To preserve the diversity of the Norwegian press, a large number of local and so-called "opinion carrying" (ie. ideological) newspapers are subsidized by the state. I'm not sure what diversity this is meant to preserve, diversity of newspaper logos, perhaps. There's not a lot of money involved - 234 mill NOK | $34 mill a year, but then most of these newspapers aren't very big, we're talking a circulation of less than 5000 for many of the 128 subsidized newspapers. (That's less than 20 times the daily readers of this blog - I could, according to my calculations, earn 51k NOK | $7k a year if I went into print.) Opinion carrying newspapers receive about half of the total amount, and include the rather decent Christian/centre-left Vårt Land, the dogmatic left-wing Dagsavisen, (former Labor spokespiece, unofficially aimed at women in the public sector), and the just plain wacky far-left Klassekampen.

In addition, all newspapers benefit from a general sales tax exemption worth 1000 mill NOK | $145 mill a year.

This is worth keeping in mind when a mere 6 mill NOK | $870k cut in direct press subsidies in the recently agreed upon revised national budget has Labor leader Jens Stoltenberg up in arms about the prospect of "newspaper death".

Freedom of speech is too important to be left to the marked forces alone. That's why the community [fellesskapet, lit. togetherness] must take the responsibility for press diversity, and that's why we want extensive press subsidies.

Both the Conservatives and the Progress Party are against direct press subsidies. Apart from the ideological principles involved here, there's an obvious (and potentially dominant) strategic side to this as well: The "opinion carrying" newspapers these subsidies keep alive are (afaik) all left-wing, and while not widely read are often read by the right people, ie. politicians and media people. So the right-wing parties have a clear interest in seeing them go, the other parties in keeping them alive, and the newspapers themselves and interest in supporting these parties. (I would be surprised if anyone really cares about those 5000-circulation papers, at least not on a level deeper than vague ideology.)

And that, of course, is the main argument against press subsidies (and state broadcasting, for that matter) - the unhealthy link it maintains between media and politicians. The threat may be real or only potential, but honest, independent reporting can be difficult when you're on a government payroll, and there are ugly words for politicians who grant subsidies to their own supporters. Time to cut the cord, - or at least be fair about it and give us bloggers a share of the money.

Wouldn't Klassenkampfen translate to 'class war'?

Mike: Yes, or class struggle. And that tells you all you need to know about it.

Bjorn, do they rationalize this practice as support for local publications in smaller towns? Or is it strictly a subsidy to a failed ideology that receives little support from the very market it would destroy?

Well, both, in the name of diversity. The term newspaper death conjures up the image of local papers everywhere going bust, (leaving people in rural areas suddenly without a voice), and the national "opinion carrying" newspapers replaced by blander, more commercial media.

The great irony is that most (even
local) news papers in Norway are
owned by the media corporations
Schibsted, Orkla, and A-pressen:

http://www.eierskapstilsynet.no/database/dbprogs/?1=1&id=651

Schibsted ASA 1004034
A-Pressen ASA 531099
Orkla ASA 515578

Per: I doubt that's the cause of the uniformity of our press, though.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/300