On June 16, 2010, the Icelandic Parliament (Althing) adopted a law to create a legislative framework [FR] which intends to be very liberal on investigative journalism. Known as the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, The MP behind the project Birgitta Jónsdóttir summarizes this ambitious law:
Iceland will become the opposite of a tax haven – it will offer reporters and editors the ultimate freedom of expression protections for investigative journalism. Tax havens are designed to be opaque. Our goal is to be transparent.
In order to decipher the motives behind Iceland’s law, its necessary to remember what happened during July 2009 – in the aftermath of the economic crisis that tore-down one of Europe’s most prosperous countries. At the time, Wikileaks (relatively unknown by the general public) released its first set of documents. The site contained bank documents proving what everyone suspected – just before Landsbanki (one of three banks) fell apart, several of its directors erased its credit line and other debt for their own gain.
Already well positioned as an instigator, Wikileaks went further to reveal negotiations between the Iceland, British, and Dutch governments relating to the bailouts resulting from Icesave’s bankruptcy (a branch of Lansbanki). Assange and his entourage exposed these documents online to the masses – Even though the crisis emerged eight months earlier, these papers where not previously released to the main stream media.
The media machine became hyped around the Wikileaks story. The main public television network RUV devoted a special news report to Wikileaks on August 2, 2009. Yet a few minutes before they were set to broadcast, the station received an injunction from the Reykjavik tribunal prohibiting the special from being broadcasted on the grounds that it was a breach to banking security. Without revealing the subject, the journalists announce on the air there is something suspicious happening behind closed doors – and then showed the link to the Wikileaks site containing the pertinent documents. The website was instantly flooded with viewers, who soon discovered what happened behind the crisis that affected essentially every household.
A year later, this context gave way to legislation that transformed a small country of roughly 320,000 inhabitants into a journalism paradise. Although the Iceland Modern Media Initiative was depicted as monumental in French media, it’s worth noting that Iceland is not necessarily the poster child for journalistic integrity. As I wrote in an article on Icelandic journalism in Slate.fr in August 2010, “A significant problem with journalism in Iceland is related to the Icelandic socio-demographic makeup of the country itself. Out of a population of 320,00, the Reykjvik and its suburbs consist of 200,000 – the equivalent of an average French city. [...] So it is more an issue of the size of the country and the logic in finding journalists.”
This reality explains why it took Wikileaks’ actions before people really understood how significant hidden documents can be. During my visit to Iceland, I met with Karl Blondal, the number 2 in change of the country’s major newspaper Morgunbladid.
While in the past Morgunbladid was considered a paper aligning with the Independent party, the Right-wing has always benefited from certain privileges in Iceland’s society. Yet since last year’s fiasco the newspaper has been under critics’ fire. The reason? Apparently David Oddsson (The Conservative Prime Minister between 1991 -2004 and Director of the Central Bank of Iceland between 2005 – 2009) is now the paper’s current editor – which seems surreal considering his role in creating the crisis. The chance to confront Karl Blondal with this contradiction to journalist integrity in Iceland was not an opportunity to be missed.
That depends on what you mean by difficult. This is obviously a difficult time for the media. After the crash, the revenue stream collapsed and there were cuts in all newspapers which resulted in thousands of layoffs. Of course it is painful. But if you are talking about the working conditions of journalists, I would say that it’s not as difficult. It could be difficult to find information – but if we are comparing conditions of journalists in other countries such as Russia or the Ukraine, then the situation is near perfect.
We didn’t have a lot of money previous to the crisis, so it did weaken our paper. In that sense, the crisis has affected our work. At the same time, I think we were able to maintain quality journalism. Readers continue to read good stories. We try to maintain our role as an “air traffic control tower” for society by producing quality journalism.
I think it would be very difficult, notably because it’s nearly impossibility to find the advertising revenues which each newspaper needs. Morgunbladid’s own finances isn’t my cup of tea, but approximately a third of the revenue comes from subscriptions and the rest is from advertising. It’s this financial formula that made newspapers economically viable. Today advertisement is declining, and that’s where it would be difficult for a new newspaper to break into the market. The cost of printing and distribution is very high and it would put a new paper deep in the hole during its launch. Establishing a newspaper takes time, lots of time. On the other hand, if you look at the need to discuss Iceland’s society, such a newspaper would obviously be very beneficial.
There are lots of things online. The Left obviously has a strong online presence.
It was obviously a controversial decision to give him the position of Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper. Like you said, he is probably the most controversial man in Iceland. He is like a fireball and really can polarize the debate. But he has so much experience, he really knows the society. For example, we had a report from Parliament analyzing the reasons and responsibilities for the crash. As the former Director of the Central Bank, he played a major role in this report. When we covered the report, he took a week off so everyone would not breath down his neck. When he became editor, he explained he had studied law and remembered and he could not be a judge in his own case. So when the report came out, he decided to remove himself from the editorial process – he realized the problem. Ultimately the owner of the newspapers has to take this decision. It might be controversial decision but it’s his problem.
A lot of journalists were surprised, others were skeptical.
Yes, there were rumors…
Then it happened…like you mentioned before, Morgunbladid is aligned with the Independent party. In the early 70s, the paper’s Editors felt this link was not favorable and cut its ties. The newspaper remains a center-right newspaper in its editorial line, but it does not necessarily follow party lines and highlights the issues which it diverges.
The quota system was put into place in the early 80s. Morgunbladid took a strong stance denouncing the measure as it put national resources in the hands of very few people. Now this would not be possible. David Oddsson was Prime Minster during this time and there were moments when he refused to talk to Morgunbladid. It was a cutthroat battle – the newspaper was much more radical in its views that its political opposition. Many people say it’s probably a step backwards to hire someone who has held so power and tasted its advantages, but it is something we must do. On my part, my problem is concentrating on the integrity of the information we publish.
But nothing has changed. We have the same reporters, the same journalists, we write stories in the same way and use the same methods.
No, they were fired before he arrived. We had to make some budget cuts, letting people go because of the crisis.
It’s tough in that things are still not transparent. It’s hard to get information. It takes time. People working in banks and the government are not as open as they promised to be. When the government was dismissed, there were demands for “more democracy, more transparency.” In fact there were two demands. It was not a unified movement that happened suddenly – it was people from all backgrounds. In front of the government, you had old women with perfect manicures, young woman, people from the suburbs of Reykjavik as well as gardeners, nurses, and even fishermen. It was a true representation of society, not members of a democratic platform. And the people want more democracy and transparency. Everyone has promised transparency but it has not been delivered.
I’m not sure there is a fear of speaking in Iceland at the moment. But you will obviously have contrary opinions according to where people work. There is a need for strong laws to protect whistle blowers.
That said, I don’t think that this law will significantly alter the situation for journalists in Iceland. Will it be of interest to foreign journalists who wish to print and publish here, and have the country become a haven for journalism? I think it’s a laudable idea, but it remains to be seen how that will work. Would Anna Politkovskaya have been better off if her work had been published here? As a concrete example…I am not sure that publishing here or elsewhere will protect journalism in countries where rights are violated.
Of course, I hope that the initiative will make a significant contribution, but I can’s see how it will work…
Some information was first revealed here, other information revealed there…Everything depends on how you access the documents. We had access to similar documents from other banks. We used some of them but considered it was wrong to publish them as a whole. We had access to all information relating to loans made by banks. This does not mean everything must be published. Financial agreements between individuals are assumed to be private, this is a legal matter.
There was also a question of how people had access to these documents. It’s the kind of information which can result in being summoned to court because they were stolen. This can have serious legal implications for newspapers to publish them (especially if the bank claims that it was prejudicial) and lawsuits cost a lot of money. At the same time, when we have access to information we consider to be beneficial for the public, we publish it. And there are pieces of information we had – things WikiLeaks did not have - but it was problematic to verify it.
I hope not. I hope not.
During the time I have been involved, we have never decided not to publish something because it might affect someone. But we have had lots of examples where we received reports impossible to verify. This information did not have the credibility to be published. It was anonymous and the documentation was insufficient. These are two different things.
I think that journalism in Iceland will survive, and the society will bounce back after what happened and things will return to normal. Obviously I do not know how long we will print the paper but challenge is managing the transition. It is not written in stone that journalism should be on paper. The form is not a real problem here. The issue is mainly to find a solution that will make our work sustainable while maintaining quality journalism.
Photo credits: FlickR Sturla, finnur.malmquist