Kõne: Eesti – Põhjamaa meediafirmade mängumaa

Friday, 22.04.2005, 12:16 / SEISUKOHAD / RSS

Estonia – the playing-ground for Nordic media companies: concentration of media
in a small country

Ladies and gentlemen!

I am very pleased to be talking about the Estonian media for an auditorium which
very well knows the situation of our media, but which at the same time is at a
reasonable distance to address the topic analytically, rather than emotionally.
I will first briefly cast a glimpse into the history of our media and present a
summary of the current situation. I will then continue with the position of the
European Parliament and finally discuss what to do in the future.

I share the opinion that in the case of Estonia we deal with poor media. I start from a
strategic point of view and argue that there is a lack of vision and ideas, but at the
same time the Estonian media as a source of revenue undoubtedly continues to be
profitable for its owners.

In Estonia there was a boom of the media from the end of the 1980s until the mid-
1990s.

Since the end of the Soviet occupation, when the media became free of communist
censorship, within a few years hundreds of new newspapers and magazines were
founded. In 1991 the first private radio station was opened in Tartu and in 1993 the
first TV channel was established as well.

By today, unfortunately, the peak has been passed in most media channels. The
number of newspapers started to decrease in the mid-1990s. In the second half of
the 1990s alternative newspapers disappeared from most of our counties and the
number of big Estonian dailies, aspiring to be called quality newspapers, fell from
four to two. Instead of four TV-channels we now have three and most of the Internet
news portals established at the end of the 1990s have now been closed. Instead of
the two news agencies we used to have there is now only one. The only exception
in this trend is local radio stations and magazines. Here there are still both quitters
and significant newcomers.

However, from radio stations and magazines to newspapers and TV-channels there
are three reigning trends in Estonia, which are uniformly characteristic to the whole
media sector.

I will now discuss in greater detail the three trends that characterise the situation of
the Estonian media.

First. Ownership becomes increasingly concentrated.
The ruler of the Estonian market is the Eesti Meedia group. They own the biggest
quality daily Postimees, the TV-station Kanal 2, half a dozen county newspapers
and 33% of the largest private radio station – Raadio Kuku, which is active both
across Estonia and in counties. In addition, Eesti Meedia also owns one of the
largest printer’s in Estonia. Together with the second largest owner company
Ekspress group, Eesti Meedia also owns the only Estonian daily tabloid, SL
Õhtuleht, the publishing house Ajakirjade Kirjastus that issues about 20 magazines
and the postal company Express Post. More than 90% of Eesti Meedia Group
belongs to the Norwegian company Schibsted.

In addition to the shared ownership listed above, the second largest, Ekspress
Group also owns the second Estonian quality daily Eesti Päevaleht, the weekly
newspaper Eesti Ekspress, a publishing house and a printer’s, which has the
second largest turnover in Estonia. Ekspress Group is owned by businessman
Hans H. Luik.

Second. Since the end of the 1990s the general trend is becoming tabloid. Both the
print media, TV channels, radio stations and on-line are increasingly more yellow.
There is less analysis and news, more entertainment, which they themselves call
infotainment. To attract young people, Channel 2, which belongs to the Norwegian
Schibsted, has launched an entertaining one-hour information programme where
the glamour of the world is mixed with quiz shows and otherwise cool stories. The
programme is popular with young and retired people and therefore the second
commercial TV-channel, TV3, which belongs to the Swedish Modern Times Group,
was also forced to produce a softer news programme. Even the state-owned ETV
shows more stories of human interest in its news programme. A good example in
the written press is that this year’s Estonian Press Award was issued to stories
about the rector of the Estonian Art Academy, who had visited a brothel and paid by
using the Academy’s credit card. A juicy story. But what could be the influence and
importance of this story to society at large? Should we not single out and
appreciate articles that analyse matters more important for society? Or in other
words, write about wasting millions, rather than one thousand euros. However, this
requires more time and a longer investigation, which editorial staff, tuned to
produce profit, are not interested in. Indeed, a journalist does not simply produce a
certain number of characters that has been assigned to them, but deals with
something that requires weeks and months of thorough preparation before the
disclosure written by the 4th power ripens for print.

Third. Trust in the media is declining. At the beginning of the 1990s the media was
one of the most trustworthy institutions in the country, whereas now it has fallen to
the lowest step on the scale of trustworthiness, to the same level as politicians.
However, on the scale of trustworthiness there are some interesting and significant
exceptions. At the top of trustworthiness there are primarily radio stations, but also
TV-channels: these media have not lost much of their authority. It is mostly the
writing press that has undergone an enormous downturn.
What could be behind these differing indicators of trust? Is it simply the difference
between the media themselves or something else as well? How important could be
the fact that in the field of TV competition is relatively tougher and there is less
concentration of ownership? To what extent the trustworthiness of the writing
press has suffered because it is primarily owned by two large companies?

Undoubtedly the decline of the writing press is connected to the strengthening of
TV-channels in the second half of the 1990s; in the same way Internet sites reduce
the number of subscribers to the writing press. The time of TV-channels on air and
their share in revenue from advertising has multiplied since the mid-1990s. In the
same way, on-line news and commentaries are popular in Estonia. Newspapers are
often read free on the internet.
Likewise, the disputes and price-bargaining between the two media groups has
played its role in the decline of the writing media.

The slump of the writing press is also reflected in the circulation. At the beginning
of the 1990s the then biggest daily Rahva Hääl had a circulation above 200,000.
Today, the biggest Estonian dailies – Postimees and SL Õhtuleht – have a
circulation of only slightly above 60,000.

It is often said that a good financial situation is the prerequisite of journalistic
quality. This was the opinion that Valtteri Niiranen, the Finnish director of the
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association expressed in the European
Parliament.

Financially, the situation of the Estonian media has steadily improved after the year
2000. It is evident that in the 1990s the media sometimes lived above their means.
The Estonian market does not bear four TV-channels and two news agencies. Nor
does it bear four quality-dailies. But is it not a bit idealist to think that if there is
money, the quality of the media will certainly rise?

In the 1990s I worked in Brussels as the correspondent of ETV. At that time Estonia
could send to Brussels two journalists working full time. Despite the fact that our
economy was twice smaller than it is now and the European Union and Brussels ten
times less important to us. Today there is only one Estonian journalist from ETV
working in Brussels full time. Curiously, we thus have to state that in 11 years the
decline has been twofold, given the fact that Estonia is a member of both the
European Union and NATO. I do not harbour any conspiracy theories, but I would
still like to ask, who benefits from a situation like this? Certainly not Estonian
citizens who are deprived of information.

In Estonia the concentration of the media and the decreasing competition has led to
the situation where profit does not guarantee quality, but is gained at the expense
of quality.

Let us also look at the journalists and reporters who are employed. All-Estonian
newspapers mostly seek people who have not graduated from universities yet in
order to pay less to them. Often young Estonian journalists work while they study
or journalists have other jobs as well. The lack of permanent staff is inevitably
detrimental to quality. Yet even the Italian Prime Minister has had a much more
stable job during the past six years than the editor-in-chief of the biggest Estonian
daily Postimees. It is incomprehensible what sort of policy is pursued by the
executive director of Eesti Meedia, Mart Kadastik, who once a year changes the
editors-in-chief of Postimees. During the five years of this century Postimees has
the fourth editor-in-chief already. It seems that the aim is to create an atmosphere
of uncertainty where every journalist should worry about their daily bread. And do
not dare to hold true to their ethical principles, but tries to fulfil every whim of the
boss.

At the beginning of the 1990s I worked in the weekly Eesti Ekspress. The circulation
of it was 40,000 then. The same as now. At that time the journalists discussed the
future. Most of them wanted to continue towards increasing the quality of the
weekly and make Eesti Ekspress the flagship of investigating journalism in Estonia.
The owner wanted to make the weekly more yellow in order to gain a bigger share
of the market place. Of course, the will of the owner prevailed. Today, the
circulation of Ekspress is the same as in the year 1992. In other words, the
circulation has not changed, the weekly newspaper has.

Here, I would like to make a little detour from the topic of Estonia and step outside
the role of a journalist and discuss the issue from the point of view of a member of
the European Parliament.
After the elections in 2004, the topic of journalism has been on the agenda at the
European Parliament more seriously than ever before. The media conference that
takes place in Helsinki today is the fourth I have been invited to this month after the
three conferences held in Brussels in April.
The increasing interest of the European Parliament is most evidently expressed in
the formation of the intergroup of journalism, beside the intergroup of audio-visual
policy that had existed before. In addition to the ordinary committees and
delegations for external relations, there are also intergroups at the European
Parliament which are meant for less formal interaction and are committed to more
specific fields. These normally comprise 40-60 MEPs. The number of the
intergroups is limited and they have to have the support of the majority of the
political groups.

There were two incentives for the establishment of the intergroup on journalism and
also for addressing the issue of the media more thoroughly at the European
Parliament.

Firstly, concerns about how the topic of the European Union is covered and the
wish to present issues connected to the EU better to the public. And interest in the
problems about covering European issues in the media is not subsiding. In future, it
will certainly increase, given the unexpectedly controversial and exciting
referendums on the Constitutional Treaty.

Secondly, Italy and the business empire of Berlusconi. In Italy, the political and
economic power and ownership of the media alike are concentrated in the hands of
Silvio Berlusconi. Here, the concentration in the TV-sector is especially large and
dangerous. This has been criticised by both politicians, reporters without frontiers
group, scientists and analysts. Italian MEPs complain about Berlusconi’s
ownership of the media in almost every meeting of any parliamentary committee,
connecting it to any topic, if necessary – from European social policy to headlights
of cars.

Exactly one year ago, on 22 April, 2004, the situation in the Italian media inspired
the European Parliament to adopt a resolution that called on the European
Commission to draft a directive to grant pluralism in the European media. In the
opinion of the European Parliament the domination of one media company in any
member-state to be regarded as an impediment to the pluralism of the media in the
European Union. The same resolution also called on the Commission to enact laws
that prohibit politicians to have large ownerships in the media.

How to go on?
The European Commission has so far not responded positively to the call of the
European Parliament to draft a directive safeguarding the pluralism of the media,
which was first issued already in 1994. The printing media are clearly against an all-
European regulation of the journalistic landscape. In the intergroup on journalism I
mentioned earlier, the European Newspaper Publishers’ Association was very
clearly against it. The position of the European umbrella organisations of TV-
channels has not been similarly against and local radio stations, on the contrary,
explicitly support the coming of all-European legislation on the media.

Still, the support of the MEPs to all-European media legislation is certain. The
chairman of the intergroup on journalism, member of the ALDE (liberals and
democrats) group, former French TV-journalist Jean-Marie Cavada, gave the
example of the Hezbollah TV-channel to illustrate the need for all-European
regulation. In France it is prohibited because it incites ethnic, religious and racial
feud. Yet the broadcasts of the Hezbollah-channel reach France via Dutch satellite
stations.

The 202-man European socialist group decided on 7 April to launch a campaign to
draft all-European media laws by way of popular initiative. As you know, the new
European Constitution gives the possibility for legislative initiative if at least one
million European citizens support it. “Our aim is to create a broad European
coalition which cannot be ignored by the European Commission (that has the
exclusive right to draft all-European legislation), member-states or owners of the
media,” said the vice-chairman of the socialist group, Frenchman Harlem Desir.
Signatures are going to be collected through postcards and the Internet. It would be
the first legislative act created by the European Commission on direct demand of
European citizens.

Opponents to the all-European legislative acts most often give the example of
ORKLA Group to illustrate their argument. The Norwegian ORKLA Group’s
principles of publishing and including their employees is undoubtedly good
practice worth acknowledgement. However, for some reason the opponents of the
all-European media law do not want to comment the issue of Berlusconi and the
Italian media. Neither do they wish to pay attention to the Murdoch media empire,
which operates contrary to Nordic style.

From here we come back to Estonia. Praising the concentration of the media is
based on the same assumption as the argument that enlightened monarchy is the
best political system. We have to agree that the ORKLA Group plays a positive role
in Denmark and Poland. But the influence of the other Norwegian big company,
Schibsted, is not similarly praiseworthy. Six political parties are represented in the
Estonian parliament. This year the secretaries-general of five of them sent two
notes to Schibsted, in which they indicate that Postimees consistently favours one
political party represented in the Parliament. The party whose leader, the new
Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip is a friend of the manager of Eesti Meedia.
What is more, the manager of Eesti Meedia, Mart Kadastik, has also participated in
politicians’ meetings as advisor to Ansip.

Why do we need laws at all? When drafting laws, do we assume that all citizens act
like enlightened monarchs? But why do we then assume this in the case of all
journalistic leaders or owners?

At the beginning of my presentation I said that in the Estonian media there is a lack
of ideas and vision. I cannot see serious will or responsibility to educate people,
widen their horizons and facilitate ethical quests. For instance, last year Postimees
gave up its last correspondence office in Moscow, which had been working for 10
years. Whereas earlier Postimees has had several foreign correspondents – in
Helsinki and Brussels as well, by now they have all finished working and the
journalists have been called home. Those talented journalists with an experience of
working abroad have now left Postimees. Vision means commitment to journalism
and increasing the quality of the journalists, not becoming tabloid.

For presentation, today you have been given an excerpt of the Estonian part of a
book on media pluralism and ownership. Its author, Taivo Paju, has demonstrated
very well what an important role the relationship of the journalist with the reader,
listener or spectator plays. The consumer not only identifies every kind of media
through the journalists who work there. For them the media and the journalists
working there are the same.
Here lies my serious reproach against the Nordic ownership of the media in
Estonia. The reproach which does not allow me to praise the concentration of the
media and invested foreign capital as the enlightened monarch. The reason is that
Estonian journalists have an unfoundedly little say in shaping media policy. In
neither of the big Estonian media groups journalists have had an opportunity to
seriously discuss what kind of media the Estonian citizen wants to read-hear-watch.
Should it be educative and informative or entertainment full of advertising?

In Estonia, there are very few newspapers where the opinion of the collective of the
journalists is heard. Interestingly, one of such newspapers is at the same time one
of the most profitable ones: the business paper. In Äripäev, which belongs to
Bonnier Group the plans and position of the editorial office are traditionally first
discussed with most of the employed journalists. It was the employees of this
newspaper themselves who some years ago elected the editor-in-chief, who is still
in office.

Today only 10-15 per cent of Estonian journalists are members of the trade union. In
Nordic countries this number is 90-95 per cent. We could talk about the role of the
enlightened monarch if a Nordic owner would also bring along a system of
relationships between the editorial office and the owner. Unfortunately, in Estonia,
the trend to establish systems that compete with the Union of Journalists has been
supported: for instance, the Press Council and the Public Word Council.
Membership in the Union of Journalists is not an asset in the eyes of media leaders.
On the contrary, in personal salary negotiations the journalists promise not to join
the Union of Journalists. The Union of Newspapers, which comprises editors-in-
chief or in other words, employers, does everything to look a professional union.
Very many Estonian journalists are afraid to join the Union of Journalists or the
Trade Union.

We may thus conclude that concentration of the media and an owner from the West
is not exceedingly good for Estonia, which is a transitional country with young
democracy. Even if they come from Nordic countries. Because, we still have to
admit the fact: Schibsted behaves in a different way in Norway than in Estonia,
where the only criterion is profit. From the journalists’ point of view Schibsted is
like a slave driver, not a good European media group that supports free citizens or
journalists with an original mind.

As there is no other law on journalist than the Estonian Broadcasting Act and the
media are regulated as any other companies, this course of development does call
for a better regulation at European level.