2.1 The Nordic media models
The relationship between the media and the political system can be understood in different ways. In their study Comparing Media Systems, Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini (2004) proposed three ideal-typical models for analysing variations in media–politics relations across Western democracies. Within this comparative framework, most of the Nordic countries are located within what the authors term the Northern and Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model.
This model is characterised by an early development of the press, a historically grounded transition from politically aligned and party-affiliated press towards more neutral and commercially oriented media, a high degree of institutionalised journalistic professionalism, and a comparatively strong role for the state in the media sector. In addition to all the Nordic countries except Iceland, the model can also be used to describe conditions in Central European states such as Austria, Belgium, and Germany.
A defining feature of the Democratic Corporatist Model is that the media is not understood solely as a private commercial enterprise, but also as a social institution for which the state bears significant responsibility. This normative orientation is reflected in media policy arrangements in several ways, most notably through the central role of public service media and the existence of media subsidies (Hallin & Mancini, 2004: 160–164). Such forms of state intervention, particularly direct and selective subsidies, are far less prevalent in the other two models identified by Hallin and Mancini: the Mediterranean or Polarised Pluralist Model, and the North Atlantic or Liberal Model.
Although Iceland was not included in Hallin and Mancini’s studies, Icelandic scholars contend that its media system is best understood as a hybrid or mixed case of these models and the concept of a media welfare state (Guðmundsson & Jóhannsdóttir, 2024: 156).
2.1.1 Direct subsidies to Nordic news media
In all the Nordic countries, the objectives of direct subsidies include the promotion of diversity within the news media sector. In Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, the statutory purpose clauses also articulate an explicit ambition to strengthen national democracy. In Norway, the stated objectives further include safeguarding the institutional independence of the media subsidy administration. Finland (and to some degree Iceland, more on that later) constitutes an outlier in this respect, as it operates a temporary support scheme, which renders direct comparison with the permanent arrangements in the Scandinavian countries more difficult (Nordicom, 2026: 57–58).
If one subsequently examines the volume of funds allocated to these schemes, it is evident that the amounts have increased over time, having initially involved relatively modest sums (Gustafsson & Hadenius, 1976: 83). The levels of direct media subsidies in countries such as Denmark and Sweden have grown to substantial proportions during the last decade. In 2025, news media subsidies totalled approximately 72.6 million euros in Denmark and 78.6 million euros in Sweden (see Table 2.1).