Similar – but so different! The practice of Press Councils in

Estonia and Finland

Epp LaukUniversity of Jyväskylä, Finland

Journalism Ethics: Individual, institutional or cultural?Oxford, September 26-28, 2012

Estonia

338,340km2338,340km2

45,227km2

Population 5.4 millionPopulation 5.4 million

Population 1.29 million

FinlandFinland

Largest language groupsFinnish: 90%, Swedish: 6%Largest language groups

Finnish: 90%, Swedish: 6%

Largest language groupsEstonian: 68%, Russian: 29%

Finland & Estonia

Finland: – Post-1945 stable societal development – free expression– Limited statutory regulation media self-regulation– Established journalism culture, journalistic autonomy– Strong trade union – Mature civic culture supports professional values of

journalism

Estonia: – Post-1991 democracy – societal transformation– Broad media freedom – small concentrated media market – Extremely liberal media policy – Low level of journalistic professionalism – Weak trade union, no job security– Immature civic culture, low level of media literacy

Development of media self-regulation: Finland

The Court of Honour of the Finnish Press 1927; ‘Rules of Etiquette for Finnish Newspapermen’ 1957 Guidelines for Journalists 1968; Council for Mass Media (CMM) 1968

The CMM covers all media, including online only outlets. Collective membership Basic Agreement; Guidelines for Journalists.

11 members (7 from the media, 4 representatives of the public) for 3 years. The 2 Vice-Chairs rotate on an annual basis.

Annual budget (300 000 EUR in 2012) 70% membership fees, 30% from Ministry of Justice

Development of media self-regulation: Estonia

Importing the Finnish model: The Estonian Press Council (EPC) 1991 with the Estonian Newspaper Association (ENA) as a background organisation

The 1st phase 1991-1997: case-by-case practice; the Code of Ethics 1997

2nd phase 1997-2001

The ENA Press Council (ENA PC) 2002

3rd phase 2002-> the ENA boycott agreement against the EPC

Composition and funding: – the EPC consists of 9 members (incl. 3 journalists) delegated

by member organisations; membership fees (ca 1000 EUR);– the ENA PC consists of 10 members (6 from media sector, 4

lay members are invited by the ENA); membership fees (unknown)

The practices of the Press Councils

ENA PC: Complainant directly harmed, (time limit 3 months)

CMM and EPC – Complainant in/directly harmed (CMM: 3 months – EPC: 6 months) ; CMM & EPC may initiate cases

2007-2011: CMM 1104 complaints, ENA PC 232, EPC 171

Adjudications mostly against newspapers: Finland 1 per 3-4; Estonia 1.4 per 1 newspaper

Upheld cases: Estonia: 56% of adjudications in 2011;

Finland – 28% (average for 44 years of existence is 29-30%)

Reasons for upheld cases (2011): 1) publishing incorrect information, 2) not letting complainant to comment or publish a rebuttal

CMM: emphasizes individual’s position vis-à-vis the news media

Estonia: Courts favor press freedom; ‘undue moral damage’ as the 2nd most frequent reason for upheld cases of the EPC

Codes of Ethics

Guidelines for Finnish Journalists 1968, amended in 1976, 1983, 1992, 2004, 2010. Wide public debates and participation in connection with the amendments.

The Code of Ethics of the Estonian Press 1997; amended by the ENA PC in 2010 (Article 3.7.)

Strong legitimacy of the Guidelines among Finnish journalists: 90% value the impact of the Guidelines; the company in-house guidelines – 40% (2011).

Estonian journalists: 74% admitted the impact of the Code on their work, 7% denied, 19% - indifferent; in-house guidelines highly valued by 82%.

Conclusions: Similar, but so different

Why similar structures in relatively similar countries function differently?

Similarities:

Broad freedom of expression, media freedom highly protected; Liberal media policies;

Similar principles of self-regulation and similar professional standards

Differences:

Stable societal development (Finland) vs turbulent societal transformation (Estonia);

Long tradition of media self-regulation (Finland) vs self-regulation as a new phenomenon (Estonia)

High level of journalistic professionalism and civic culture (Finland) vs low level of both (Estonia)

Transparent and reflexive media culture (Finland) vs opaque and premeditated one (Estonia)