MIKKO: Ajakirjaniku ja poliitiku vastutus
9. juuni 2006 peetud kõne konverentsil "Meediaomandi mõju ajakirjanduskultuurile"
Dear colleagues,
I address you in this way because you can take a person out of journalism, but you will never be able to take journalism out of someone who has been there for 20 years.
On Tuesday, a new paper hit the counters of New York City. This new paper is at the same time one of the oldest periodicals in the world. The London "Times" has already 221 years been the British "publication of record".
The motives of the owner, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, are clearer to a marketing professional than they are to a journalist. However, even in the business sense this is more like an experiment in the spirit of the 19. century rather than a move of compelling logic.
It is yet another proof that journalism has reached an end of an era and does not know where to go next. The courage to leave its own little cozy world is diminishing fast. Outside lurk unfamiliar dangers: the medialisation, new technologies RSS or podcast. Weblogs and outside columnists have bitten a big chunk out of the audience of newspaper editorials.
Lifestyles of media stars are a much safer topic than new dimensions of wealth redistribution in the economy determined by the scale effect. Anyone can see that the news are increasingly produced by professional PR people. The reporters just have to turn up and remix the ready-made soundbites when they get back to their desks. Sometimes even turning up is not necessary.
It is possible that the individual journalist will be at the center of the future media world, much the same way the DJs taken up a position in the music industry. It could also happen that the medialisation and the globalisation will between them manage to destroy the journalism as we know it.
Well, these are just two extreme scenarios. I believe and hope that journalism will emerge from this quandary stronger than before. I believe this because I believe in the necessity and the staying power of democracy.
Journalism is not a business like any other. The status of journalism as the fourth power is not a whim of gods. It is a result of the natural development of society. Democracy needs a counterbalance and a watchdog for the other three powers.
As long as there is democracy, this space needs filling. At the same time, if the watchdog has no teeth and the fourth power is inadequate as a counterbalance, there will not be true democracy.
The three older powers have been developing for centuries. Modern journalism was born during the French Revolution and it is still looking for a sustainable position. This is especially true in Estonia, but the problem is not unknown in the older democracies.
In addition to the ideological muddle and short traditions, there is a problem of lacking social guarantees. Democratic countries have taken far-reaching measures to secure independence of the legislative and the judicial powers.
The guarantees for people representing these, but also for the members of the executive power, are more or less always in the teeth of the watchdog. This is exactly as it should be. But in addition to counting other people's money the media should monitor and analyse the real extent of the independence of the individual representatives of the three powers.
There are other areas, where the fourth power needs to behave more maturely. It is unthinkable for a judge to demean, slander or exploit some citizens. But this is what our media does on a regular basis.
Is this just an immature plea for attention? Maybe. Is that worthy of the fourth power? I think not. The press, let me repeat, is not just a business. Society has certain expectations of journalists. And disappointing these is punishable by a total loss of confidence.
In most countries, the politicians have the lowest reputation of all mainstream occupations. The causes of that are trading ideals for material benefits, manipulation of the facts, constant wheeling and dealing with no discernible benefit for the voters.
Estonian press has experienced the sudden fall of its reputation to the similar levels for pretty much the same reasons.
Sometimes I doubt if the politicians as an estate can be saved even theoretically. As regards the press, I have no such doubts. I know many highly professional journalists who have ideals. I know that the journalistic profession is capable of dragging itself out of the mud.
For that we need the cooperation of everyone involved in the journalistic process. Journalists must assume the responsibilities as well as the rights of the true fourth power. An editor must be twice as responsible and the publisher four times. Managing editor is the one who can do most to let the profession grow and reach the level equal to other powers.
A journalist must "kick against the pricks", to use a Biblical expression. But he must not have to risk his existence to do it. There were times, when the other three powers were the exclusive domain of wealthy landowners. None of us, I think, regrets the passing of those times.
The fourth power should not be only in hands of the independently wealthy. We know that the loan payments can break an unemployed journalist as easily as the medieval torture. Journalists need protection. Should this not be forthcoming, the offensive of the entertainment and the fall of the average intellectual level of the media will become irreversible.
Maybe the void in Estonian public discourse will be filled by the papers owned and managed by political parties. I know „Kesknädal“ does not complain about the lack of readers. But it is not a paper that sympathises with the Centre Party. Its employees are totally at the mercy of this party.
Who will secure the media independence? Should the Parliament adopt a special law? Maybe, but this is not the most effective way. Or will the present owners and managers do it out of idealism? I do not see this happening, not before the present crisis has given way to the new beginning.
The Journalists Union must achieve a level, where it can both protect its members and exercise some sort of peer pressure to prevent excesses. Right now, it is risky for a journalist to even join the union. I need scarcely even mention that the present ban on journalists' membership in political parties is unconstitutional. But it excites no comment in the Estonian society. This is not a sign of a strong democracy.
In German editorial offices you find representatives of all three mainstream parties working side by side. High ethical standards of journalists and their chief editors ensure a balanced attitude. English papers, on the other hand are not ashamed of their political allegiances. Everyone knows that „Guardian“ is left-leaning and the „Daily Telegraph“ is conservative. The game is open and above board.
But in the press of the restored Estonian Republic, the best covered topics are those far from politics. We have great experts on culture or popular science. But after a brief flash, our press has given up trying to have clear opinions in the areas of politics and economics.
This is ironic. Under Soviet rule, at least, the headers of the papers clearly stated, whose opinion the publication carried. "Edasi", the precursor of "Postimees", was "the official organ of the Tartu town committee of the Estonian Communist Party". Now, under the same management and owned by Schibsted of Norway, a clear consumer warning is missing.
You cannot deny that journalism has been political since its beginning. The pamphlets of the French Revolution, "Postimees“ of Papa Jannsen, „The Times“, „Washington Post“ – the periodicals have traditionally been founded to carry certain political views, not to make profit.
But what views should the "Times" of London carry in New York? It is purely a business venture, to make money out of a niche some marketing genius discovered. The critics say that "The Times" has lost much of its intellectual appeal since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 1981. Even "The Sun" used to be a somewhat intellectual paper, before the same magnate took it over.
You can say that NewsCorp generally carries certain conservative values. But its papers carry increasingly the only the pictures of half-naked bimbos, footballers and media-hungry celebrities. This is not journalistic progress. This is all about bargaining power.
Bargaining power of a huge enterprise is used to make a cheaper paper. Cheaper also in terms of content and ethical values. When there are very few buyers of paper, print and journalists, they dictate the conditions to each of them.
Mostly this dictate means more boring content. A business has to get along with the present government, the next government and the advertising clients. This means no sharp words, no uncomfortable topics. A business also wants to make money. This means less pay and more work for journalists - which also results in boring, badly researched, pointless content.
But, much worse, even in old democracies the media concentration threatens democracy itself endangered. Just look at Berlusconi in Italy. It is of course even worse in the younger democracies.
Norwegian authorities monitor closely media concentration in their country. In doing so, they provide counterbalance to the fourth power and at the same time ensure editorial independence. Schibsted's Norwegian employees enjoy social guarantees and are free from editorial pressure.
Free from such scrutiny in other countries, Schibsted has achieved quite an alarming dominance for example in Estonian media. It owns the biggest daily paper, scores of radio stations, one of the three TV channels, a number of magazines.
Many observers agree that this has had a detrimental effect on the editorial content and working conditions of employees. It has also not been beneficial to the Estonian political landscape.
A business is naturally biased towards political forces helping businesses make more money. So is a newspaper, which has been reduced to little more than a business.
Society will eventually find the way around biased and boring media. I already mentioned blogs, RSS and podcasts. They are available for everyone willing to produce and distribute content.
Uninteresting media will eventually lose its customers and the purpose of existence. Maybe we should not be sorry about that. At least this is what the market ideology says.
But we might lose something valuable in the process. We might lose the traditions of the noble calling and the weight of the fourth power. It is the responsibility of both politicians and the journalists to do their best to prevent this happening.
Thank you.
Dear colleagues,
I address you in this way because you can take a person out of journalism, but you will never be able to take journalism out of someone who has been there for 20 years.
On Tuesday, a new paper hit the counters of New York City. This new paper is at the same time one of the oldest periodicals in the world. The London "Times" has already 221 years been the British "publication of record".
The motives of the owner, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, are clearer to a marketing professional than they are to a journalist. However, even in the business sense this is more like an experiment in the spirit of the 19. century rather than a move of compelling logic.
It is yet another proof that journalism has reached an end of an era and does not know where to go next. The courage to leave its own little cozy world is diminishing fast. Outside lurk unfamiliar dangers: the medialisation, new technologies RSS or podcast. Weblogs and outside columnists have bitten a big chunk out of the audience of newspaper editorials.
Lifestyles of media stars are a much safer topic than new dimensions of wealth redistribution in the economy determined by the scale effect. Anyone can see that the news are increasingly produced by professional PR people. The reporters just have to turn up and remix the ready-made soundbites when they get back to their desks. Sometimes even turning up is not necessary.
It is possible that the individual journalist will be at the center of the future media world, much the same way the DJs taken up a position in the music industry. It could also happen that the medialisation and the globalisation will between them manage to destroy the journalism as we know it.
Well, these are just two extreme scenarios. I believe and hope that journalism will emerge from this quandary stronger than before. I believe this because I believe in the necessity and the staying power of democracy.
Journalism is not a business like any other. The status of journalism as the fourth power is not a whim of gods. It is a result of the natural development of society. Democracy needs a counterbalance and a watchdog for the other three powers.
As long as there is democracy, this space needs filling. At the same time, if the watchdog has no teeth and the fourth power is inadequate as a counterbalance, there will not be true democracy.
The three older powers have been developing for centuries. Modern journalism was born during the French Revolution and it is still looking for a sustainable position. This is especially true in Estonia, but the problem is not unknown in the older democracies.
In addition to the ideological muddle and short traditions, there is a problem of lacking social guarantees. Democratic countries have taken far-reaching measures to secure independence of the legislative and the judicial powers.
The guarantees for people representing these, but also for the members of the executive power, are more or less always in the teeth of the watchdog. This is exactly as it should be. But in addition to counting other people's money the media should monitor and analyse the real extent of the independence of the individual representatives of the three powers.
There are other areas, where the fourth power needs to behave more maturely. It is unthinkable for a judge to demean, slander or exploit some citizens. But this is what our media does on a regular basis.
Is this just an immature plea for attention? Maybe. Is that worthy of the fourth power? I think not. The press, let me repeat, is not just a business. Society has certain expectations of journalists. And disappointing these is punishable by a total loss of confidence.
In most countries, the politicians have the lowest reputation of all mainstream occupations. The causes of that are trading ideals for material benefits, manipulation of the facts, constant wheeling and dealing with no discernible benefit for the voters.
Estonian press has experienced the sudden fall of its reputation to the similar levels for pretty much the same reasons.
Sometimes I doubt if the politicians as an estate can be saved even theoretically. As regards the press, I have no such doubts. I know many highly professional journalists who have ideals. I know that the journalistic profession is capable of dragging itself out of the mud.
For that we need the cooperation of everyone involved in the journalistic process. Journalists must assume the responsibilities as well as the rights of the true fourth power. An editor must be twice as responsible and the publisher four times. Managing editor is the one who can do most to let the profession grow and reach the level equal to other powers.
A journalist must "kick against the pricks", to use a Biblical expression. But he must not have to risk his existence to do it. There were times, when the other three powers were the exclusive domain of wealthy landowners. None of us, I think, regrets the passing of those times.
The fourth power should not be only in hands of the independently wealthy. We know that the loan payments can break an unemployed journalist as easily as the medieval torture. Journalists need protection. Should this not be forthcoming, the offensive of the entertainment and the fall of the average intellectual level of the media will become irreversible.
Maybe the void in Estonian public discourse will be filled by the papers owned and managed by political parties. I know „Kesknädal“ does not complain about the lack of readers. But it is not a paper that sympathises with the Centre Party. Its employees are totally at the mercy of this party.
Who will secure the media independence? Should the Parliament adopt a special law? Maybe, but this is not the most effective way. Or will the present owners and managers do it out of idealism? I do not see this happening, not before the present crisis has given way to the new beginning.
The Journalists Union must achieve a level, where it can both protect its members and exercise some sort of peer pressure to prevent excesses. Right now, it is risky for a journalist to even join the union. I need scarcely even mention that the present ban on journalists' membership in political parties is unconstitutional. But it excites no comment in the Estonian society. This is not a sign of a strong democracy.
In German editorial offices you find representatives of all three mainstream parties working side by side. High ethical standards of journalists and their chief editors ensure a balanced attitude. English papers, on the other hand are not ashamed of their political allegiances. Everyone knows that „Guardian“ is left-leaning and the „Daily Telegraph“ is conservative. The game is open and above board.
But in the press of the restored Estonian Republic, the best covered topics are those far from politics. We have great experts on culture or popular science. But after a brief flash, our press has given up trying to have clear opinions in the areas of politics and economics.
This is ironic. Under Soviet rule, at least, the headers of the papers clearly stated, whose opinion the publication carried. "Edasi", the precursor of "Postimees", was "the official organ of the Tartu town committee of the Estonian Communist Party". Now, under the same management and owned by Schibsted of Norway, a clear consumer warning is missing.
You cannot deny that journalism has been political since its beginning. The pamphlets of the French Revolution, "Postimees“ of Papa Jannsen, „The Times“, „Washington Post“ – the periodicals have traditionally been founded to carry certain political views, not to make profit.
But what views should the "Times" of London carry in New York? It is purely a business venture, to make money out of a niche some marketing genius discovered. The critics say that "The Times" has lost much of its intellectual appeal since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 1981. Even "The Sun" used to be a somewhat intellectual paper, before the same magnate took it over.
You can say that NewsCorp generally carries certain conservative values. But its papers carry increasingly the only the pictures of half-naked bimbos, footballers and media-hungry celebrities. This is not journalistic progress. This is all about bargaining power.
Bargaining power of a huge enterprise is used to make a cheaper paper. Cheaper also in terms of content and ethical values. When there are very few buyers of paper, print and journalists, they dictate the conditions to each of them.
Mostly this dictate means more boring content. A business has to get along with the present government, the next government and the advertising clients. This means no sharp words, no uncomfortable topics. A business also wants to make money. This means less pay and more work for journalists - which also results in boring, badly researched, pointless content.
But, much worse, even in old democracies the media concentration threatens democracy itself endangered. Just look at Berlusconi in Italy. It is of course even worse in the younger democracies.
Norwegian authorities monitor closely media concentration in their country. In doing so, they provide counterbalance to the fourth power and at the same time ensure editorial independence. Schibsted's Norwegian employees enjoy social guarantees and are free from editorial pressure.
Free from such scrutiny in other countries, Schibsted has achieved quite an alarming dominance for example in Estonian media. It owns the biggest daily paper, scores of radio stations, one of the three TV channels, a number of magazines.
Many observers agree that this has had a detrimental effect on the editorial content and working conditions of employees. It has also not been beneficial to the Estonian political landscape.
A business is naturally biased towards political forces helping businesses make more money. So is a newspaper, which has been reduced to little more than a business.
Society will eventually find the way around biased and boring media. I already mentioned blogs, RSS and podcasts. They are available for everyone willing to produce and distribute content.
Uninteresting media will eventually lose its customers and the purpose of existence. Maybe we should not be sorry about that. At least this is what the market ideology says.
But we might lose something valuable in the process. We might lose the traditions of the noble calling and the weight of the fourth power. It is the responsibility of both politicians and the journalists to do their best to prevent this happening.
Thank you.
posted by Triinu at 6/12/2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home