Norway has ranked 1st in the World Press Freedom Index for over 7 consecutive years. At a time when press freedom is declining globally and disinformation, fake news, and information manipulation are widespread, Norway’s press model can be considered a valuable example to study.

How has Norway achieved such a remarkable standing in press freedom? What strategies does it employ to combat disinformation and fake news? And what role do media organizations play in this effort?

To explore these questions — which we believe will be of great interest to our readers — we spoke with Ms. Elin Floberghagen, Secretary General of the Norwegian Press Association. In our conversation, she shared insights into how Norwegian mass media and press institutions foster media literacy, counter disinformation, and navigate the challenges of propaganda in the age of artificial intelligence.

We present to you Ms. Elin Floberghagen’s exclusive interview with Kitabistan.

We present to you Ms. Elin Floberghagen’s exclusive interview with Kitabistan.

- Ms Elin Floberghagen, I am pleased to welcome you to the Kitabistan vs DisInfo interview series. At a time when pressure on freedom of expression and freedom of media is increasing around the world and persecution of journalists is on the rise, I consider this interview to be highly important. And I believe that this interview with you will also be beneficial to our readers and viewers. 
Today, as I mentioned, we are witnessing the suppression of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression around the world. However, Norway has ranked first in the World Press Freedom Index for the seventh consecutive year. As the Secretary General of the Norwegian Press Association, how would you explain the success of Norway's model of press freedom? And what kind of work is the Association doing to help uphold and strengthen this model?

- Well, thank you for inviting me. I think these are, of course, very crucial and important questions. I would say that to understand the Norwegian system - it consists of a lot of different parts. First of all, the freedom of expression is constituted in our constitution. And it also says in the constitution that the government has a responsibility to make sure for pluralism, for freedom of expression and freedom of the press. In addition to that, it also states in the constitution that the government's documents, meetings and so on should be open to the public.
So that access to information is a crucial part of press freedom. If you don't get access to information, you are not able to do fact-checking, critical journalism, investigative journalism on governmental issues. So, this is in the constitution.
We also have a law that states that no other than the editor-in-chief in every newsroom, every media can decide over the media's content. Not the owners, not the advertisers, not the government, not anybody, just one person in each media. The Norwegian media system consists of around - we are, as you might know, a very small country - we have around 250 different titles, media companies in Norway. Very many of them are local news media. We also have a state broadcaster, public broadcaster, and we have commercial broadcasters.
So, the system is built up that we want competition between media companies on every level, local, regional and national. We in the Norwegian Press Association, we are an umbrella organization. Are you familiar with that term? Our members are all the different press organizations in Norway. The Norwegian Union of Journalists, the Norwegian Editors Association, the Norwegian Publishers Association and so on. There are six broad nationwide press organizations. That's our members. All of their members, again, are obligated to follow our code of ethics.
We adopted for the first time in 1936 - so it is almost 100 years old - the first code of ethics for the Norwegian press. We use that in our day-to-day work all the time. When we have this code of ethics, people who feel that the press is treating them badly, was not able to defend themselves in an article or a TV spot or whatever it is, they can complain to us. And we treat those complaints, around 250 complaints a year in our press council, the Press Complaint Commission. This is 100% financed and driven by us. There is no state money or anything into that and no governmental rule over our system. Our government really respects our code of ethics and the Press Complaint Commission. I have been in this business for almost 25 years. And I never experienced that they try to intervene in the media's journalistic content. Because this is very highly respected. But it is an old system. It has been built up by generations. 
I would say that the system is based on a very broad cooperation between all the journalists, all the editors, and all the publishers who agree to this system. And this is very important to emphasize, because I think, when others try to build up, they might not have that same cooperation. It takes time to build that up.

- Well, you mentioned the code of ethics of journalism. Maybe it would be better to talk broadly about the  “Be Careful” poster. Because, as you mentioned, it is one of the key initiatives of the Norwegian Press Association and is considered a code of journalistic ethics. But unfortunately, in many countries, we often witness violations of core principles of journalism ethics, such as the press must protect freedom of expression, or journalists must remain independent from commercial and political interests, fact-checking or maintaining critical approach towards sources. How does the Association ensure that media representatives in Norway adhere to the core principles outlined in the “Be Careful” poster? And what measures are taken in case of violations?

- Well, if I can take the last one first... The consequences when a media breaches the code of ethics, they are obliged to publish a statement, rather long statement from the press council in their media. And they are also obliged to tag the article that breached the code of conduct. So that if people read it afterwards, they will see that this was not a good piece, and this is why. This is something that all the media companies respect and do after they breach the code of conduct. I would say we have maybe one case I can remember that we had trouble getting the editor-in-chief to do so. So, this is a system that works.
It is a kind of a name and shame. You are judged by your peers, your colleagues in the press council, which, of course, is mostly also journalists and editors. This is important.
If you want as a journalist, for example, to become a member of the Journalist Union in Norway, this is the first membership criteria to follow the code of ethics. You don't get to be a member if you don't. Almost 100 percent of the journalists are members of the Journalist Union. The same thing goes for the Editors’ Association and the Publishers’. They need to state that they will follow the code of ethics and also to follow the core principle that lays behind to ensure press freedom, freedom of expression, debate, a critical look upon everyone in power and so on. 
So, I would say that we don't have a problem with that. We do, of course, have media companies who breach the code from time to time. I would say that around 25 percent of all the complaints we get in breach the code of conduct. But it works. The system works and they learn from it. Also we have four case handlers here in our office who 100 percent of their time works with these complaints. But I also use a lot of my time to visit newsrooms, journalists, editors, publishers to talk about the principles in the code of ethics.
We also do a lot of lectures at universities for students and so on. And also for the public. We need to be more open, more transparent about how journalism works. What's our methods? What's our ethics? What can you do, what can you not do as a journalist? So, they should be able to trust journalism more than all the chaos on the Internet. But then we need to start with ourselves. Of course, this has to be implemented in every newsroom and every journalist. And they need to have day-to-day discussions about ethical issues.

- Free and impartial media is one of the important pillars and even defenders of democracy. Experience also shows that on a global scale, the setbacks in press and freedom of expression always occur before democracies begin to fail. In your opinion, how can press freedom be protected in the face of these challenges?

- Well, I would say that democracy cannot exist without press freedom and the other way around as well. It is not possible because you need to be sure that the public has the right to get information, to get fact-checked information from people you can trust. And those people should be the journalists because they are an independent force. But I would say that there are a lot of big problems about press freedom in the world today and it goes the wrong way. It declines year after year after year, at least the last 10 years. And also democracy declines.
There are fewer democracies now than, you know, there was 10 years ago. I think we need to gather the media industry to agree on what to do and to cooperate. Because we are together on the most important issue in our time, I would say. I would kind of start in that direction because we need to start with ourselves. It doesn't help to scream very loudly to governmental issues if we are not agreeing ourselves. So, we need to build this system from the ground up. Then we, of course, should challenge all the governments around the world to ensure press freedom in their laws. But not just in their laws, in the way they handle the laws, the practice. Because we often see that things are ensured in law, but they don’t follow it.
I also think it is very important to work politically with lobbyism to ensure a plural media system that there are many of them and they should compete. Because we see a lot of examples where the state takes control over the media, either themselves or with friends. And they try to stop critical journalism. So, it is a huge issue and a huge question you are asking.
I think we are in Norway, very, very lucky that some very wise men a hundred years ago built up the system because we now have so many generations building on top of it. So, we don't know anything else. But there are many places the rest of the world does not have the system and it takes time and big effort to build it up.

- Well, thank you very much for highlighting the importance of free and impartial media for democratic societies. But I also believe that you would agree with me that a truly democratic society is one where gender equality prevails. And now we are seeing the increase of the gender based hate speech and gender discriminated narratives in the press. This is especially visible in online media attacking women journalists, politicians or activists. In your opinion, how can we effectively combat gender based hate speech and discriminatory narratives? And what steps is the association taking in this regard?

- Well, first of all, I would say that we don't experience that in Norway today. But I read a lot about gender based hate speech against women journalists in other countries, of course. I again would say that to raise this issue in debates where journalists, editors and publishers meet is very important. We have a zero tolerance for threats against journalists in Norway. We have been in contact with the police and also the authorities on this issue that they should prioritize these cases when people are threatened for their journalism. They agree with us and they sent out to all the police districts in Norway that cases about threats against journalists, no matter what gender, should have high priority to investigate because this is an attack on democracy. So, that might be a way to handle it.
But I also think it is important to work with the code of ethics. Because the code of ethics should state what is the journalistic role and what are the journalistic methods. Whether you are male or female should not have any effect on how the news is distributed or received. We also have a lot of contact with the editors-in-chief because if they have journalists who get attacked or threatened, they at once should contact the police and they should protect and take measures to protect journalists.
We don't have many cases of this in Norway, maybe five a year or something like that. It is based on threats against journalists. A lot of them actually the perpetrator has been convicted in court after doing so. Because, like I said, it is a threat against democracy. It is not a threat only against a human being, male or female.

- Today, one of the key challenges in the press on the global situation is disinformation. Today, objective information faces serious threats. Alongside propaganda disinformation, misinformation, fake news and information manipulation, they all have surrounded objective information, which makes it difficult to access accurate information. This is particularly evident on social media, where fact-checking is extremely challenging. And this, as a result, not only affects the functioning of democratic institutions, but also such threats pose significant risks to national security and manipulate public will. How is Norway working to make fact-checking tools more effective, especially in combating fake news on digital platforms? Are there any best experiences or practices in this area?

- Well, first of all, we have laws to ensure access to information, the Access of Information Act and also access to meetings and so on. The media companies have gone together to establish a fact-checking company which has been working now for, I think, 10 years. They also have a website and online service that helps journalists to get access to all the different possible sources of information.
Also, we in the Press Association have two lawyers working full-time to do so, to help the journalists and editors to reach all the possible and sometimes impossible sources of information. But again, I would emphasize the cooperation. Because this is where all the major news companies in Norway went together to establish this fact-checking system. And this is working quite good.
Now we have supported an initiative to build up a center against disinformation, the spreading of disinformation in Norway. It is not a center that should state what is facts and what is disinformation. But it is a center that will work up with schools and other parts of the population to help people be able to recognize disinformation and fake news when they see it, to have tools to be critical of the sources.
I think this is a huge issue now in the AI age as well, where it is so easy to reach out with propaganda, disinformation and fake news. So, we need to teach everyone how to verify information. What can you trust? What can you not trust? And then this fact-checking company has also taken an initiative after the Russian invasion of Ukraine to verify pictures and videos. This is a huge issue, both in Ukraine, but also in Gaza and in other parts of the world where it is difficult for journalists to get access. What can we trust? What videos are correct, and fact? What are not? That is the knowledge that more and more of journalists in Norway take these classes to be professionals in verifying pictures and videos.

- As we are talking about disinformation and propaganda, media literacy has become a necessity today. Because it is one of the most effective tools to protect individuals from fake news, propaganda and disinformation, especially in the ongoing information warfare after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So, what efforts are being made in Norway to promote media literacy, and what are the most effective methods for strengthening media literacy? One more question regarding this, what roles should individuals, governments and civil society play in this regard?

- Well, for media literacy, there is a lot of work from the media industry in schools and universities, and so on, mostly in schools, to teach about being critical of sources. What should you trust? What can you not trust? How does the media work? What kind of ethics is the media obliged to follow? What can they do if they feel that the media does not follow the code of ethics? So, we do that work a lot. Also, the fact-checking company does that a lot. Different or many different news organizations are having right now special projects with young people, maybe in schools, but also younger adults. Because what we see is that, this is one of our biggest problems at the moment, that the younger people, well, they follow TikTok rather than the news media. We need to be able to have journalism that interests them, that they want to follow and also want to pay for, to be able to sustain this system, of course. 
But I am sorry, I am not sure I got your last question.

- Well, my last question was what roles should individuals, governments and civil society play in this regard?

- Oh, this is a very important question. I think civil society and everyone is what we should build it on. Like I told you about this initiative to build up a center against disinformation, this, we believe, should only be based on civil society. We don't want the government to tell people what is true and not true or what is disinformation or not. We think that this should be the people together who work on these issues. I think it is important both for individuals, but also for organizations such as ours to support such an initiative.

- Thank you very much for this interview and for taking your time to participate.

- Thank you.

Malak Hajiyeva

06.02.2025