Publikationer

»Avisen er uafhængig af politiske og økonomiske særinteresser« står der ofte i Sermitsiaq og AG’s tillægsaviser. Alligevel kan virksomheder og myndigheder betale for at bestemme, hvad journalisterne skal skrive i dem. I resten af avisen skal selv samme journalister forholde sig kritisk til samme virksomheder. Formår de det?

The scarcely populated island of Greenland offers a unique opportunity both to study the complex dependencies and tensions of contemporary “global” or “transnational” journalism and to test and develop the explanation power of one key theoretical framework, field theory. With only one (national and public) broadcaster and two weekly newspapers, the journalistic field in Greenland is small, exposed and vulnerable. It is embedded in the broader political, economic and professional field dynamics of Denmark, the former colonial power. For instance, the legislation and the organizational structure of the media are inherited and a flow of Danish visiting journalists and editors keep up the norms and the value system of the field. At the same time, Greenlandic journalism operates in a nation of its own with distinct characteristics: small size, politics of the bilingualism, tight local networks with a small elite and close ties between reporters and possible sources shape the field practically, professionally and socially (in a specific, local way). These tensions between the “global-colonial” and “local” capitals and capacities are negotiated and managed in the everyday practices of newsrooms. There is almost no previous research on Greenlandic media in general and journalism practice in particular. Mapping this small but contested field allows us to highlight some of the key analytical strengths of Bourdieu’s field theory and its ability to capture the dynamic actor relationships in such a complex, structured space. At the same time, however, the “post-colonial” realities of Greenlandic journalism can help us to pose some questions about the limits – or the need for further development – of Bourdieu’s initial sketch about the journalistic field. This chapter tests the analytical concepts of capital and habitus by putting them to empirical work through an ethnographic study of practices and structures of news making in Greenland.

Gender equality and representation matters are rarely discussed in the Greenlandic public debate, and there hasn’t been conducted research on the matter of representation in contemporary Greenlandic news media. For the first time, Greenland is participating in the Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP), which seeks to highlight the significance of gender equality as stressed in arctic as well as global human development goals. The project also has an activist approach with a focus on giving voice and be a catalyst towards change within public debate as well as media institutions.

This panel aims at bringing an overview and discuss the Nordic results of the GMMP 2020 in a local and global context. The Nordic countries traditionally have had much in common in terms of news media culture and traditions, but at the same time each country has its distinct local and historical characteristics, which also come to light in these quantitative data sets on use of sources, gender representation in the news content and in the newsroom organizations.

The panel invites a joint Nordic discussion on gender representation in use of sources, gendered framing in the news, demographics of journalists/editors as well as specific topics such as covid-19 in the media coverage during GMMP 2020. The specific national empirical findings together with the global results can contribute to a joint discussion on future methodological and analytical questions on both national and cross-national comparative studies on gender and media. Cross-national studies can qualify and highlight both causes and effects of gender equality in news media and contribute to a better understanding of gendered media practices.

All national Greenlandic media are bilingual and focuses on the use of both Greenlandic (the “indigenous”) and Danish (the “colonial”) language. Even though the Greenlandic language is highly used and sustainable as well as highlighted in policymaking, research has shown that in some areas the Danish language is still dominant. This presentation wishes to discuss the use of Danish as the primary language in editorial work at the national media and what the long-term consequences this can have on the vitality and sustainability of the Greenlandic language. Through empirical examples we will discuss and highlight some key issues that are imminent in a bilingual society as the Greenlandic, for instance the extensive (and expensive) use of (simultaneous) interpretations and the barriers this can create in both public and civic life.