eesti keeles

Speeches
Open in print mode

President of the Republic at the International Media Conference on November 15, 2002
15.11.2002


Social Dialogue and Media Responsibility in Today's World

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Democratic states handle media as a fourth power, which meets three important functions: informs public, allows public oversight of other powers and ensures public discussion. The interaction of three functions should ensure social interaction, which will lead to coherence and cohesion in the society.

The IT revolution and boost in electronic media has enhanced the role of media as an information mediator even more. Today we can follow various processes influencing developments in the world on-line. The most recent experience was the hostage case in Moscow and it was possible to watch the very first blood-curdling footage also in Estonia, which had been enjoying a peaceful weekend. Even more - a consumer can pick and choose between tens and hundreds of TV-channels that are competing to increase the share of viewers.

Thus, the good and evil of the world has reached all our homes. The famous argument by Marshall MacLuhan is becoming more and more truthful - if you are not in media coverage, you do not exist. But how to decide what is true and what is false, what is good and what is bad? It would be logical to read analyses and problem-discussing articles in tomorrow's papers. However, instead we often see enlarged close-ups of shocking events and descriptions of new plots. A thinking and knowledge-thirsty person needs a partner who would help to gnaw through the tremendous information flow and sort out the truth.

Preparing myself for this meeting I asked myself a number of questions: what shapes the face of media today, whose anticipations does the media respond to and whose orders does it fulfil?

In today's world it is quite natural that the market shapes the media and relevant mechanisms. Except public media channels, other journalism is a profit-generating or at least profit-oriented business. This had brought along an increased entertainment function. Not only plain entertainment like jokes, riddles, horoscopes and weekend inserts. This is, first and foremost, an indirect entertaining treatment of the material. This becomes evident in action-oriented approach as well as in speculatory comments focusing around the intrigue and not the cause.

Secondly, the media is giving up its role in shaping values, as the so-called teacher of the society. Ethic-norms-based evaluations are avoided and the everything-is-relative attitude prevails as a well-sold "bad" today may be for some of the people "good", a precondition of success and career tomorrow.

Thirdly, although the media as a fourth power should in the ideal case be critical of the ruling power, it is often critical of the entire state. This would only deepen the alienation of the people from the power. Over the recent years public opinion polls have shown that also the media has lost in this situation as general distrust of the power develops into distrust of the media. Alienation from the power could, in its turn, bring along alienation of the people from responsibility: if those who should be responsible are not, why should the people.

Nevertheless public discussions that public media is not necessary do not abate in Estonia. Still there are people who say that all the problems and shortcomings of the public media are caused by the market rules and regulations being not able to influence the public opinion in this sector.

Current discussions have overlooked the fact that the media market cannot successfully implement the same principles, which perform well in other markets. According to well-known economists de Long and Froomkin, three essential pillars of the market - excludability, fair rivalry and transparency - are not successful in the case of the media.

Representatives of neoclassical economic theory argue even that failure is characteristic of the media market. This is said to apply specifically to the electronic media: we cannot produce programmes for only a specific target group as apart from our target group everybody having a radio or TV-set can receive radio and TV programmes. Thus excludability does not apply to this consumption. Just like everybody can enjoy beautiful sunset, not only our target group.

Of course, receipt of radio and TV programmes could be charged for and this particular media channel could earn profit whereas the entire society would lose. Especially because restriction of the access would need additional cost whereas the fee access would not.

To be honest, advertising money has a significant impact both on the structure and contents of the programmes. Partnerships between mass media and its auditorium are not always based on parity. Still in the case of the public media such profit indicators are significant which no consumer is able to pay for. This is the "profit" arising from valued culture and education, scientific achievements and their applications - events in these fields do not usually make it to the news.

First and foremost, programmes and articles initiating and developing social dialogue, which help to grow social capital, are the field for public media. Francis Fukuyama has defined social capital as a set of informal values and norms, jointly recognised by the members of the group in order to work together for common goals. If members of the group are convinced in each other's reliability and honest behaviour, they reach trust. Trust is like lubricant, which makes each group or organisation work more efficiently. Social capital can evolve only in a concrete cultural space and its value systems.

It is difficult to overestimate the role of the media in social dialogue. Responsibility is an inseparable part of any power in which seller-buyer relations do not function any more. Provided that solidarity and partnership should evolve between media shapers and the people, not outsmarting bargaining.

We are all both citizens of our own state and the world and concerned about the welfare of the society. The society can perform and exist based on common recognised values. If the media prefers one value and the public another, there are two possibilities: either the media will reshape values pursuant to its narrow (market) interests or the public will be alienated from the media once and for all. The latter is less likely as it is difficult for an individual with its values and ideas to withstand the public opinion as offered by the media.

For the media to express balanced public opinion it has to side with the so-called weaker or at least to provide it an opportunity to voice its opinions and discuss issues. The weaker are those who do not exercise power but have delegated their power to relevant authorities. They can trust the power only if its executed within the mandate and in the common interest. Distrust will appear if the execution of power is not transparent and participatory democracy is ignored in decision-making.

Definitely we cannot imagine public discussions taking place at the Song Festival Ground but rather on the "Comment & Analysis" page as well as in programmes discussing crucial problems in radio and TV. An opportunity to participate deepens responsibility both for the thoughts said out aloud but also for the solution of the problems, which serve as the aim and foundation of the discussion. Both the media and the society would only gain from such dialogue, relations between the power and the mind would improve and confidence increase.

I do believe that these are goals worthwhile to endeavour for.

I wish you success in achieving these goals.


© 2006 Office of the President l tel: + 372 631 6202 l fax: + 372 631 6250 l sekretarvpk.ee