Einar Hålien, lead author of Schibsted Media’s latest report: Editorial Media As Defenders Of European Democracies, held various editorships before joining the media giant nearly 30 years ago.
He headed up governance and efficiency for the group, in varying capacities, for over 16 years, before taking up his current role as Group Editor and Senior Public Policy Adviser a decade ago.
Comprising some of the the strongest media brands in the Nordics – including VG, Aftenposten, E24, Bergens Tidende, Stavanger Aftenblad, Aftonbladet, Svenska Dagbladet, Omni, and Podme – Schibsted has a daily audience of nearly seven million people across its various platforms.
The group also has “a tradition of engaging with issues larger than ourselves,” and actively advocates for regulation and policy in the media sector, explains Hålien.
This report follows on Schibsted’s Policy Manifesto 2024-2029, both instrumental in the Group’s policy work, “as it brings a new perspective to the discussion about the role of editorial media in European democracies.”
Editorial Media As Defenders Of European Democracies, identifies four key change drivers that provide crucial foundations for news media’s ability to defend liberal democracies; three are editorial considerations, the fourth demands an apt regulatory framework.
Here, Schibsted calls for three measures, explains Hålien:
1) Regulations significant to the ability of European editorial media to succeed in their mission must be implemented in each individual member state and enforced;
2) We propose introducing a media assessment test to ensure that digital regulations primarily targeting major platforms do not unintentionally have negative consequences for editorial media; and
3) We recommend a stronger focus on what is needed to stimulate innovation and editorial startups.
Also See: ‘We’ve got your back’ – How Belgium’s De Standaard became a case study in driving media trust
Einar Hålien shares further insights on findings in our final Editor to Editor interview for 2024.
Overall, what are the top three takeaways for you – and what was the most surprising find from your research?
- When editorial media are weakened, while illiberal movements fuelled by strong negative emotions and low trust gain strength, the overall result is a weaker defence of liberal democracies.
- It appears that a significant portion of European media, particularly at the local level, does not even expect to survive the ongoing transformations. This conclusion is based on their seemingly minimal investment in innovation relative to the challenges they face.
- At the same time, new editorial start-ups are emerging, rethinking what is needed to appeal to audiences who have turned their backs on traditional media.
What is most surprising is the strength of these trends and how far they seem to have progressed. Additionally, I would like to highlight that the previously society-based sense of responsibility, which led politicians to defend independent media even when they were seen as inconvenient at times, now appears to have disappeared in many places.
Far too many politicians attack the media and consistently avoid participating in interviews. Instead, they turn to influencers who do not ask a single critical question. This represents a form of civilisational failure.
Your report touches on the disconnect between society and editorial media; is there a failing by news media to listen to audiences when setting their news agendas?
If you’re asking whether I think it’s a mistake not to listen closely enough to the audience when setting news agendas. My short answer to this is “yes.”
I believe it’s often the case that we either 1) don’t listen well enough, 2) fail to understand the signals being sent, or 3) lack contact with/understanding of, growing groups who don’t communicate with the media at all, but instead become increasingly angry and frustrated.
How does this failure impact trust, credibility? What can be done about it?
For those who feel their challenges are being ignored, trust is given only to those who genuinely engage with, and show an ability to shed light on, their problems.
If one seeks trust from the angry and desperate, one must start by truly listening to them. It is not enough to organise a publicity stunt with a car and caravan to socio-culturally disadvantaged areas once every three years.
You cite ‘the emergence of new editorial media’ that herald new paths and pathways for journalism. Do you have a vision of what the 21st century journalist or newsroom can be?
Before the internet and the era of digital two-way communication, news dissemination was based on media setting the agenda without much concern for what the audience actually wanted. We were perhaps a bit like an old-fashioned teacher, delivering lessons from an elevated podium, telling students what we believed they needed to know, with little room for their input. We weren’t operating at eye level with our users.
Much of this has changed.
Editors are now more focused on listening to users’ opinions and strive to communicate rather than simply dictate.
Yet, I believe some remnants of the old ways still linger. One possible scenario is that journalism becomes more conversational and relevant to more people – perhaps even more personal, in the sense that news institutions step into the background while individual personalities take center stage.
The report emphasises a need for collaboration among media outlets, owners and authorities to strengthen credibility. Share your thoughts on this?
We can no longer afford the old “not invented here” mindset, where everyone insists on making their own mistakes repeatedly. Of course, it’s fun and fosters pride to build your own solutions from scratch, but it’s not sustainable if all development in a media organization relies on this approach.
‘We need to open up more, share with each other, and replicate the solutions that prove to work. However, for this to succeed, deliberate leadership is required. ‘
Very few people in an organisation are eager to adopt a clever solution developed by another newsroom.
If I were to highlight a single topic that is crucial for both credibility and user engagement, it would be relevance; working to enhance relevanceis highly likely to be a worthwhile investment.
What hope do you have that the proposed European Democracy Shield will enforce the necessary protections, and encourage much-needed financing of independent news media?
It is the already adopted European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) that will provide protection for free and independent media, not the European Democracy Shield. We actively worked to get EMFA in place, even though we don’t need such regulation in Scandinavia. Now the task is to ensure its implementation in all EU member states and to make sure it is respected.
What the European Democracy Shield will become is something hardly anyone knows yet. It could potentially be useful and beneficial, but it could also turn into a disaster. If anyone gets the idea to restrict freedom of expression in an attempt to combat disinformation, I believe we are heading toward the latter.
This story was first published by the World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA).
Lucinda Jordaan is a WAN-IFRA correspondent in Africa.
Join the World Association of News Publishers here.
