Paper to Workshop: 8. The Citizen and the State in the Digital Age/The Internet
and the Constitution
Chairs: Adrienne Stone and Djedjro Meledje
asstone@unimelb.edu.au dmeledje@gmail.com
Market-­‐Driven Challenges for the Press: Freedom of Expression and the
Interaction between the State, Citizens and the Fourth Estate in a Digital Era.
EVA-MARIA SVENSSON
LLM, LLD, Professor
School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg
Department of Law
Box 650, S-405 30 GÖTEBORG
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)31 786 12 98
Law Faculty, University of Tromsø
N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
E-mail: Eva-Maria.Svensson@law.gu.se
MARIA EDSTRÖM
Ph D, Senior lecturer, Research officer
Department of Journalism, Media and Communication, University of Gothenburg
PO Box 710 SE- 405 30 Gothenburg,
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 (0)31 786 6640
E-mail: maria.edstrom@jmg.gu.se
Abstract
One of the pre-conditions for the Press to perform its controlling function in the
democracy is independency. In most business models of the press, advertising has
been a major income source, together with a large share of household subscriptions.
In this situation, it has been and is still crucial to uphold a distinction between
journalism and commercial communication. In the Nordic countries there are
substantial state subsidies for the press in order to safeguard diversity of opinions
through the press as a democratic values in society, and in Sweden there is also a
comprehensive constitutional system to guarantee the media to fulfill its controlling
function.
With the technological evolution and expansion of digital communication
advertisers have turned from investments in traditional publishing media to arenas
monitored by new actors such as Google and Facebook. One consequence of this
development is that the press is loosing one of its major economic sources, journalists
are given notice and the newsrooms are shrinking. This in turn leads to that the
scrutinizing ability of the press is diminished and in a long-term perspective the press
risk to loose its legitimacy and credibility. At the same time the new actors do not
have the same explicit democratic mission in terms of the common good and the
controlling function that the press has.
Out of a citizen’s perspective the digital platforms often serve as an open
access arena for discussions where anyone can publish their own stories and news.
1
Every citizen has the potential to become a “journalist”, part of what is commonly
known as citizen journalism. On the other hand, the resource demanding investigating
journalism and holding someone accountable is hardly to be expected by individuals
without resources to scrutinize the power structures in society. What is more, much
of the communication is monitored or used by commercial actors.
There are democratic risks in this the transition face. One crucial question is
whether the division between market and journalism can be sustained and how.
Introduction
Freedom of expression, as an individual right, a common good and a prerequisite for
democracy, is put under pressure from different angles. The threat from undemocratic
states and other actors to restrict freedom of expression all over the world is well
known and widely discussed, for example when it comes to state-controlled television
and the use of religious symbols. Another pressure on freedom of expression, not as
discussed as the former, is market-driven claims for strengthened legal protection for
commercial messages. The focus in this paper is on a more general level, i.e. on
market-driven developments that have effects for the controlling role of the Press,
often called the Third or Fourth Estate1 depending on context. This development
includes crisis for media business models, technological evolution, and also threats to
media pluralism and media governance2, all factors that challenges the interaction
between the Citizen and the State.
The concept market-driven freedom of expression is used here to capture a
global process of market liberalization in which commercial interests claim and gain
more recognition and protection for commercial interests in regulation on freedom of
expression, and also receive more influence on news media due to crisis in media
business models. Both these aspects are highlighted here and related to a
technological evolution in which every individual can publish themselves. The
changed landscape challenges the conditions for the specific role media has, as a
democratic controlling function of the state in the service of the citizens. In most
jurisdictions this role is considered to be part of the general statement of freedom of
expression as a restriction on the state to interfere in the individual right. In some
jurisdictions, like the Swedish, the democratic function as a control mechanism of the
state as the power subject, is established as a specific regulatory model, originally of
the press but in modern times also of other kind of media. The model, which is a
constitutional statutory model with complements of media self-regulation and state
subsidies for media pluralism, is unique and has several features highlighted in the
conceptual framing of media governance. The Swedish model could be seen as a
1
In British, French and American context this function of the press is often called the fourth estate,
going back to the 1820s. The first three estates were refereed to by Edmund Burke as the three estates
in the British parliament. In a Swedish context the same role of the press is called the third estate,
where the first estate is the government and the second is the parliament.
2
Media governance is defined in varying ways with some common features. One definition is that it
refers to the total sum of mechanisms, both formal and informal, national and supranational,
centralized and dispersed that aim to organize media systems, both from inside and outside, and in
which the participants are ready to be hold accountable for these mechanisms. Llorens, Carles &
Costache, Andreea M., Media Pluralism and Media Governance. Covergent or Divergent Roads in a
Digital Scenario. In: Löblich, Maria & Pfaff-Rüdiger (eds.) (2013). Communication and Media Policy
in the Era of the Internet. Theories and Processes. Badeb-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
2
democracy-driven freedom of expression. This model is put under pressure due to the
on going processes which opens up for new actors and changes the relations between
the citizen, the state, and the press.
In an international freedom of expression context three phases of the process
of strengthening legal protection for commercial interests have been identified.3 In the
first, commercial messages 4 are not included under the scope of freedom of
expression. Commercial messages are here not considered to have the same purpose
as the purpose as protected expression has, and are consequently not considered as
protection-worthy under a constitutional protection. In the second phase, commercial
messages are protected but to a less degree than other (non-commercial) expression.
Finally, in the third phase, commercial messages are protected as other speeches, and
what is more, are talked about as commercial speeches. USA recognizes commercial
messages as protected speech (since the 1970s), while most European countries are in
the second phase.
The infrastructure 5 for freedom of expression and the conditions for
interaction between the states, the citizens and the press have been challenged in
several aspects in the digital era. The technical evolution questions traditional
separations between private and public communication and mass and individual
communication. 6 It challenges the premises and the categorizations for
communication, the actors and bodies of communication, as well as the regulatory
models and media policy. The digital revolution has as a result changed the
preconditions for and the interaction between the state, the citizens and the press.
Not only is the technological evolution in the digital era of interest. Also, the
context in which this evolution takes place is of interest for and has consequences for
the relation between the three parties. The decreased legitimacy for the “strong
state”7, the strengthening of a market rhetoric, captured with and highlighted in
research with the concepts of market-driven8, Consuming life9, Consumerism10, and
citizens as consumers11, and the crisis for media’s business models, are all aspects that
are important to relate to when studying the interaction between the states, the citizens
and the press.
3
Heide-Jørgensen, Caroline, Reklameret. Konkurrenceret og kommerciel ytringsfrihet, Jurist- og
Økonomforbundets Forlag 2008, p. 522.
4
A commercial message/speech can be defined as (in a Swedish context) ”a message which concerns
purely commercial circumstances” (Bernitz 1997), or (in an English context) as ”a speech of profitoriented entities” (Baker 2007, p. 222). Using message or speech signalizes in which phase of the three
the concept is placed.
5
Infrastructure for freedom of speech is here used as a concept including both regulatory models,
economic, technical and social conditions for citizens and the Fourth Estate.
6
Introduction in Löblich, Maria & Pfaff-Rüdiger (eds.) (2013). Communication and Media Policy in
the Era of the Internet. Theories and Processes. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
7
The level of state legitimacy differs in different countries and parts of the world, but the questioning of
the state in favour of the market, the civil society and individuals, is general. In a Nordic context has the
concept of the ”legitimate strong state” which ”puts-life-in-order” been appropriate as a description
for the state of art. However, the intervening state is questioned in greater extent today.
8
MacManus John Market-Driven Journalism, Let the Citizen Beware? 1994.
9
The title of a book by Zygmunt Bauman from 2007, Polity Press Ltd. Cambridge.
10
See for a recent example Justin Lewis, Beyond Consumer Capitalism. Media and the Limits to
Imagination, Polity Press 2013.
11
See Justin Lewis, Sanna Inthorn & Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Citizens or consumers? What the media
tell us about political participation, Open University Press 2009 [2005].
3
The freedom of press as a prerequisite for democracy
The American professor of Law and Communication Edwin C. Baker has said that
“(d)emocracy is impossible without a free press”.12 Several scholars and philosophers
in the beginning of the 19th century, e.g. Jeremy Bentham, pointed at the role of the
freedom of press as “a controuling power, indispensibly necessary to the maintenance
of good government”.13 This was also a distinctive characteristic in the Swedish form
of government already in the late 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. In the
preparatorial work to the constitution Freedom of Press Act from 1809 (now replaced
with an Act from 1949) it was said that the freedom of press was considered to be one
of the most important cornerstones for democracy in its function to be a reviewer and
controller of the government. Freedom of press was considered to be part of the
constitutional separation of powers and as such the press formed a legally codified
control mechanism, built in the system of separation of power and balance of power.14
The conceptual characteristic of the press as the fourth estate is an expression for this
separation of power and according to which one of the ideal functions of news media
is to be the people’s watchdog over the political power interests. The Fourth Estate is
consequently considered to be an essential part of freedom of expression as a common
good and a prerequisite for democracy.
Despite this democratic importance to safeguard a free press, the press and its
role of provider of information and as a control mechanism in society are seldom
specifically legally guaranteed, other than as a part of the individual freedom of
expression. The governance of media15 is in most jurisdictions a combination of
formal and informal mechanisms in statutory regulation and self-regulation. The
market liberalization has impacts also on media. Economic assets and restraints have
influence on the controlling function of media. Despite more actors today, there is not
an equal relationship between all actors, due to different economic muscles.16 Also the
changed perception of the “end user” as a consumer instead of a citizen within a
consumer paradigm has importance.
We will now turn to the statutory system of freedom of press in Sweden, an
example of a democracy-driven regulation of freedom of expression.
The system to guarantee a free press as a prerequisite for ‘Freedom of
expression’
The system of media governance in Sweden is, as in many other jurisdictions, a
mixture of formal and informal regulation. It is however unique in an international
perspective due to its strong constitutional protection of the press. The system
12
Baker, C. Edwin, Media, Markets, and Democracy, 2002.
Eek, Hilding, Om tryckfriheten, Gebers 1942, p. 339. Eek refers to, besides Jeremy Bentham,
Benjamin de Constant and Œuvres Mirabeau.
14
Eek, Hilding, Om tryckfriheten, Gebers 1942, pp. 260-1.
15
Llorens, Carles & Costache, Andreea M., Media Pluralism and Media Governance. Covergent or
Divergent Roads in a Digital Scenario. In: Löblich, Maria & Pfaff-Rüdiger (eds.) (2013).
Communication and Media Policy in the Era of the Internet. Theories and Processes. Baden-Baden:
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
16
Llorens, Carles & Costache, Andreea M., Media Pluralism and Media Governance. Covergent or
Divergent Roads in a Digital Scenario. In: Löblich, Maria & Pfaff-Rüdiger (eds.) (2013).
Communication and Media Policy in the Era of the Internet. Theories and Processes. Baden-Baden:
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, p. 65.
13
4
constitutes a certain balance between three actors, the State, the citizen and the Fourth
Estate. In most jurisdictions freedom of expression is a legal relation between the
state and the citizen. It consists of several parts built to safeguard a free press in the
name of a true freedom of expression in a democratic society. Despite this, it must be
said, the press in Swedish like in many other countries is today struggling for survival
in the digital era, at least in its traditional form. Due to technical and economic
changes, the press and its editorial content, is put under pressure.17
The role of the press as the Third Estate in Sweden and its special controlling
function in the democratic process and for the relation between the states and the
citizens is safeguarded in two constitutions. The press is protected by a constitution
going back to 1766, The Freedom of Press Act. It was originally the only
constitutional provision on freedom of expression. Since 1992, other media, such as
TV and radio, has received the equivalent protection in The Fundamental Law on
Freedom of expression. The technological situation today makes this distinction outdated, most media is present on several platforms. However, if under the scope of any
of the two constitutions the protection is substantially the same.
The individual freedom of expression is regulated (only since 1974) in a third
constitution, The Instrument of Government. The protection for media (press, TV,
radio and some other) is stronger than the protection for individuals.18 The freedom of
expression in the Instrument of Government may be restricted due to other interests
such as security of the Realm, national supply of goods, public order and public
safety, the good repute of the individual, the sanctity of private life, as well as the
prevention and prosecution of crime. Also freedom of expression in business
activities can be limited. Otherwise it can be limited only where particular grounds so
warrant.19 This means for instance that the freedom for individual’s blogging on
Internet can be restricted due to the mentioned reasons. On the other hand, restrictions
must be made in law. But the space for restrictions in law is less foreseeable than the
restrictions in the freedom of expression for the media protected by the two other
constitutions. In these constitutions the space for restrictions is more detailed
regulated and requires a special procedure in order to be adopted, two consecutive
decisions in the parliament with an election in between. This is not necessary for a
restriction in accordance with the Instrument of Government if the restriction is based
upon above mentioned interests.
The constitutional system for protection of the press (other media has the
equivalent protection, but here we focus on the press) consists of several parts. The
rule of exclusivity means that if there is an applicable conflict between the constitution
and any other act the constitution has precedence. The right to access to information
held by public authorities is an essential principle in the Swedish society and means
that the press, as well as any citizen, have the practical possibility to control the
authorities, and makes the freedom of information truly substantial. The protection for
sources and informants is also essential and makes it easier for the press to receive
17
Sweden has a long tradition of supporting many local newspapers and having a strong public service
television and radio. There are 160 newspapers and several local radio and television stations. Internet
use and broadband access is also very high. The majority of the population subscribe to a daily
newspaper even though the younger generation has a declining interest to pay for news.
18
Bull, Thomas, Freedom of Expression in Sweden. The Rule of Formalism. In: Freedom of Speech
Abridged. Cultural, Legal and Philosophical Challenges. Kierulf & Rønning (eds.). Nordicom, 2009,
p. 87.
19
The Instrument of Government, chapter 2 article 23.
5
information about different controversial conditions. There is also a special system of
criminal responsibility, a prohibition of prior restraint, a special judicial procedure
for cases under the Act, special rules on evidence and intent and very strict statutes of
limitation. All of these parts “interact so as to form a system that makes it very
difficult indeed to take legal measures against any publication that falls under the
protection of the Act.”20
What is more, to guarantee plurality there are, not only in Sweden but in all
the Nordic countries, substantial state subsidies for the press in order to safeguard
diversity of opinions through the press as a democratic values in society. It was in the
1960s that the multiplicity of the daily press in Sweden was considered as such an
important democratic value that it became a governmental issue. The existence of a
second newspaper was seen as so important that the social democratic government
together with that Centre (Agrarian) party launched the idea of compensating the
second newspaper for loss of advertisement revenues due to low household coverage.
In 1971 the selective press subsidy was introduced, financed by tax on advertisement
and in 1976 the still existing system was introduced.21
The government agency Press Subsidies Council (Presstödsnämnden), with
the aims to preserve the diversity of the newspaper market, distributes the state’s
subsidy to the daily press according to the Statute of Annual Press Subsidies.22 There
are two forms of subsidies to the daily press, an operational subsidy and a distribution
subsidy. The operational subsidy is granted to daily newspapers that meet the terms
set by the Statute. Currently around 88 daily newspapers receive an operational
subsidy. The operational subsidy amounts to SEK 474 million every year.
Distribution subsidy is paid to daily newspapers that are distributed through
organized and shared distribution. Every year 137 daily newspapers receive a
distribution subsidy for a combined total edition of 800 million copies. The total
distribution subsidy amounts to approximately SEK 61 million annually.
A newspaper which is not primarily written in Swedish can also be entitled to
operational subsidy if the newspaper fulfils the other conditions for a newspaper
stipulated in Chapter 1 § 6, is directed at linguistic minorities in Sweden, has its main
editorial office in Sweden, and distributes at least 90% of its subscription-based
circulation in Sweden. 23
The Swedish press subsidies were 2,6 % of the total revenues of the
newspapers companies, according to the 2011 annual reports of the Swedish
newspapers companies (476 million SEK).24
The subsidy system has tried to adapt to the digital era by also giving
subsidies to newspapers only distributed digitally, so far two. Recently, an overview
of the system was made, with the conclusion that the system should be continued.
However, concerns were raised from certain members of the review about whether the
subsidies could be seen as supporting the press as such, instead of the purpose, i.e.
having a citizen and consumer perspective and the possibility for people to take part
20
Bull, Thomas, Freedom of Expression in Sweden. The Rule of Formalism. In: Freedom of Speech
Abridged. Cultural, Legal and Philosophical Challenges. Kierulf & Rønning (eds.). Nordicom, 2009,
p.83.
21
Gustafsson Ryden A history of the Press in Sweden 2010, pp. 267-8.
22
Presstödsförordning 1990:524
23
http://www.presstodsnamnden.se/hem/in-english/
24
Dagspressens ekonomi 2012, 44.
6
of indent journalism.25 The discussion will continue.
Other support systems in transition
A part from press subsidies there are also other support systems in Sweden for
culture and media. Here we will mention a few.
To safeguard an open debate there is a support for art and culture periodicals a
mean to safeguard freedom of expression. For 2014 19 million SEK was granted to 91
different periodicals. The amount of support has stayed intact, but in 2011 the ground
for receiving grants changed. Until then periodicals that supported “social and
economical debate” could receive grants, but after 2011 grants are given to
periodicals for “cultural debate” only.
The film industry also has a support system channelled through the Swedish
Film institute. The Film Institute’s operations are financed partly by state funding and
partly through the Film Agreement, which is a voluntary agreement between the state
and various players in the film and TV industry. One of the main tasks is to support
the production and development of valuable Swedish film. 241 million SEK is used
for supporting film production. 26 However, the new film agreement from 2013
includes a shift to more commercial values. A new support, called the automatic
support is given to directors who has made popular films. This can also be seen as a
trend towards more commercial speech.
Audio-vision media has also a constitutional protection like the press in The
Fundamental Law on Freedom of expression. The purpose is to safeguard the
democratic system in society. Public service radio and television has a special
agreement with the Government as a provider of a plural content for all. They are
financed by licence fees, decided by the parliament. As the media is converging many
of the print media owners tend to see public service as an unfair competition on the
television market since many of the of print media now also publish on all platforms.
Challenges for the press - New technologies and new commercial actors
There is a general notion that technological development lead to media pluralism, it has
never been easier for someone to publish their opinions and possibly to become your
own journalist. Citizens are often seen as “prosumers”27, both producers and users of
media content and there are endless ways of sharing information. Out of a citizen’s
perspective the digital platforms often serve as an open access arena for discussions
where anyone can publish their own stories and news. Every citizen has the potential
to become a “journalist”, part of what is commonly known as citizen journalism.
On the other hand, the resource-demanding investigating journalism and
holding someone accountable is hardly to be expected by individuals without
resources to scrutinize the power structures in society. What is more, much of the
25
SOU 2013:66 Översyn av det statliga stödet till dagspressen [Review of the State subsidies system
for the press], pp. 451-4.
26
The Swedish Film Institute Annual Report 2012
27
Alvin Toffler introduced the notion of the prosumer in the early 1980s. It means the …“progressive
blurring of the line that separates producers from consumers”. Toffler 1980, p. 267 In: Fuchs, C 2012,
'Google capitalism' tripleC (cognition, communication, co-operation) : Journal for a Global Sustainable
Information Society / Unified Theory of Information Research Group, vol 10, nr. 1, s. 42-48.
7
communication is monitored or used by commercial actors.
The digital era means a huge economic shift for the media industry where
content providers are loosing advertising revenues to the distributors and platform
providers. The shift is also about revenues going from local/national media companies
to global actors such as Google. With the expansion of digital communication
traditional news companies are loosing money in many ways, both in terms of
changed audience and market patterns. The Nordic press have been used to a high
subscription-rate for newspapers. But the younger generation is less willing to pay for
a newspaper and the subscription-rate is declining, the household cost for a newspaper
is now a minor cost compared with all other media expenses. 28 What more is that the
advertisers have turned their investments from the print media to the distributors of
services, the intermediaries such as the telecom-industry and to companies like
Google, Youtube and Facebook.29 These new actors do not have the same explicit
democratic mission in terms of the common good and the controlling function that the
press has. (So far, there is no third or forth estate ambition of Google.30) On the
contrary, there might be new threats to freedom of expression in the land of “Big
data” and global social media companies. Unesco, among others, see a possible threat
to freedom of expression by the increasing control of online content by internet
intermediaries “Surveillance and data mining have become possible on unprecedented
scales, source protection has taken on new dimensions, and new mechanisms of
censorship, including the privatization of censorship,”31
The traditional publishing houses tries to adapt to the new situation by finding
new business models. These new ways of financing content may also affect freedom
of expression. First, there is a trend to wards concentrating the ownership, fewer
companies own more press titles. Another trend is that some news content is
syndicated; different titles may have the same or similar content, which mean that the
diversity of voices and opinions are diminished. The syndication of news also leads to
smaller newsrooms and fewer journalists; in the last years there has been substantial
lay-offs in many media companies. The ability for news media to be a watchdog is
becoming weaker.
Many news companies are creating pay walls for their content as a way to
finance their business. This is yet to be seen if this will serve the democratic purpose of
the press. It might just be another way of financing/replacing subscriptions, but it also
risk to turn the journalistic content even more of a product. Stories that easy to produce
might be more profitable and investigative journalism might not receive the same
“clicks” and therefore have a hard time to be financed. This is true especially for small
media markets in such as Sweden. A story from the Guardian or Washington Post is
more likely to get global clicks than a story from Dagens Nyheter, the biggest morning
newspaper in Sweden. On top of that, the audience seems to more interested in
entertainment than in traditional qualitative journalism, due to the fact that the media
28
The annual household expenses for media in Sweden was 17 000 kr per year. (IRM /MMS, report
Most of that money is spent on broadband services and other internet related expenses, the daily
newspaper is the minor expenses for the house holds. (IRM/MMS Hushållens medieutgifter 2014).
29
Sundin, Staffan, Den svenska mediemarknaden, 2013
30 A tendency to profile Google in that direction is the creation of Google Ideas and Google Global
Impact Awards: By this Google can donate money for “good” causes, some of them media related. For
example, in 2012 Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media was the recipient of 1, 2 million USD
from Google Global Impact Award.
31
World trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Unesco 2014, Paris France, p. 35.
8
focusing on providing entertainment are growing. A greater amount of the media
consumption is entertainment since the 1990s. 32
As the media becomes more synonym to entertainment there are also problem
of the audience’s trust. If one of the functions of the journalism is to safeguard
democracy, media must be trustworthy. However, when media houses are looking for
new business-models there are a number of attempts to finance contents that blurs the
line between commercial messages and journalism. Product placement, sponsoring,
and advertorials are just some examples of how media content is paid for, and
monitored by commercial interests. It gives a better financing of media content at the
risk of loosing the trust of the audiences/readers.
Concluding remarks
This paper emphasizes that the system for safeguarding freedom of expression as a
common good is put under pressure in the digital age. The system, supposed to
balance the interests between the State, the Citizen and the Press through giving the
Press a controlling function has not succeeded in meeting the demands from the
market and development of a new digital landscape. The international accepted
statutory regulation restricting state intervention in citizens right to freedom of
expression is not enough. Also, building a system in which the press is given a
controlling function is insufficient, even if it is a statutory regulation as in Sweden.
No matter what type of system, they are all put under pressure due to
technological, economical and social development. Citizen’s decreasing interest to
pay for newspapers and other media means that media is more depending on revenues
from adverts. However, advertisers are turning to other platforms than traditional
media when the interest from the citizen’s (as presumable consumers) for traditional
media decrease. This negative spiral is difficult to turn around, and the question is
whether it should be turned around or if there could be another solution?
What kind of solutions there might be we can’t say, but the issue has been on
the agenda for some time, especially in the US where the layoffs of journalism and
the decline of advertising revenues has been very high. In the American context
academic scholars like C. Edwin Baker has suggested tax credits for journalists as an
incentive for newspapers not to lay off journalists and in turn increase the quality of
newspaper journalism.33 Another American, Rodney Benson, supports the idea of
government involvement to safeguard the role of journalism as a cornerstone of
democracy, and sees an advantage in a variety of sources for funding of journalism,
despite the First Amendment. 34 An example in a European context is the
transformation towards media neutrality and to the adaptation of state media subsidies
to new platforms.35
The press and journalists as watchdogs have an important function that can be
supplemented but not replaced with individuals increasing possibilities to
communicate. The controlling function of journalism must be guaranteed through
32
Sundin, Staffan, Den svenska mediemarknaden, 2013, p. 11-2.
Baker, C. Edwin, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, 2009, published
in: McChesney & Pickard, Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights, 2011.
34
Benson, Rodney, Public Funding and Journalistic Independence. What does Research Tell Us, In:
McChesney & Pickard, Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights, 2011.
35
Ots, Mart, Presspolitiska åtgärder inom Europa, SOU 2013:66.
33
9
media governance consisting of several building blocks forming a sustainable system
guaranteeing journalism free from commercial intervention. The statutory regulation
is not enough, but it certainly has essential importance as a foundation for the system.
The different legal situation in different parts of the world shows the importance of
statutory regulation.
Another issue when it comes to statutory regulation is that the statutes only
serves national purposes while the media industry is increasingly global. It is difficult
to protect freedom of expression for individuals and the press when the counterparts
act on a global arena. The media is increasingly becoming a commodity seen as a
value for the market more than serving the citizen. This can be seen in the
international trade agreements. One example is the agreements between USA and EU,
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Initially culture and media
was included in the negotiations but thanks to France they were finally excluded, as
an exception from what is considered to be commercial products, “the cultural
exception”. 36
In times of transformation from mass media to individualized media use, it is
also important to highlight the difficulties to protect and support the freedom of
expression and freedom of information in the name of democracy and the common
good. Unesco among others has pointed out the trend towards laws, policies, and the
use of technologies to filter or block content online and the increasing problems of
surveillance. What is more, they also point at substantial variations of access to the
Internet, often called the digital divide. 37 The challenges for research are immense.
We have pointed some of the urgent issues.
36
The political think-tank Project for Democratic Union, http://www.democraticunion.eu/2013/08/thettip-gains-and-losses-across-the-atlantic/
37
World trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Unesco 2014, Paris France, p. 8.
10