June 2008 were: 1) google.com; dingly not its responsibility. In this field, 2) youtube.com; 3) facebook.com; 4) live. then, state intervention seems absent. com; 5) vg.no; 6) google.com; 7) nettby.no;
27 Figure 5. Purpose of Norwegians’ Internet use. Percentage of 9-79yr olds. Source: TNS Gallup 2008
8) yahoo.com; 9) finn.no; 10) dagbladet.no of the 10-year obligatory primary school (Alexa, 2008). system. In another field, state information New media has a tremendous growth policy, which Norway has had since 1993, potential and attraction for young users this is being transformed into a “commu- (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2006). Norway’s nication policy”, taking note of similar most populous town is in cyber space: nett- developments within the EU (Johannessen, by.no has 670.000 netizens and is currently 2008). At the heart of this is a recognition ranked 7th among the top ten websites in that esp. juvenile indifference to politics Norway. As I shall return to later, adverti- and their low turnout at elections need to sers are increasingly aware of Norwegian be countered by attractive public services media preferences and the long tail, esp. in new media, including digital-TV. The the purchasing power of Norwegian youths Ministry of Government Administration (Anderson, 2006). It is hardly a coinciden- and reform has recently commissioned a ce that clothing enterprise H&M recently report on youths and new media (Storsul launched a clothes collection in SIMS, a et al, 2008). At the latest local elections in favourite website for young girls. September 2007, the major political parties Norwegian authorities have taken note e.g. all featured Facebook and YouTube pro- of the changed media usage and media minently on their websites, although they preferences of the population, esp. the were uncertain about the extent to which tremendous growth of new electronic, inte- these portals were being used. ractive media. Many politicians now engage regularly in blogging. While market forces 3. Financing seem decisive, state intervention is present and can be assessed as medium. We see e.g. In developed countries, media goods and this in educational policy where “digital services represent a small but growing competence” from 2005 has been included proportion of total economic activity, and as one of five basic skills to be at the centre in the UK is estimated to account for some
28 3-5% of GDP (Doyle, 2002, p.3). In Norway ing medium with a 40% share (World Press no comparable figure has been made, but Trends, 2008). But this may be changing in the aggregate market value of all the major Norway: internet advertising has increased Norwegian media and telecommunications by a staggering +32% in 2006-2007, more companies is substantial. The information than any other medium. Internet advertising sector e.g. accounted for a 233 bn NOK tur- includes brand ads (1,3 bln NOK), clas- nover, 6% of the total economy and 8% per sified ads (1,7 bln NOK), search engine cent of the mainland economy excluding the ads (0,4 bn NOK) and online catalogues public sector (Statistics Norway, 2008). (o,8 bln NOK). Traditionally, advertising The advertising industry has played a key statistics in Norway are computed by The role in media financing since the birth of the Norwegian Media Businesses’ Association advertising and modern mass media, and but the rise of Internet-based ads which is Norway is no exception (Selfors, 2006). The a main feature of new media (Spurgeon, existence of 35 free newspapers in Norway 2008) has led to the setting up of a separate can hardly be explained other than in terms body that provides statistics exclusively for of advertising. the Internet: The Interest Organization for The Norwegian advertising market to- Interactive Marketing. taled almost 20,9 bln NOK in 2007, an in- As is discussed below, the total turnover crease of 11,3% from 2006. The three most of NRK, the Norwegian State Broadcasting interesting media for advertisers in Norway Corporation, amounted to approximately are the daily printed press, the Internet and 3,9 bln NOK in 2007, most of this license TV, as we see in figure 6. Norway is thus in fees paid by subscribers. It is a point of line with international developments where definition whether this can be interpreted print remains the world’s largest advertis- as state support. Currently, there is a dis-
Figure 6. Media advertising in Norway 2007. Bln NOK. Source: Teleplan/New Media Network 2008, IRM 2008
29 cussion whether the licensing system is – text for mobile phones – are very popular irrational and better replaced by direct (Einarsdottir, 2008). While many rejoice in state budget financing. Press subsidies in technological advances, others take a more Norway totaled 266 mln NOK in 2007. And sinister view and talk about technological 139 of Norway’s 231 newspapers received determinism and an emerging surveillance some sort of press subsidy. Yet the by far society where all our electronic traces as in- most significant form of financial support dividual citizens are assembled in databases extended to all newspapers is the exemption beyond our reach and control (Hirst & Har- from VAT, amounting to 1,469 bln NOK in rison, 2007). Technology is therefore a field 2007. This applies to print newspapers and where market and state often cooperate but online newspapers, but if access to online where they need not always fully agree. newspapers ceases to be free, as it is now, The Norwegian TV landscape is un- electronic newspapers may have to pay VAT dergoing considerable change and there in the future. are a number of stakeholders, public and On balance, state intervention in the private. Digital signal format allows vari- form of direct and indirect state subsidies, ous new services, and TV suppliers expect support and grants are limited compared interactive services to be profitable, in- to the size of the media and information cluding electronic program guides (EPG), markets. Financing is the issue area where super text-TV, additional information about we find most marketization and least state programmes, electronic games, interac- intervention. tive response services, e-commerce, 16:9 broadband transmissions, high resolution 4. Technology TV (HDTV), innumerable radio chan- nels, high quality sound and more sound As shown in figure 1, technology is playing channels, Internet access etc. The ongoing a pivotal role in the shaping of Norwegian digitization of the terrestrial network system media history, and many consider tech- 2007-2010 region-by-region is a field where nology as the key driving force in media the government is heavily involved. NTV marketization. Electronic, interactive new which is responsible for the analogue shut- media such as online newspapers with down and digital rollout, is owned equally blogs, Web 2.0, e-commerce, electronic by state-owned NRK, the commercial kiosks, virtual reality and cyber societies, media business TV2 and the telecommu- data games, interactive TV, IP-telephoning, nications enterprise Telenor in which the 3G mobile telephoning, podcasts, all dis- government owns 54%. The transmission tributed through wireless or fiberoptic cable capacity in the emerging national digital networks, are becoming everyday necessi- terrestrial network is controlled by NRK ties to many Norwegians. “Litcasting” - a and RiksTV, another joint and equal part- kind of iTunes for literature – has become nership between NRK, TV2 and Telenor. very popular, and publishers are position- State intervention is therefore obvious and ing themselves for the e-book revolution, the authorities are sending a clear message inspired by Japan where the keitai novels that they do not want to leave the most
30 popular medium of all to be dominated by Edda Media private commercial pay-TV suppliers using As I have discussed more detailed elsewhe- digitized satellite and cable TV networks to re (Vaagan, 2006), one of the biggest events flood Norwegians with ads, tabloidization, in Norwegian media in recent years was the entertainment and low-quality content. Here takeover in 2006 of Orkla Media – among it should be noted that while cable-TV is a Norway’s 3 largest media groups – by UK- two-way technology, satellite-TV is only based Mecom PLC headed by the investor one-way. The transformation of the official David Montgomery. Orkla Media was state information policy into a communica- subsequently renamed Edda Media. The tion policy (Johannessen, 2008) is clearly newspaper industry had always been ac- dependent on interactive media such as customed to Norwegian majority ownership terrestrial digital-TV. and control. From 2006 this was no longer Technology, then, is an issue where com- the case and downsizing of Edda Media was mercial producers and vendors are shaping expected. The government had to accept the market and where marketization is high. this foreign takeover since none of the two Through its general ICT policy and e.g. other leading Norwegian media enterpri- majority ownership in the telecommunica- ses – Schibsted and A-pressen - could buy tions flagship Telenor, its role in NTV and Orkla and keep within the 33% ownership RiksTV, Norwegian authorities are trying to limit set in the Media Ownership Act. In play an active role which, however, can only response to this foreign “encroachment”, be rated as medium. The state is not a mar- the leading Norwegian newspapers – Af- ket maker, rather it is a market follower. tenposten, Bergens Tidende, Stavanger
Aftenblad and Fædrelandsvennen subsequ- 5. Ownership ently joined forces and merged in a new The relationship between state intervention company called Media Norge dominated by and marketization is quite obvious on the is- Schibsted. The Norwegian Media Authority sue of ownership. The present coalition go- did not allow the merger, on the grounds vernment of The Labour Party, The Socialist that Schibsted would obtain a market share Left Party and the Centre Party, in office exceeding the limit of 33% defined in the since 2005 on a broad socialist program, has Media Ownership Act. However, Schibsted formulated an interventionist policy where had offered to sell down its shares in some it wishes to actively use state ownership to regional newspapers (Adresseavisen and underline government policy. In particular, Harstad Tidende) to bring their market share this applies to enterprises in which the state below 33%. Shibsted in 2007 appealed the holds majority ownership positions, such as decision of the Norwegian Media Authority StatoilHydro and Telenor, to a less extent and was granted permission in early 2008 in companies where it only has minority to go ahead with the merger, on the con- ownership. In the following, I will limit the dition that it reduced its ownership in two discussion to four examples: Edda Media, regional newspapers to get below the 33% Schibsted, Telenor and NRK. limit. Media Norge is in large measure a
31 response to the Mecom PLCs takeover of ASDA (5,3%), Folketrygdfondet (5,2%) Orkla Media/Edda Media. The fact that a and other minority shareholders (46,3%) UK-based investor finds it interesting to (Schibsted, 2008). buy 40 Norwegian small regional and local newspapers means that this market – inclu- Telenor ding the advertising – is interesting. Media The next example – Telenor - shows a Norge has streamlined their advertising hybrid form of ownership where state in- operations and set up a joint unit – Media tervention and marketization work “hand Norge Salg (M:NO). The 5 newspapers in hand”. Telenor is owned 54% by the combine a readership of around 1,5 mln Norwegian state, the remaining shares are people whom are offered a harmonized owned by institutional investors, including solution to advertising needs. This shows J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (6,22%) State a high level of marketization and to some Street Bank (4,02%) and Folketrygdfondet extent also state intervention. (4,02%). Telenor is in many ways the tele- communications flagship of the Norwegian Schibsted government. It provides mobile communi- Norway’s leading media enterprise, Schibs- cations services worldwide and it is also the ted, is a privately-owned, stock-listed com- largest provider of TV services in the Nordic pany with activities in newspaper, TV, film, region through its fully owned subsidiary online, mobile-phone, book and magazine Canal Digital. It has ownership positions in media. With 9, 000 employees, operations Norway (including RiksTV), Sweden, Den- in 21 countries and a 13,6 bln NOK turnover mark, Finland, Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia, in 2007, the Schibsted Group profiles itself Montenegro, Russia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, as a leading Scandinavian media group Thailand, Pakistan. Telenor recorded a that wants to be a leading European media turnover in 2007 of 92,5 bn NOK and has group. Although its domestic markets are a labour force of 35,800 man-years. With Norway and Sweden, it also has compa- 150 mln mobile subscribers worldwide, nies in Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, Telenor is currently the world’s 7th largest Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Italy, mobile telephone company after China Mo- Switzerland, Russia, Slovenia, Venezuela, bile, Vodafone, Singtel, Telefonica, China Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Unicom and America Movil. Although Singapore. Schibsted’s Baltic operations Telenor is run as a commercial enterprise include Eesti Meedia, Postimees, Ajakirjade and is guided by marketization conside- Kirjastus, SL Õhtuleht, Soov, Kroonpress rations only, state intervention surfaced (all in Estonia) and L.T. Laikraštis Tau, recently on the issue of Corporate social Plius, Žurnalu Leidybos Grupe (in Lithu- responsibility and ethics, two fields where ania). Schibsted is owned by the following Telenor had taken a high-profile stance. In major shareholders: Blommenholm Indus- the spring of 2008, it transpired that among trier AS (26,1%), State Street Bank (9,9%), its subcontractors in Bangladesh, there had JP Morgan Chase Bank (7,2%), Schibsted been several breaches of ethical guidelines,
32 involving child labour and casualties. On has set up a separet subsidiary – Aktivum several occasions the Norwegian Minister AS, to handle its commercial operations. for Trade and Industry publicly expressed In 2007 NRK received an estimated net 14 discomfort with Telenor’s handling of the mln NOK in advertising revenue from its situation (Telenor, 2008). Internet activities (Eckroll, 2008). “The NRK general broadcasts are free of NRK advertisements and are financed by the license fee set annually by Parliament. NRK can receive The last example is interesting since it revenue from sponsorships in TV and the radio shows that 100% state ownership and state linked with specific program categories. NRK intervention in the extreme is not only a adheres to the rules for sponsorship financing hindrance to marketization. The Norwegian and exhibits defined in the Broadcasting Act, its State Broadcasting Corporation – NRK – is regulations and NRK’s internal rules. In 2007 a state-owned public broadcaster finan- sponsorships occurred with some major sports and culture events. Advertising is permitted in ced mainly by an annual license fee set text-TV and on the Internet but the provision by Parliament. NRK is the largest media for the former is to be dismantled. NRK can house in Norway. 80% Norwegians watch take part in or set up channels abroad financed NRK daily, whether on TV, the radio, the by advertisements, but not in Norway. NRK’s Internet or mobile phones. As we saw in business operations are conducted through the figure 3 above, NRK has 3 main TV chan- wholly-owned subsidiary NRK Aktivum AS which in 2007 had a turnover of 184 mln NOK, nels, 3 main radio channels several niche an increase of +4,7% compared with 2006. channels on the radio, the Internet, podcast NRKs revenue from NRK Aktivum AS in 2007 and mobile phone. NRK is a limited com- was 125,6 mln NOK”. pany in which the Norwegian government (NRK annual report, 2007, p.4 – owns 100% of the shares. The Minister of author’s translation) Culture and Church Affairs convenes the general meeting of NRK. The activities of 6. Legislation NRK are financed by license fees, program Traditionally, there has not been one single sponsoring, advertisements and commercial comprehensive law regulating all media in revenues. Of the 3,9 bln NOK revenue in Norway. Rather, a number of specific laws 2007, license fees accounted for 3,7 bln. regulate different aspects of the media. Since most of its public broadcasting does Freedom of the press is enshrined in the not include advertising (specifically banned Constitution, dating back to 1814. In 2004, in The Broadcasting Act), it misses out on §100 (Freedom of the press) in the Consti- the 20 bln NOK annual advertising market tution was widened to embrace Freedom of where many of its commercial TV competi- expression. A new formulation was inserted tors like TV2, are doing very well. Strained where the state assumes responsibility for finances have implications for the breadth providing an enlightened and open public of services that NRK can offer. However, discourse. (Stortinget, 2008). This formu- modelling itself on the BBC which has lation embraces most of the government’s considerable commercial revenue, NRK education and culture policy, including the
33 media, and is seen as a guarantee of and mechanisms: a Code of ethics for the printed commitment to a diversified press. press, radio and TV, and a Joint declaration The Film and Videogram Act dates in on the rights and duties of the editor. The part back to 1913 and was revised in 2006. Code of ethics was adopted in 1936 and The Broadcasting Act (1931) set up the pu- last revised in 2007 by The Norwegian blic broadcaster NRK, and has been revised Press Association. The Code underlines many times, as late as in 2005. In 1970, the the societal role of press, its integrity and Freedom of Information Act was passed, responsibility, the conduct of journalists which is a key tool for investigative Norwe- and their relations with sources as well as gian journalists, and a revised version will the distinction between texts with editorial be enacted in the summer of 2008. In 1997, content and advertisements and sponsorship. a Media Ownership Act was passed. It was The Joint declaration was adopted in 1953 revised as late as in 2006. It sets a limit of and revised in 2004. Editorial independence, 33% on ownership concentration in any one the idealistic mission of the media as well as media channel (TV, radio, newspapers) and impartial and free exchange of information plays an important role in media takeovers and opinion are highlighted. These elements (Vaagan, 2006). The Telecommunications have been reinforced with the enactment in Act (2004) is crucial for mobile services April 2008 of The Editorial Independence and the Internet. The Editorial Independen- Act. In 2007, The Association of Norwegian ce Act passed in April 2008 is designed to Editors and The Norwegian Media Busines- guarantee free and independent media, and ses’ Association in a joint statement to The may be a first step towards a more compre- Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs had hensive law on media responsibility. expressed their support for the announced In addition, a number of other laws affect Editorial Independence Act. At the same the media, directly or indirectly, in their day- time they noted the fragmented nature of to-day activities. These include The Compe- media legislation, that the Editorial Indepen- tition Act (1993, 2004), The Marketing Act dence Act was not enough, and expressed a (1972, 2005), The Intellectual Property Act desire that more legislation be concentrated (1961, 1999), The Personal Data Act (1978, in one single and comprehensive Media Res- 2001), The Work Environment Act (1977, ponsibility Act. Legislation, then, including 2004), The Discrimination Act (2006). supervision and the provision for self-regu- As for supervision, government policy lation, is an issue where there is a high level and supervision of the media are the domain of state intervention, as we expect, combined of The Ministry of Culture and Church Af- with a low level of marketization. fairs, under which we find The Norwegian Media Authority and The Norwegian Post 8. Summary and conclusion and Telecommunications Authority, each responsible for appropriate supervision in The findings from the above discussion are their respective fields. summarized in figure 7. As we see, state In Norway, the press itself has traditio- intervention is seen as high in legislation, nally enjoyed self-regulation through two medium in media usage, technology and
34 Issue area Media usage Financing Technology Ownership Legislation State intervention medium low medium medium high Marketization high high high high low
Figure 7. Level of state intervention vs. marketization, by issue area ownership and low in financing. This adds media. These findings, in consequence, only up to a fairly interventionist profile of the partially corroborate the third characteristic Norwegian authorities in the media sector. of the democratic, corporatist model of This is nonetheless tempered by the high Hallin & Mancini (2004). A logical next level of marketization in all issue areas step could be to explore also the two other except legislation. characteristics of the model, and invite Overall, there is therefore some reason comparative research involving Baltic and to argue that “market is king” in Norwegian Nordic partners.
References ALEXA (2008) [interactive]. [Accessed 21 June, Oslo/Fredrikstad: Handelshøyskolen BI og Institutt 2008]. Retrieved from:
35 SCHIBSTED (2008) [interactive]. [Accessed 21 June, [interactive]. [Accessed 21 June, 2008]. Retrieved from: 2008]. Retrieved from:
Žiniasklaida, rinka, valstybė ir politika Norvegijoje Robert Vaagan Santrauka Straipsnyje remiamasi Hallin ir Mancini (2004) teisės. Iš dalies galima patvirtinti vieną svarbiausių suformuluotu demokratiniu-korporaciniu modeliu, Hallin ir Mancinio modelio bruožų, t.y. gana inter- analizuojant žiniasklaidos rinkas kai kuriose Šiaurės vencinis Norvegijos valdžios vaidmuo žiniasklaidos ir Vidurio Europos šalyse, taip pat ir Norvegijoje. sektoriuje. Iš kitos pusės, šiuos procesus veikia Norvegijos žiniasklaidos rinkos pokyčių analizė intensyvus rinkos sąlygų įsigalėjimas. Apskritai, pateikiama penkiose srityse: žiniasklaidos var- galima teigti, jog “rinka karaliauja” Norvegijos tojimo, finansavimo, technologijų, nuosavybės ir žiniasklaidoje.
36