Aukse˙ Balcˇytiene˙
3. Discussion
This section provides a summary of the main issues in national public information policies and assesses types of state intervention – as owner, regulator and financer – in the four selected countries.
On one hand, in all countries, the corporatist way of thinking is manifested in information policies, where the role of the media as a social institution with obligations to societyis expressed.
In Lithuania, for example, the tradition of public responsibility is reflected in the public information policy. The official Web site of the Ministry of Culture29indicates that the media annually are required to deliver data to the ministry on the subject of who owns shares in the media and how many shares that person or entity owns. It also says that cultural and minority publications may apply for direct state support through the Media Support Foundation. The Ministry of Culture also monitors whether the principles of the Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information are observed by the media. Aside of the ministry, the Inspector of Journalists’ Ethics, too, strongly stresses the social role of the press. According to him, the media are not just a private enterprise. Rather, they are a social institution with moral responsibilities to the audience.
In short, the corporatist approach to the media in Lithuania is reflected in attempts to strike a balanceamong the various political and social actors. This is manifested:
1) In state information policy, which has an emphasis on cultural (national) values such as the need to preserve the national language, to support and popularise the cultural heritage, etc, and also attempts to require transparency on the part of the media,
2) In the mission of public service broadcasting,
3) In the rules and procedures of two broadcast councils (the LRT Council deals just with public service broadcasting, and the Radio and Television Commission deals with private broadcasters),
4) In the annual reports of the inspector of ethics (the ombudsman) to the Seimas, etc.
On the other hand, regulations which are applied to the Baltic media are very liberal, which shows that liberal thinking endures in the information policies of the three Baltic States. There are no laws to restrict media concentration or to limit cross-media ownership, but in Norway the situation is different.
So which types of state-media relationships can be found in the four selected countries?
In all four countries, the state plays a role as media owner through participation in broadcasting activities. In terms of different forms of broadcast regulatory authorities, the following conclusion can be drawn.
In Lithuania, Estonia and Norway the “politics-in-broadcasting”30model persists. The governing bodies of broadcasting organisations include representatives of the country’s main political parties and of social groups which are affiliated with them. Lithuania and Estonia have developed mechanisms to protect their PSBs from control by a political majority. The Norwegian system is autonomous, and mechanisms exist for distancing broadcaster decision-making from the political
29 http://www.lrkm.lt/index.php?ItemId=19150
30 According to the COE definition (http://www.coe.int), the governing bodies of broadcasting organisations include representatives of the country’s main political parties and the social groups which are affiliated with them (e.g, as in Germany, Denmark and Belgium).
powers.31The formation of PSB councils is based on the logic of “internal pluralism”, which puts an emphasis on the co-existence of different views as represented through representatives of different social groups (as in Lithuania) or media professionals (as in Estonia and Norway). The internal pluralism helps limit the expression of partisan views. The Latvian model of broadcast governance is closer to “politics-over-broadcasting”.32According to Dimants (2004), the Latvian state has more mechanisms to intervene in broadcaster decisions, for instance, by appointing council members.
The ethos of liberalism in the Baltic media market is manifested in liberal laws regarding media concentration. None of the three Baltic countries has a law on cross-media ownership (again, the situation in Norway is different), and media concentration is regulated according to business competition law.
According to the Lithuanian Competition law,“a dominant position in the market” refers to a company which controls more than 40% of the relevant market segment (the same definition exists in Latvian and Estonian law). So, for instance, if the Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania establishes that one of the four biggest TV stations has more than a 40% share of the television market, it can address the Competition Council, which may then start an investigation.
Regulation of political advertising is a third major issue (next to regulation of media concentration and cross-media ownership). A significant increase in political marketing campaigns has brought the issue of stricter regulation of political advertising in the media to the foreground, the aim being to prevent political corruption in Lithuania and Estonia.
Concerning the role of the state as media financer, its intervention in the Baltic media economy is marginal. It is mostly cultural publications which are subsidised to correct “market failures” and to fill the gaps of information which exist in terms of less commercially attractive issues.
In conclusion, the picture concerning interrelationships between the state and the media is complex. Present difficulties may be related to differences in state policy (e.g., the protection and promotion of national values) and the model of journalism (which is based on the concept of a free market) that the media apply to themselves. Inability to find common ground among the actors in the public sphere keeps media from professionalisation.
It is our assumption that the conflict arises between two different modes – imitationon the one hand and traditionon the other. The media seek to stress that the provision of information is a business (competition is a newly adopted quality), while the state seeks to protect people from undesired influences such as market orientation through increasing commercialism (protection is an enduring element of tradition).
A quality element in this as yet unchanged and complex situation is that conditions may be established for something entirely new and unique to be born.
• • •
In summary, the three Baltic States resemble the tradition found in the countries with a liberal corporatist modelto a greater (Lithuania and Estonia) or a lesser degree (see Table 2).
Which media system characteristics are imported from which cultures and which characteristics endure from the tradition of the Baltic countries’ journalism – that remains to be assessed in future research studies.
31NRKis a joint-stock company, but the state owns all the shares. The Ministry for Cultural Affairs is the institution which takes decisions on strategic questions, including the appointment of six of the nine members of NRK’s board (including the chairman and vice chairman). Three board members are elected by the employees of NRK. Important strategic questions such as the license fee are also discussed in Parliament.
The director of broadcasting is now appointed by the board of NRK, not by the government (as was the case before).
32 State institutions are authorised to intervene in broadcaster decisions – as in Greece and Italy, as well as in France in the past.
33 The Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania, http://www.rtk.lt/en/about/about/
34 The National Radio and Television Council, http://www.nrtp.lv/en/index.php
35 The Mass Media Authority operates under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, http://www.smf.no/sw225.asp
Norway Yes
Yes
NRK
The NRKBoard
(9 members;
balance between various political and professional
actors
= corporatism The Mass Media
Authority35
Yes
Yes
Different types of media Democratic
(social) corporatism Categories
Table 2.State-media relationships in the Baltic States and Norway: a comparative approach.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Public information
policy
The state as owner of the
media
The state as regulator of the media
The state as financer of the media
Pluralism, diversity &
other democratic values Transparency of the media (state institutions
request provision of media ownership data)
Public service broadcasting, PSB
The administrative
body (number of members on the
board; rule of governing bodies)
Granting licenses to private broadcasters
Regulation of political advertising Regulation of media concentration &
cross-media ownership Indirect subsidies
Direct subsidies
Type of relationship
Lithuania Yes
Yes
Lithuanian Radio and TV
The LRT Council
(12 members on the board;
balance between various political and social actors
= corporatism) Radio and Television Commission of
Lithuania (the RTCL)33 (12 members on the board; balance
between various political and media professional actors =corporatism
Yes
No
Latvia Yes
No
Latvian Radio and TV
The National Broadcasting Council (9 members; all of
them are appointed by the
Parliament)
The National Radio and Television Council34
No
No
Estonia Yes
No
Estonian Radio and TV
The Estonian Broadcasting Council (9 members on the board; balance
between various political and professional actors
= corporatism) The Ministry of
Culture
No
No
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
Cultural, educational and minority media to correct
“market failure”
Different levels of liberal corporatism Tax exemption to publications
. . . .
In terms of power arrangements, Norway (as well as the other Scandinavian countries), belongs to the democratic (or social) corporatist tradition.
How does “social corporatism” differ from “liberal corporatism”?
According to Peter Dahlgren,corporatismsignifies a tendency toward a high degree of organisation (and co-ordination) among interest groups. It involves the delegation of much decision-making to elites within the spheres of economics, politics and labour. The efficacy of corporatist arrangements is an important part of their democratic legitimacy: group interests are synchronised on a society-wide basis (Dahlgren 2002). Hence, according to Katzenstein (cited in Hallin and Mancini),
“social corporatism” is characterised by particularly strong welfare states, while “liberal corporatism” involves more market-oriented thinking.
There are at least two important aspects of “liberal corporatism”:
1) Strong protection of press freedom, 2) Liberal regulation of the media.
These two aspects are manifested in the Baltic States through the existence of media self-regulation institutions (institutionally much stronger in Lithuania and Estonia, but weaker in Latvia), a low level of media regulation, and the existence of public information policy focused on attempts to correct “market failure”. But in practice, because of inability to reach consensus and a common ground between the state information policy and the market-oriented intentions of the media, a conflict arises. As a regulator, the state in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia has not engaged in any interventions to modify the market (to regulate cross-media ownership and concentration, to impose stricter regulation on political advertising, etc.), at least not yet.
• • •
It has not been my goal to discuss which type of state intervention is better or worse. As I mentioned earlier, the goal was not to judge, but to understand.
I attempted to demonstrate the similarities as well as differences among the four countries and to explain which of the phenomena under discussion create which type of relationships. Because of different traditions in building media-state relationships, many aspects of the media systems are different. Indeed, there exists a variety of media models, each of which has very specific historic, political, economic and cultural conditions in terms of its origin.
In order to understand how the media function, it is necessary to comprehend the culture of journalism, which has developed under the influence of the national political culture. This connection is very important, because political culture influences the work of journalists and editors. It is because of differences in political cultures that journalism in different European countries is highly varied.
The variations in terms of the contexts in which journalism develops make it very difficult to grasp types of state-media relationships, but several conditions – 1) the multi-party system in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, 2) the corporatist structures of various institutions (broadcast councils and press commissions), and 3) active memories of the Soviet past with strong media supervision, – do not permit any discussion about present difficulties as a threat to the democratic system or the idea of pluralism.
References
Balcˇytiene˙, Aukse˙ (2004) “Zˇiniasklaidos kultu¯ra. Lyginamieji svarstymai: Europa ir Lietuva” (Media culture. Comparatives perspectives: Europe and Lithuania) – inDarbai ir dienos, 38, 75–110.
Briksˇe, Inta, Skudra, Oja¯rs & Tjarve, Rolands (2002) “Development of the Media in Latvia in the 1990s” – in Vihalemm, P. (ed.) Baltic Media in Transition,Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Dahlgren, Peter (2002) “Media and Power Transitions in a Small Country: Sweden” – in Curran, James & Park, Myung-Jin (eds.) De-Westernizing Media Studies, London: Routledge.
Dimants, Aina¯rs (2004) “The Future of Latvia’s Mass Media in Enlarged Europe” – in Jundzis, T. (ed.) Latvia in Europe: Visions of the Future:
Collection of Articles,Riga: Baltic Center for Strategic Studies, Latvian Academy of Sciences, pp. 334–352.
Gross, Peter (2002) Entangled Evolutions: Media and Democracy in Eastern Europe,Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hallin, Daniel & Mancini, Paolo (2004)Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, Cambridge University Press.
Høyer, Svennik, Lauk, Epp & Vihalemm, Peeter (1993) Towards a Civic Society: The Baltic Media’s Long Road to Freedom. Tartu: Baltic Association for Media Research/Nota Baltica.
Nagla, Ilze & Kehre, Anita (2004) “Latvia” – in Petkovic, Brankica (ed.) Media Ownership and Its Impact on Media Independence and Pluralism, Ljubljana: Peace Institute, Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, [online], available:
http://www.seenpm.org/index.php?nav=ut.php&p=9, accessed 04.11.2004.
Paju, Taivo (2004) “Estonia” – in Petkovic, Brankica (ed.) Media Ownership and Its Impact on Media Independence and Pluralism, Ljubljana: Peace Institute, Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, [online], available:
http://www.seenpm.org/index.php?nav=ut.php&p=9, accessed 04.11.2004.
Tapinas, Laimonas (1998) “The Legal Framework” – in Schmid, Helga (ed.) Understanding the Media in the Baltic Countries, Düsseldorf: European Institute for the Media.