The arm’s length principle has long been a cornerstone in Nordic media policy. Political authorities set the regulatory framework and allocate budgets – but do not decide on individual grants. However, the institutional context in which the principle operates has evolved significantly over the past decade.
The new Nordicom report, Media Policy at Different Distances: A Comparative Study of the Arm’s Length Principle in Nordic News Media Subsidy Regulation, is written by media researcher Tobias Lindberg and examines how the principle is translated into institutional practice across the Nordics.
From rule-based to more selective schemes
Since the early 2010s, Nordic media subsidy systems have shifted from largely criteria-based and rights-driven arrangements towards schemes in which a larger and more heterogeneous set of actors competes for a limited funding envelope. This shift increases the importance of assessments and decision rationales.
“To a large extent, media convergence has made support schemes more subject to evaluation and detailed criteria. Earlier press subsidies were more mechanical. In that sense, the arm has been shortened somewhat, even if it is still there. In the new schemes, this has been addressed by stating the arm’s length principle more explicitly”, says Lindberg.
Nordic differences
The report analyses arm’s length distance across three dimensions: organisational separation, the design of the decision-making process, and the availability of oversight and review mechanisms. These dimensions combine in different ways in each of the five countries.
While Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden operate separate decision-making bodies that visibly signal distance from day-to-day administration, Norway and Finland rely more on authority- or ministry-based models.
“It is interesting to see how the reasoning has differed between countries”, says Lindberg. “In some, dedicated media support boards were introduced to ensure a proper distance between politics and journalism. In another, a similar board was rejected for exactly the same reason”.
An adaptable principle
The report does not rank the Nordic systems. Instead, it concludes that the arm’s length principle functions as an adaptable institutional framework, embedded in national legal traditions and administrative cultures.
“The Nordic countries are similar in many ways. At the same time, there are cultural and constitutional differences with centuries-old roots. Some of these differences are reflected in how they organise media support and put the arm’s length principle into practice”, Lindberg concludes.