Tag Archives: media policy

Expert hearing on media policy

A real privilege to speak with Members of Parliament in Denmark at an expert hearing about the work we did in the commission on news media subsidies.

In our report, we propose a platform- and technology-neutral model for providing direct support for independent news publishers with a set of criteria for who would qualify, mechanisms for distributing the support based on investment in editorial, and a series of safeguards to ensure support does not compromise editorial autonomy, publishers’ independence, or breed dependence on state aid. We also highlight a set of questions for citizens and their elected representatives about which kinds of publishers (e.g. local titles, independent titles) one wants to give additional support.

Really rich discussion at the hearing, with far more – and far wider-ranging! – questions from members all across the political spectrum than we could do justice too, which I take as evidence of the genuine interest in and curiosity about the potential media policy has.

Video of the whole hearing (in Danish) here, the full report (also in Danish) published last year is available here.

If you are interested in a basic outline of the model we propose, you can read more in English here.

I have had many interesting conversations already about these ideas with civil servants, journalists, politicians, and publishers from Austria, Brussels, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, and hope others too will find our work useful.

Joining Council of Europe Expert Committee on media regulation and platforms

I am looking forward to beginning work in the Council of Europe’s new Expert Committee on Media Regulators in a Platform-Based Environment. There are three reasons I think this is important.

First, with the other independent expert members, I hope we can ensure that we can help base the committee’s work on research. Policy is necessarily political, but it is also about evidence, and here independent experts can help.

Second, media regulators are typically set up for a mass media environment, but today have to do their important work in a platform-dominated environment. I hope we in the committee can offer ideas for how to evolve regulators’ role, remit, and resources to the media environment we have, rather than the one we had.

Third, the Expert Committee’s work is under the aegis of the CoE Division in charge for work on freedom of expression and media freedom. This is particularly important in a time of democratic backsliding and attacks on fundamental rights, as media regulators are unfortunately often one of the independent institutions that would-be autocrats seek to subvert and instrumentalize in pursuit of media capture and worse.

I hope our work in the committee can consider both the different kinds of good that media regulators can do, help ensure they have tools for the present and the future, not just the past, and consider how to limit the harm they can be used to do.



Looking forward to working with Rowena Burke Audun Aagre Stephanie Comey Tanja Kerševan Michèle Ledger Krisztina Rozgonyi Maria Luisa Stasi and everyone else involved in this over the next two years.

Media subsidies for citizens – report out

’Mediestøtte for borgerne – demokratisering, fremtidssikring, og forenkling’ (Media subsidies for citizens – democratization, futureproofing, and simplification). The recommendations from the Commission on the Future of Media Subsidies that I have chaired for the Danish government is now out.

In our report, we have worked to develop a set of principles to undergird and practical solutions to deliver direct subsidies to news media in Denmark in a way that will modernize the current system and ensure it can work in an effective, legitimate, and transparent manner going forward.

For those interested in having a look at the full report in Danish, it is available here.

And stay tuned for more from me in English in the coming weeks, summarizing key parts of the approach we outline, as I hope our work will be useful elsewhere

It was a real privilege to chair the commission over the last year, and to work with the members and the civil servants who supported us.

US, big, or commercial? What do you want platform alternatives to?

I was asked about alternatives to dependence on dominant US American for-profit platform companies at an Internet Governance Forum today. Below my response – for those interested in more from me on the topic, I spoke at somewhat greater length about it at the Nordic AI in Media Summit back in April. More broadly, everyone interested in this topic should read the Eurostack pitch paper.

Below my response, video here.


There are plenty of options, but I think the real question is, we need to hold people in positions of power, including public and political power, to account in terms of how they understand the issue and whether they act accordingly.

The question here – when looking at dependence on US-American big commercial platform companies – is which part of that phrase you stress.

If you think the problem is that they’re US-American, then the path you pursue is obvious.

It is that you try to create national, or in the case of Europe, regional champions. And then when they have the right passport, and you are reliant on “grande technologie” rather than big tech, things are fine, right? Because then those companies are beholden to a different set of politicians. And then let’s just hope that whoever is the next inhabitant of the Élysée is not going to abuse that power the way that we see in some other cases. The question then question is whether we as [citizens] can expect very different behavior from large corporations who hold different passports. […]

Then the second way to think about the problem is that they are big.

Now then the alternatives are also, I think, quite clear. You’re thinking about decentralized, federated, open source solutions.

Now I think it needs to be very clear that very few people in positions of power seem to think this is the problem, because if they did, they would pursue those alternatives already, because they exist, like the Fediverse including Mastodon or LibreOffice. There are options in this space and we have now 25 years of revealed preference from people in positions of power. This is not what they want. So those alternatives exist, but they are not being pursued.

Then finally, of course, your analysis might be that the problem [with incumbent dominant platforms] is that they are commercial and that’s where we can turn to the possibility of public service alternatives.

And I think it’s possible to do this. It’s not easy. We need to decide what are they going to do? There are many layers of the stack one could look at. How are they going to be funded? This is not going to be cheap. Who’s going to make the rules and who’s going to enforce them? Like all the controversies we see around content moderation decisions. Imagine those only with the politicians in your country of origin making the decisions rather than Mark Zuckerberg and his Oversight Board.

The question then is a question of priorities, right? In Europe alone, we spend an estimated 40 billion euros a year on public service media. That has been stagnant, in some cases declining in recent years, but we could make investments of a similar size. Europe is a 20 trillion US dollar economy. Public spending in Europe alone is about 10 trillion euros a year. It’s a question of priorities.

And that’s why I think we really need to be clear about.

The full panel is available from the IGF on YouTube and was a great discussion with really interesting participants.

Speakers:

  • Kjersti Løken Stavrum, Chairman of the Board, CEO, Schibsted, Tinius
  • Anine Kierulf, Associate Professor, UiO and the Norwegian National Human Rights Institute
  • Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Professor, Uni. Copenhagen, Reuters Inst. for the Study of Journalism
  • Chris Disspain, Former Vice-Chair of the Board of ICANN, Chairman of DNS Capital Ltd, author, lawyer   
  • Anya Schiffrin, Director, Tech., Media and Comm., Columbia University
  • Tawfik Jelassi, Ass. Dir.-General/Deputy Dir.-General, UNESCO
  • Pamella Sittoni, Executive editor/Managing Editor, Daily Nation/Nation Media Group (prev)

Moderator:

  • Helle Sjøvaag, Prof. & Vice Dean, University of Stavanger

What could ‘European alternatives’ mean? – NAMS keynote on possible platforms

I gave the closing keynote at the 2025 Nordic AI in Media Summit April 24 under the title “What could ‘European alternatives’ mean? Three possible platform models in search of your support”.

Photo credit: Philip Jørgensen

As a scientist, I prefer to deal in reliably, empirical knowledge, but I was grateful to be invited to think aloud in terms of possible responses to the current moment in geopolitics and tech.

If you are interested in my three possible models, each of which represent an approach trying to solve for a different definition of the problem ( (1) reliance on American tech? Airbus-for-the-internet as national/European champions!, (2) reliance on for-profit tech companies? BDC/public service platforms! (3) reliance on big technology companies? Mastodon as a decentralized, open-source alternative!).

In each case, for every alternative, at every level of the stack, at least three questions need clear answers – what, exactly, is the alternative meant to do, who will fund it, and how is it going to be governed.

It all strikes me as a wicked problem akin to climate, defense, and the future of strained welfare systems – and of a comparable scale and scope, and seriousness that requires serious responses. I hope the models I outline and the questions I offer can help structure how we discuss possible responses and move beyond the declarations and rhetoric that suffice for headlines and a bit of publicity, but don’t actually change anything.

Video of my talk below.

New project: “Power over Platforms?”

I am very grateful that the Danish National Science Foundation has awarded me a DNRF Chair grant to support my new project “Power over Platforms?”.

Power over platforms?

The aim of this 3-year project is to understand how power is exercised over platform companies such as Google, Meta, and their competitors by actors who have neither raw economic nor formal regulatory or legislative means.

The focus is on how civil society groups, interest groups, professional associations, and companies from other sectors sometimes actively try to shape how platform companies operate. The starting hypotheses are that these actors (a) do this because they believe they are able to exercise at least some influence and (b) this is sometimes the case.

Systematically analyzing the actors involved in trying to influence key decisions made by different platforms on key issues—content moderation, privacy, and the use of generative AI for political information and speech—across different jurisdictions (the US and UK as major markets outside the EU, key markets inside the EU), and across different platforms (primarily consumer-facing content platforms including Google, Meta, and their smaller competitors TikTok, X, Snapchat, and Reddit) the project sets out to identify who seeks to influence platform governance, how, and what the outcomes are across countries and across companies.

The project builds on and goes beyond previous work on the “Power of Platforms” I did with Sarah Anne Ganter, and seeks to expand our scientific understanding of platform governance by analyzing a wide range of actors involved, some of whom have received limited attention from researchers. It aims to provide insights which can in turn help inform public and policy discussions about how to respond to the role that platform companies play in a range of important areas including free speech (through content moderation), privacy (data protection and encryption), and, with rapid development and deployment of generative artificial intelligence, new ways for people to exercise their fundamental right to receive and impart information and ideas.

This is an important area to research because platform companies increasingly develop and enforce principles, policies, and practices that go above and beyond what is legally required in defining what they consider acceptable behavior and content. But who, in turn, seeks to and sometimes manages to influence how the companies do this? When do they succeed? These questions are at the heart of the project.

I will be working with two postdoctoral researchers on the project (interested in these posts? Details here – apply by December 13) and various international collaborators.

I am grateful to the Danish National Research Foundation for deciding to fund the project, and to everyone in the Department of Communication and at the University of Copenhagen more broadly who have supported me and helped with the application process.

Less talk, more action? My foreword to “A New Deal for Journalism”

Do we need a “New Deal” for journalism, a concerted set of policies and commitment of resources to secure an enabling environment for the freedom, funding, and future independent professional news reporting need to do its important job today and tomorrow?

The Forum on Information and Democracy and its chair Christophe Deloire from Reporters without Borders say that we do, and new report from the Forum looks at policy options – I was honored to chair working group providing input to the report.

I recommend reading the whole report, written for the Forum by Sameer Padania and a team of rapporteurs, based on desk research, tons of interviews, various submissions, and input from the working group.

My foreword is pasted below in case of interest, and I have summarized key points in this Twitter thread.

TL;DR – (1) Independent journalism is facing serious challenges around sustainability (as well as media freedom), especially at the local level and in terms of historically underserved and marginalized communities. Journalists and the news industry are leading on finding ways ahead on sustainability but (2) policymakers can help create a more enabling environment, if they are willing to move beyond talk and commit real resources, (3) whether we do this is a political choice, not a policy conundrum – blue sky thinking and new ideas are always welcome, but let’s not forget we have a number of existing policy options with proof of concept. Ignoring them is a bit like trying to combat climate change solely by risky bets on, say, geoengineering while ignoring the panoply of tools we already know can make a difference if we choose to use them. We should judge policymakers on their actions more than fine declarations, nice speeches, or lavish conferences, and always remember that inaction is a choice too.

My foreword below.

Less talk, more action?

“Quality, clear, and truthful information is essential for a democratic society based on the values of honesty and respect, fairness and justice, freedom and dignity.”, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on World Press Freedom day this year, thanking journalists everywhere who “give us the facts to make better sense of the world, contribute to our communities, and lead freer, richer lives.”[1]

This is more than just words. While journalism is imperfect, and sometimes problematic, years of research has documented how independent, professional journalism helps people stay informed, take part in political processes, and engage with their local communities, just as it can help hold power to account and reduce corruption and malfeasance in both the public and the private sector.

But journalism’s ability to do this is threatened on several fronts today, by powerful people all over the world waging war on journalism as media freedom erodes, and by the inexorable decline of the traditional business of news as people abandon print and broadcast in favour digital media and platforms, a challenge sometimes compounded by journalism’s unwillingness to reckon with its own shortcomings or adapt to a changing world.

If governments want to do more than talk about the value of journalism, and actually help the journalists and news media who are leading on forging new ways forward for the profession and the industry, they will need to step up and take real action.

Whether this is a priority is for the public and its elected officials to decide, but one thing is clear. Speeches alone will do little to help journalists. They need action, and the reality is that, at best, most governments have done little or nothing.

What can governments do? One place to start is with existing policies that have proof of concept, command broad-based support in the countries where they are in place, and are oriented towards the future of journalism. Blue-sky thinking is always welcome, but it should not distract us from proven tools already at hand. This report identifies a range of the most important steps governments could take – right now – to help ensure the freedom, funding, and future that journalists need to do their job. None of them are perfect, but all of them are practical, and all can be structured so they avoid simply privileging incumbents or lining the pockets of proprietors and shareholders.

They include, perhaps most importantly—

Supporting private sector news media through indirect forms of support such as tax exemptions, direct support specifically tied to investment in professional journalism and structured to prioritize local media and media serving minorities, and supporting innovation, without tying these forms of support to increasingly marginal forms of distribution like print, is one option, as demonstrated in Denmark.

Supporting public service media with a clear remit and ability to serve the public across all media, not just broadcasting, strong insulation from political pressure to ensure their editorial independence from government, sufficient funding to deliver on their mission, and a clear focus on serving those communities least well served by private sector media is a second option, as demonstrated in the United Kingdom.

Supporting the creation of non-profit news media by easing the creation of journalistic non-profit organizations, whether from scratch or by converting legacy titles, and creating incentives for both individuals and foundations to support non-profit news media, is a third option, and non-profit media are already making important contribution in some countries.

Supporting independent news media globally by committing at least some Official Development Assistance to journalism in other countries is a fourth option, whether done bilaterally or through joint vehicles. We can all benefit from stronger journalism, not just at home, but also abroad – if anyone need a reminder that our futures are tied together in an age defined by the climate emergency and intertwined economies, the coronavirus pandemic has certainly provided it.

None of these policies are silver bullets, but they can all make a difference for the better, as long as they are deployed within a framework of fundamental rights and respect for free expression and media freedom (otherwise they can quickly turn into instruments for state capture).

They all also come with proof of concept, and avoid the uncertainty of betting on opaque arrangements that can entrench dominant players and risk primarily benefiting a few large publishers who are often already doing relatively well.

All these policies, and more reviewed in the report, can offer inspiration for governments who are serious about supporting independent journalists and news media as they carve out a new sustainable future for themselves. They offer a chance to break with years of inaction, and an opportunity to reform inherited arrangements tied to waning media like print or broadcast.

A few countries already have some of these policies in place, many countries at least a few of them, but no country has done all it can to help ensure journalists can continue to do their indispensable work, so central to the functioning of democracy. The United States, for example, has long been an outlier among democracies in terms of how little it does to actually support independent news media, and of course also illustrate the vitriol with which some politicians attack news media who seek truth and report it. President Biden has at least changed the tone. But will he and other political leaders around the globe who recognize the real public value of journalism take more tangible steps news reporting at home and abroad?

If governments are seriously committed to creating an enabling environment for independent professional journalism, they will commit real resources. Journalists – and the public they serve – don’t need comforting speeches. They need concrete steps. This report identifies some of what can be done. Now it is up to elected officials and the public to decide if they want less talk, and more action.

Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, and chair of the working group on the Forum on Information and Democracy Working Group on Sustainability of Journalism.


[1] https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2021/05/03/statement-prime-minister-world-press-freedom-day

Frozen media policies during a time of media change—new paper out

This year, we mark the twentieth anniverary after the Mosaic browser and affordable dial-up connections began to make the internet accessible for ordinary people, disrupting almost every aspect of the media business along the way as much of the population in high-income democracies started going online, moved from modems to broadband, from desk tops to lap tops, went from phones to mobile phones to smart phones, and as their TV was digitized and later connected.

And yet, despite all these changes in the media—and close to twenty years of media analysts arguing that they in turn necessitate changes in how media are regulated and underpinned—many areas of media policy remain essentially unchanged, especially when it comes to the forms of direct and indirect public support for media, including news media.

Across otherwise quite different countries including Finland, Germany and the United States, countries with different media systems and political systems, we have generally seen little reform of media policies, in particular those policies more important to democracy than to commerce (broadband policy and transition to digital television has been high on the agenda in many countries). The media industries are in upheaval. Media policies are being tweaked.

In a paper just published in Global Media and Communication (abstract below, full article here), I try to explain why many media policies seem “frozen” during a time of media change, looking at six high income democracies (Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US) and drawing on interviews with media managers, media regulators, and media policymakers in each country.

I point to three factors that cut across all six countries and are likely relevant in many other places too.

I call them “the devil that don’t care”, “the devil you know”, and “the devil you don’t know.”

  1. “The devil that don’t care.”—a relative lack of interest in media policy from many leading politicians. The top people have a lot on their plate during a time of economic crisis, war, and all the rest, and changes in the media business has mostly not been put on their agenda.a
  2. “The devil you know.” The role of industry incumbents who are, whether in public service media or in the private sector, (predictably and understandably) keen to protect their existing privileges and who fear that any reform will leave them worse off. In some cases, this is close to “regulatory capture”, but in every case, incumbents can at least oppose reform proposals that hurt their interests.
  3. “The devil you don’t know.” Real, substantial uncertainty about what reform would look like and how it could be made both effective and governable. Anyone who talks to media regulators and serious media policy scholars recognize this. It is a lot easier to call for reform than to specify which reforms are simultaneously politically legitimate, cost-effective (especially during a time of austerity and budget-cuts), and ensure accountability.

The lack of high-level interest, the incumbents protecting their own interests, and the lack of clear blueprints and best practices for what could be done all help explain why media policies remain “frozen” in many respects in many countries.

Of course, the absence of major reform combined with major changes in the media industry means that many media policies are increasingly subject to what political scientists call “policy drift”, a process by which the operations and effectiveness of policies change not because of deliberate reform, but because of changing conditions on the ground.

The changes in our media are not going away. They are in fact likely to accelerate. And while we can understand why our media policies do not always change at the same pace, that does not mean change is not necessary. We need 21st century media policies for 21st century media. (See? I told you it was easier to call for reform that to specify what reform should look like more concretely.)

a) With regards to the first factor: France under Sarkozy was a partial exception to this (and has seen some changes in media support arrangements during his presidency) and Italy, because of Berlusconi, has been an obvious exception to this (though changes there have mostly taken the form of cuts). The period I examine ends before the Leveson Inquiry began in the UK, but keep in mind that despite the best attempts of the Media Reform Coalition and others, that has been more about press regulation than about the framework conditions of media.

Abstract etc below.

Continue reading

What’s happening to our media?

I’m in the process of writing up a report that presents the main findings from the research project on the changing business of journalism and its implications for democracy that I’ve been involved in over the last two years.

In the project, we try to identify the key “big trends” in the media in a range of different democracies (Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States) over the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Given such a spread of countries, widely different in too many ways to mention, there is obviously not one thing, or even a few things, that have happened to media and democracy in all of them.

Nonetheless, I’m trying to summarize the main points—below is a condensed passage from the concluding part of the draft report. Any and all comments on its most welcome, here or by email.

Most fundamentally, the last decade has involved a continued expansion of the number of options available to audiences and advertisers. This expansion originates in political, economic, and technological developments that gathered pace in the 1980s and 1990s with deregulation of the media sector in many countries, the growth of multi-channel television, the launch of an increasing number of free newspapers in many countries, and the spread of first-generation internet access via dial-up modems. It has been vastly accelerated by the spread of digital television and broadband internet in the 2000s.

The expansion of options has lead to an erosion of the everyday audience of most individual media outlets across most platforms, pressuring sales and advertising revenues for commercial providers, especially in mature markets with limited growth—in some cases to an extent that has jeopardized sustainability or forced severe cost-cutting. Few significant newspapers or broadcasters have actually closed, but most are under pressure. One the one hand, media companies have responded by adding more and more outlets to their expanding portfolios—at the very least adding a website and mobile services to whatever print title or broadcast channel they have historically been based around. On the other hand, this move towards more and more integrated and convergent media companies has been accompanied by layoffs, demands for increased productivity, and internal restructurings. (The booming Indian media market, where industry revenues are growing at double-digit rates annually, has seen much more of the former than the latter, though a recession will almost certainly result in retrenchment and consolidation.)

While a handful of infrastructural intermediaries in the telecommunications, pay television, search engine, and social media sectors have built positions that allow them to exercise market power and generate considerable profits, most content-based media companies face increased competition. In their attempts to remain distinct and relevant to audiences they are under external pressure from a growing number of alternatives appealing to the same users and under internal pressure in cases where cost-cutting threatens investments in quality content.

National newspapers that in the 1990s primarily competed with each other today face competition from both freesheets, broadcasters, and online services. The terrestrial television channels that ruled the airwaves twenty years ago are now up against a growing number of digitally transmitted free-to-air channels as well as premium pay channels and audiovisual services streamed over the internet. Legacy media websites and internet portals that dominated online news provision ten years ago are under increasing pressure from a growing number of aggregators and other new alternatives. As when radio disrupted the media sector in the 1920s and 1930s and television did the same in the 1950s and 1960s, the introduction and spread of a new media platform and the emergence of a multitude of new entrants all catering to the same finite number of audiences and advertisers have had knock-on consequences for legacy media, forcing incumbents to adjust their existing operations and take a stance on how to position themselves vis-à-vis the new medium.

This fundamental strategic challenge is the same across the world, but differences in conditions on the ground means that the tactics and outcomes vary in significant ways.

Amongst affluent democracies, the development is most dramatic in the United States, where all major news providers, with the partial exception of local television stations and a few cable channels, have lost revenues, seen their profit margin shrink or disappear, and have cut their investment in journalism. In much of Europe, public service providers face strategic challenges associated with the expansion of choice and the intensified competition for audiences, but their revenue models remain fundamentally solid. In Northern Europe, including Finland and Germany, commercial legacy media companies coming out of both print and broadcasting have so far managed to hold their own despite the spread of multi-channel digital television and high levels of broadband penetration. In Southern Europe, broadcasters have also held their own while many newspaper companies are struggling as challenges associated with the rise of the internet threaten their already weak commercial foundations, forcing some to rely on cross-subsidies from non-media businesses or financial support from their owners. In Brazil and India, large parts of the media sector are booming, but the revenues are not necessarily invested in quality content.

In the absence of dramatic change in media use, media markets, or media policy, and assuming no new game-changing technologies are waiting in the wings, media systems in affluent democracies are likely to see (a) a continued erosion of most media audiences and an increasing number of only partially overlapping niche audiences, (b) the continued decline of a newspaper industry that has in some cases enjoyed a few decades of monopoly-powered profitability but has been on the retreat overall in many countries for longer (as newspapers, for all their trouble, has been the main underwriters of professionally produced news journalism this has direct consequences for the number of reporters employed), (c) a continually growing gulf, driven in part by people’s preferences, in part by niche-oriented marketing logics, and in part by competition between outlets keen to differentiate their products from the competition, between the few who will in all likelihood be more informed than ever before, and the many who will receive, seek out, and find less and less news produced for them, especially if they belong to groups not considered attractive by advertisers. We are still at the beginning of the shake-out that will follow.

The full report will be published in October–stay peeled.

The best media in the world?

Together with my near-namesake, Rasmus Helles, I’ve written an op-ed in Berlingske on media trends and media policy in Denmark, arguing we need to support not only content production and diverse provision, but also broad reach in the population if we are to continue to have some of the best media in the world.

Uanset om du læser denne kronik i avisen, på nettet, eller fordi nogen har delt den med dig via Facebook, så tilhører du sandsynligvis den mest overforkælede mediemålgruppe i verdenshistorien. Selv om avisoplagene falder, TV- og radiokanalerne presses af konkurrencen om vores opmærksomhed, redaktionelle satsninger på internettet har svært ved at løbe rundt, og internationale giganter som Google sluger store dele af annoncemarkedet, så har de veluddannede, velhavende byboere over 30 stadig flere medieprodukter at vælge imellem. Men medierne producerer ikke kun indhold til os som individuelle forbrugere. De spiller også en bred demokratisk rolle, der vedrører os alle som medborgere – og selv om Danmark stadig har nogle af verdens bedste medier, er den rolle i dag truet.

The whole thing is here.