1. Journalism Ethics: Individual, institutional or cultural?
Oxford, September 26-28, 2012
Similar – but so different!
The practice of Press Councils
in Estonia and Finland
Epp Lauk
University of Jyvä skylä , Finland

2. Finland Estonia
338,340km 2
Population 5.4
million
Largest language groups
Finnish: 90%, Swedish: 6%
45,227km2
Population 1.29 million
Largest language groups
Estonian: 68%, Russian: 29%

3. Finland & Estonia
Finland:
– Post-1945 stable societal development – free expression
– Limited statutory regulation  media self-regulation
– Established journalism culture, journalistic autonomy
– Strong trade union
– Mature civic culture supports professional values of
journalism
Estonia:
– Post-1991 democracy – societal transformation
– Broad media freedom – small concentrated media market
– Extremely liberal media policy
– Low level of journalistic professionalism
– Weak trade union, no job security
– Immature civic culture, low level of media literacy

4. Development of media self-
regulation: Finland
The Court of Honour of the Finnish Press 1927; ‘Rules of
Etiquette for Finnish Newspapermen’ 1957  Guidelines for
Journalists 1968; Council for Mass Media (CMM) 1968
The CMM covers all media, including online only outlets.
Collective membership Basic Agreement; Guidelines for
Journalists.
11 members (7 from the media, 4 representatives of the public)
for 3 years. The 2 Vice-Chairs rotate on an annual basis.
Annual budget (300 000 EUR in 2012) 70% membership fees,
30% from Ministry of Justice

5. Development of media self-
regulation: Estonia
Importing the Finnish model: The Estonian Press Council (EPC)
1991 with the Estonian Newspaper Association (ENA) as a
background organisation
The 1st phase 1991-1997: case-by-case practice; the Code of
Ethics 1997
2nd phase 1997-2001
The ENA Press Council (ENA PC) 2002
3rd phase 2002-> the ENA boycott agreement against the EPC
Composition and funding:
– the EPC consists of 9 members (incl. 3 journalists) delegated
by member organisations; membership fees (ca 1000 EUR);
– the ENA PC consists of 10 members (6 from media sector, 4
lay members are invited by the ENA); membership fees
(unknown)

6. The practices of the Press Councils
ENA PC: Complainant directly harmed, (time limit 3 months)
CMM and EPC – Complainant in/directly harmed (CMM: 3
months – EPC: 6 months) ; CMM & EPC may initiate cases
2007-2011: CMM 1104 complaints, ENA PC 232, EPC 171
Adjudications mostly against newspapers: Finland 1 per 3-4;
Estonia 1.4 per 1 newspaper
Upheld cases: Estonia: 56% of adjudications in 2011;
Finland – 28% (average for 44 years of existence is 29-30%)
Reasons for upheld cases (2011): 1) publishing incorrect
information, 2) not letting complainant to comment or publish a
rebuttal
CMM: emphasizes individual’s position vis-à-vis the news media
Estonia: Courts favor press freedom; ‘undue moral damage’ as
the 2nd most frequent reason for upheld cases of the EPC

7. Codes of Ethics
Guidelines for Finnish Journalists 1968, amended in 1976, 1983,
1992, 2004, 2010. Wide public debates and participation in
connection with the amendments.
The Code of Ethics of the Estonian Press 1997; amended by the
ENA PC in 2010 (Article 3.7.)
Strong legitimacy of the Guidelines among Finnish journalists:
90% value the impact of the Guidelines; the company in-house
guidelines – 40% (2011).
Estonian journalists: 74% admitted the impact of the Code on
their work, 7% denied, 19% - indifferent; in-house guidelines
highly valued by 82%.

8. Conclusions: Similar, but so
different
Why similar structures in relatively similar countries function differently?
Similarities:
Broad freedom of expression, media freedom highly protected; Liberal
media policies;
Similar principles of self-regulation and similar professional standards
Differences:
Stable societal development (Finland) vs turbulent societal
transformation (Estonia);
Long tradition of media self-regulation (Finland) vs self-regulation as
a new phenomenon (Estonia)
High level of journalistic professionalism and civic culture (Finland) vs
low level of both (Estonia)
Transparent and reflexive media culture (Finland) vs opaque and
premeditated one (Estonia)