Norway:

Sami language might jeopardize commercial broadcasting


Published in the Bulletin, no. 4, 1998
European Institute of the Media, Dusseldorf


The absence of programming in sami language could eventually lead to the shut down of the two highly succesful Norwegian commercial Broadcasters, TV2 and P4 (national radio).

In 1992 and 1993 the two companies were granted a ten year monopoly for commercial broadcasting for TV and radio. This meant that TV2 and P4 were the only companies being allowed to transmit national broadcasting in Norway financed by commercials. The state owned public service broadcaster NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) was and is still there, but this company is financed entirely by the tv license.

In a commercial context, both TV2 and P4 are highly successful. P4 almost instantly grabbed 1/4 of the total radio audience, and has been an extremely good investment for the grunders. TV2 initially suffered from start up problems, but the last years TV2s part of the total viewing has reached the level of NRK, its state owned competitor. The two companies are by far the most important tv-stations in Norway, each with approximately 1/3 of the total viewing.

To even the balance, the commercial broadcasters would have to be comitted to the ideals of public service broadcasting. How the companies interpreted this concept was outlined in their applications. An independent counsil, the public service broadcasting council, was set up to monitor and evaluate the companies performance of their public service commitment.

The summer of 1998 the counsil presented their annual report, and was highly critical to parts of the broadcasters performance, and pinpointed considerable divergence between the promises outlined in the applications and the actual performance of the broadcasters.

TV2 did not produce one second of progamming in sami language. In its annual report TV2 reported that one program was recorded in the sami area, a comment which the leader of the public service broadcasting council, media professor Jostein Gripsrud did not find amusing. TV2 had no arts and culture programming, not much about religion, but were to a great extent transmitting low cost drama. The programming for children was also quite miniscule. It is not legal to transmit commercials exclusively towards children.

P4 did not transmit programs directed towards minorities, but were constantly aiming towards the general audience. Neither did P4 fulfill its promise to root its choice of music in contemporary Norwegian music.

The criticism from the council is more or less along the same lines as previously, but in the last report the council was more harsh, and it was indicated that the criticism was so severe, that a prolongation of the monopoly might be put into jeopardy. TV2 would prefer to receive a prolongation the next few months, in order to make investments into new equipment.

The broadcasters argued that noone would listen or look to sami programs , but also pointed to te fact that the applications, with there generous promises were not legally binding for the companies.

The whole story was reported intensly by the press, and the Norwegian Ministry of Culture, Sport and Media finally asked for explanations from the broadcasters.

The public service broadcasting council have no authority but to comment upon the performance of the broadcasters. There is no public body with the authority in the programming level. But in a couple of years the terms for commercial broadcasting will be re-negotiated, as one is approaching the end of the 10-years of monopoly. The terms could easily be changed as a result of the public service broadcasting councils criticism. Politicians commenting upon the matter had problems with the fact that TV2 and P4 are very profitable, ans still refuses to do the minor changes needed to fulfill their own promises.

One of the politicians commenting upon the question was the president of the parliament. Her final remark in an article in a daily newspaper was: (...) it is not likely that the authorities should protect a privately owned company which does not commit to the rules of the authorities.

By Johann Roppen
Adviser, Norwegian Media Ownership Authority, Norway
jr@hivolda.no