Changing Media in a Changing Society

Demokratizatsiya, Fall 2003 by Vihalemm, Peeter

The Second Stage: Political Emancipation and Commercialization of the Media

The main trends of media development in 1991 through 1994 can be described as the emancipation of Estonian mass media from the state and political forces and adaptation to open market conditions.

When, after the restoration of independence, the Estonian media deliberately distanced themselves from active participation in politics, did journalists still play an active role in supporting reforms?

Political Autonomy of the Estonian Media

As several scholars repeatedly have pointed out (Jakubowicz 1994, 1995; Downing 1996; O'Neil 1997; Aumente et. al. 1999; Coman 2000), in many postCommunist countries the media has become pluralistic, but not politically independent. It is often characterized as an "Italianization of the media," as described by Slavko Splichal (1994), or as partisan and state-controlled media interwoven with politics.

This "Italianization" effect has not been the case in Estonia. Journalism in Estonia has been relatively successful separating itself from state structures and obtaining political autonomy. The political emancipation of the Estonian media, to a large extent, was the result of the rapid generational replacement among journalists. The attachment of the young generation of journalists to the liberal model of journalism changed the previously cooperative relationships between the political elite and the media, which had been based on memories about common participation in national liberation movements.

The failure to apply direct pressure on the media does not mean that the Estonian media was not influenced by politicians or that there were no attempts at indirect pressure from state authorities. Instead of the direct interference, political influence was exercised through public relations. Politicians were used as unilateral sources, or they were invited by leading newspapers to write columns, thus becoming part of the journalistic interpretation of political events in the media. In many occasions, journalists wrote (and are continuously writing) articles based only on official information (press conferences, press releases, police or court records, etc.), and often have neither the possibility nor desire to check the facts or use different sources. Public agenda is often set not by journalists, but by politicians who are leaking information and launching biased interpretations that are too easily and uncritically published. Too often journalists are mentally dependent on political stereotypes and prejudices; they are unable or unwilling to carry out independent analysis. The lack of critical assessment of information provided by influential sources and poor self-reflection are presumably common issues concerning professional journalistic culture in all post-Communist countries.

Although the media played an important role during the struggle for independence, the media's role in the development of a new democratic public sphere and a "voice" for all new forces in society was not so simple. Most groups actively using the new opportunities created by free speech consisted of young and entrepreneurial urban youth, the new political elite, and Soviet-era managers, rapidly grasping new business opportunities. A majority of the people were confused and had difficulty adjusting to the new media environment. Social differentiation created by "shock therapy" with a series of fundamental changes in rapid succession divided the Estonian population into "winners" and "losers." The "losers" included people who actively participated in the restoration of an independent Estonia: intellectuals, the older generation, survivors of Stalinist repressions, and people in the villages and small towns far from the rapidly prospering capital city. People expected that the media would accept a socially protective role, defend the interests of ordinary citizens, or at least help them to understand what was going on in society. These expectations were not fulfilled. The media, driven by market forces, clearly took the side of the "winners." In this stage, the slow development and weakness of the new civic society also prevented implementation of democratic principles in the media's performance.