The Cold War affected the media in many ways, in regard to both domestic and foreign news reporting. The media also played an important role in the development of a Cold War culture in most countries in the period after World War II (Hallin 1989). Even if not every aspect of life during the Cold War was directly linked to it, the conflict had a very deep impact on society and culture. Academic attention, in fact, has been rightly expanded beyond first-hand diplomatic and political events to their representations in the media. In doing so, historians have acknowledged that the public’s notions of the Cold War have come about mostly by way of mass media. As famously noted by Walter Lippman (1922), the pictures in our heads of the world around us is largely mediated by journalists and media coverage, and for events beyond our immediate control, and especially those beyond the reach of local news coverage and outside our nation´s borders, we are traditionally even more dependent on the media to set the agenda of “what goes on.”
Studies of the events of “1968,” for example, have demonstrated a reciprocal relationship between media content and the organization of Norwegian foreign-news journalism (Werenskjold 2011, 294–296, 301–358). We will argue in this chapter that a similar relationship existed during the whole Cold War era until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Cold War was the golden age of the Norwegian foreign-news system, and its logic was integral to the establishment, development, status, and inner workings of the Norwegian foreign-news system during this period.
In research on the Cold War, foreign-news journalism has mainly been studied on a case-by-case basis as it related to certain news themes or issues in one or several different media. This study asks a different question: who were the journalists who created the foreign media content during the Cold War? In most countries, such a study would at best be a very difficult task. Norway, however, is a small country and foreign journalism has largely been run by a small number of news media and news agencies in the capital and by a small group of journalists. Covering all major categories of Norwegian foreign-news workers—foreign-news editors, foreign-news correspondents abroad, foreign-news reporters, and the journalists in the foreign newsroom at home—our analysis focuses on five years: 1945, 1950, 1965, 1980, and 1995. The year 1945 heralds a new phase of professional news reporting from abroad after the end of World War II, when, after the German occupation, Norway reoriented its pre-war foreign policy from being a neutral state to becoming a member of the UN in 1946 and NATO in 1949. The network of loosely connected freelance reporters, stringers, and writers abroad, which characterized the Norwegian foreign news reporting in the 1930s, was in 1945 replaced by a permanent employed professional corps of foreign-news correspondents in the major Norwegian dailies. The correspondents were located in the most important Western allied capitals affecting Norwegian foreign interests. The changes and the expansion of the Norwegian foreign-news system during the next forty years followed the development of the Cold War, from its original “East versus West” orientation to its inclusion of a North-South axis in the early 1970s, which reflected the increasing importance of the Third World. The end year 1995 offers a window onto those who worked in the foreign newsrooms at the end of the Cold War, and onto some of the changing characteristics of the new generation of foreign-news workers, suggesting a mainstreaming process in which they became more similar to other journalists.
The overall research question—who were the Norwegian foreign-news journalists—involves a series of sub-questions. First, what characterizes them as a social and professional group from the Norwegian population at large and from journalists in general? Is the common portrayal of foreign journalists as members of an urban, social elite accurate in their case? What type of educational background and career paths were common among them? Second, how did such overall characteristics of the corps change in the post-war period? Third, because Norwegian newspapers throughout much of the Cold War were part of the political party press system until it gradually dissolved during the 1970s and 1980s, is it reasonable to ask whether there were any characteristic internal differences related to political affiliations among those who worked in the various foreign newsrooms, and did the extent of such differentiation depend on the media format, such as print press or broadcasting? How did levels of education and extent of work experience differ between those who went abroad as correspondents and those who staffed the foreign journalism newsrooms in Norway? How did the newsroom editors differ from regular foreign-news journalists? Finally, how did the logic of the Cold War infuse the historical development of the corps and system of foreign journalism in Norway?
Research in the Field
The existing literature on Norwegian foreign journalism after World War II can—similarly to most countries—be divided in four broad categories. The first is a relatively voluminous correspondent literature written by the journalists and correspondents themselves, representing a huge selection of sources about individual correspondents’ thoughts and experiences abroad. At its best, this literature gives insight into the working conditions and the everyday life of a journalist and into the routines of the editorial processes underlying what ends up as media content (e.g., Johansen 1976; Steinfeld 1982, 1984, 1986).
The second category is scholarly content analyses of media coverage of major foreign international events in the near and distant past, 1 involving organizations like the UN, NATO and the EU (Eriksen 1972; Rasmussen 1986; Allern and Ihlen 2008). This category includes both historical analysis and media studies (Eide and Simonsen 2010). The analyses are usually case studies focusing on the media texts, and are seldom complemented by discussion of the organization of foreign-news journalism, journalists, the editorial processes, or the reality outside the media texts (extra media data).
The third category is the literature dealing with news agencies and international news flow. Galtung and Ruge’s renowned article “The Structure of Foreign News” (1965) is an example of this kind of approach. The fourth category is the literature referring to media coverage as a phenomenon and as an explanation of phenomena, but not based on empirical media studies. Most historical overviews fall into this category of studies that consider the media as important, but without situating mass communications within history as an independent actor. In this form of literature, the media’s agenda is often synonymous with public opinion. The media factors or assumed effects are then often used as a residual category, to explain in general the unexplainable without any real empirical studies to back the assumptions.
There exists no larger study of Norwegian foreign-news journalists. There are, however, several U.S. studies of foreign correspondents who at various times were stationed in the United States (Lambert 1956; Suh 1971; Mowlana 1972; Ghorpade 1983, 1984a, b; Nair 1991; Willnat and Weaver 2003), and American correspondents abroad. These studies were based on surveys administered to a select group of foreign correspondents in 1955, 1975, 1983, and 1991 (Maxwell 1954, 1956). There are also some European studies, but none of these are studies of the total national system of foreign journalism. Charles C. Self has provided an overview of previous research in this area (Self 2011, 29–44), and Stephen Hess, Peter Gross, and Gerd G. Kopper have provided a broad overview of the foreign correspondent in the role and function of international news reporting (Hess 1996; Gross and Kopper 2011).
The Norwegian foreign-news system during the Cold War era has been described and analyzed in terms of the major Norwegian newspapers and broadcasting. Maria Nakken has studied the establishing and development of the Norwegian Broadcasting Company’s (NRK) foreign-news correspondent network from 1964 to 2004. Rolf Werenskjold has analyzed how the Norwegian foreign-news system—print and radio/television—evolved through three main phases from 1945 to 1995. The latter study includes the largest Norwegian media organizations with an independent foreign newsroom and correspondents of its own (Werenskjold 2011, 227–258).
So far, however, we know very little about the background of the foreign-news journalists and correspondents in the Norwegian media during the Cold War. Our study here has its origin in Werenskjold’s four historical case studies of individual foreign-news journalists (Werenskjold 2006a, b, 2007, 2008) and has been expanded to include data on their colleagues in all the largest foreign newsrooms in Norway during this time. A systematic collection of this information has made it possible to construct a complete overview of the foreign newsroom staff, foreign-news editors, correspondent offices, and foreign-news correspondents for the entire period from 1945 to 1995.
After giving an overview of the data and the sources used in its construction, we will suggest the main transformations of the field of foreign news in Norway, focusing first on its formal organization, then on the systematic changes in the corps of foreign journalists. Special emphasis is, here, placed on the reconstruction of Norwegian foreign journalism after the German occupation ended in 1945. Finally, the overall changes and differences in the foreign-news system are discussed in light of the logic of the Cold War.
Data and Method
The study follows the French prosopographic tradition. Roughly put, a prosopography is a collective biography of individuals belonging to the same area, based on the comprehensive collection of data—on social origin, educational background, career path, and so forth, often from a wide variety of sources (biographical works, schoolbooks, obituaries, personal interviews, etc.). The main object is not the individuals per se but the systematic history and the structure of the field as a whole. There are many examples of historians working with prosopographies. 2 In addition to making it possible to study a historical situation using the logic of the modern survey, the method has also shown itself to be useful when studying groups who tend not to answer questionnaires eagerly—which is a problem often noted in studies of foreign journalists (Willnat and Weaver 2003). In sociology, prosopographic analysis is often associated with the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who has published several influential studies (Bourdieu and Saint Martin 1978; Bourdieu 1984). In studies of journalists, however, there are very few examples of works in this methodological vein. 3
The main data used in this analysis consist of information on 107 journalists employed in the foreign newsrooms of all the major news publications in Norway covering foreign news in the period 1945–1995: two national tabloids, Dagbladet and Verdens Gang (VG); the largest regional newspaper covering the capital, Aftenposten; the largest social democratic daily, Arbeiderbladet (renamed Dagsavisen in 1987); the main business newspaper, Norges Handels og Sjøfartstidende (renamed Dagens Næringsliv in 1987); the largest national news agency, the Norwegian News Agency (NTB); and the national public broadcaster, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK). Rather than compiling a complete list of everyone working in these newsrooms during the whole period, we have instead reconstructed the historical situations for the five years under study: 1945, 1950, 1965, 1980, and 1995. For this reason, the dataset includes 107 unique individuals, but 230 registrations (eighty-four are present at two time points, thirty-nine at three).
The statistical data on the individuals have been collected from a wide variety of sources. Parts of the biographical information about individuals who are no longer alive were collected from various editions of the Pressefolk (biographical information about members of the Norwegian Journalist Association [NJ] in 1950, 1979, 1990, and 1997), and supplemented and checked with other biographical encyclopedias, including Hvem er Hvem (Who’s who), Store Norske leksikon (the largest Norwegian Encyclopedia), Norsk Biografisk Leksikon (the Norwegian Biographical Encyclopedia), and the Norwegian Biographical Encyclopedia of Norwegian Students up to 1944. In addition, news coverage about journalists appointed to new positions, and searches of obituaries in the press and direct contact with family members have given useful information. Systematic searches of each year in the relevant newspapers have also helped us to identify who reported from different areas of the world and worked in the foreign newsrooms at any time. Where journalists were alive and willing, personal interviews were conducted.
Given the enormous challenges of this methodological exercise, there will no doubt be instances where our knowledge of these journalists is incomplete or even erroneous. The multiplicity of sources used, however, has in most cases provided us with multiple readings of the most important characteristics we sought, which makes us confident that the quality of the data is adequate for suggesting the broad historical traits of this group and the major divisions within it.
A Typology of Correspondents
The term “correspondent” is not consistent throughout all phases, and one can historically and chronologically distinguish among four main categories of foreign-news correspondents.
The first category comprises the freelancers who supplied foreign news reports to the foreign-news editors with or without prior agreements. In such cases, the editors were free to consider whether to buy the news reports or not. This category of foreign-news correspondents characterized the Norwegian newspapers in the interwar period. Also through much of the post-war period this category of foreign correspondents existed, and still does. A large number of modern war correspondents who move from one conflict zone to another belong in this category.
The second category covers journalists who were employed by newspapers in other countries, with whom editors made special agreements; they were called stringers. The stringers could deliver relevant news, but they were rewarded only to the extent that their news reports were published. This category of foreign correspondents was used by the major Norwegian newspapers through all three phases discussed here. The stringer system was widespread in most Western nations, and helped to secure media access to news from many different countries and sources without substantial additional costs. All the media included in this study had such agreements. A number of Norwegian journalists in Norway were also stringers for foreign newspapers and news agencies throughout the period. Most of the stringers abroad used by the Norwegian media were not Norwegians, but local foreign journalists or correspondents for other Scandinavian media—mainly Danish or Swedish journalists.
Those falling into the third category of foreign-news correspondents were permanently employed journalists whom the foreign-news editors sent abroad for shorter or longer periods. The editors paid all expenses incurred by the foreign correspondents during their stay abroad, including residential and office costs, school fees for their children, and additional compensation for living abroad and for bringing their spouse along. The noticeable aspect of using this category of correspondent was that it was expensive and entailed high fixed costs for the media. Such correspondents dominated and constituted the core of the Norwegian foreign-news system throughout the post-war period, as was the case especially with Aftenposten and NRK. Until the early 1970s, a distinguishing feature of these correspondents was that they stayed in the same assignment for numerous years before being moved to a different country. From the 1970s, the assignments abroad were reduced to three to four years in the same country. When the journalists got home, they generally entered the permanent staff in foreign news departments before they were again given new correspondent positions. These correspondents were or evolved into regional experts on foreign policy and foreign-news journalism. Experience as foreign-news correspondent was also a springboard for senior editorial positions in the media (see, e.g., Werenskjold 2006a, b, 2007, 2008).
The fourth-category foreign correspondents were the so-called stringer correspondents. This category is complex and evolved over time. In principle, it included local resident journalists abroad who were not formally permanent employees in the foreign news department or the newsroom, but were still perceived as correspondents for the media that published their news reports. They got a low monthly compensation and were paid extra for each article by agreement, but there were no standard agreements. Their arrangements were designed individually by the editors, and not always in writing. This category of foreign-news correspondents was basically used in newspapers not able to finance a permanent correspondent office abroad in the 1950s. The stringer correspondents in the early phase after World War II shared clear similarities with freelancers and the newspapers’ foreign-news correspondents during the interwar period. It was primarily an inexpensive way of getting foreign news. This category of correspondent also pointed to the stringer correspondents in the Norwegian media in the years after 1995.
From 1995 onward, a stringer correspondent was a journalist who was formally self-employed and not a permanent employee. He or she was an independent journalist who signed a contract with one or more media for the delivery of news stories, features, or other reports from abroad. The contracts varied from one stringer correspondent to the other. Many of the stringer correspondents received a basic fee based on an agreed-upon number of articles, as well as bonuses for providing material beyond the basic package. If they produced a good amount of news material, the wages were correspondingly high. All costs for housing and maintaining an office were paid by stringer correspondents themselves. Editors also did not have any formal employer responsibility. The stringer correspondents were free to submit news stories to other media, and could also refuse to cover issues. This new correspondent category was first used by NRK in 1995, but was also later an established norm for similar arrangements in both Aftenposten and Dagbladet when they replaced older correspondents abroad. 4
The change to a new type of correspondent after the Cold War was primarily enacted as a savings measure in the major media. The economic crisis hit the Norwegian media hard in the 1990s, but the transition to a new foreign-news correspondent category was also part of a larger international trend toward the dissolution of permanent staff correspondents, or at least toward cutbacks of favorable financial arrangements that they had traditionally benefited from. The new category of foreign-news correspondents thus contributed to lower fixed costs within the media (Hess 1996, 2006; Gross and Kopper 2011). In contrast to the other categories (full-employed correspondents and the early form of freelancers and stringer correspondents), the new stringer correspondents were characterized as generalists, many of whom had no previous experience of the foreign news field; and only a few of them went back to work in foreign newsrooms at the end of their correspondence period abroad (Werenskjold 2013).
The Norwegian Foreign-News System, 1945–1995
The foreign-news journalism in Norway from 1945 to 1991 was concentrated in Oslo, among the aforementioned news organizations, each with its own foreign newsroom, and with separate foreign-news editors, foreign-news reporters, and correspondents. In practice, this meant NTB, Aftenposten, Arbeiderbladet, and Dagbladet, and NRK, which dominated the field in terms of foreign-news correspondents abroad and foreign-news reporters at home. NTB was, however, the main supplier of newswire reports from abroad for all of the Norwegian media. Both the size of the foreign news departments and the size of the foreign-news correspondent network in the different media varied in size and scope over time. As a state broadcasting monopoly, NRK was politically independent, while the newspapers had clear political affiliations—with Aftenposten, Dagbladet, and Arbeiderbladet serving as the largest organizations within their respective political circles—until the party press system was brought to an end during the 1970s and 1980s. Aftenposten, Norway’s largest newspaper until 1981, was the flagship of the conservative press and clearly supported the Conservative Party (Wasberg 1960; Damsgaard et al. 1991; Bastiansen 2009). Dagbladet was the country’s premier cultural liberal organ (Vedø 1979; Dahl 1993; Seim 2002; Bastiansen 2009) supporting the Liberal Party at the elections, though not always consistently. Dagbladet, so the Norwegian political mythology goes, often promoted Norwegian radicalism and alternative perspectives. Arbeiderbladet was the flagship of the Labor press and was probably the strongest party-controlled newspaper in Norway (Bjørnsen 1984; Fehr 1999; Bastiansen 2009). VG was a politically independent newspaper established in 1945, based on close ties to the Norwegian resistance movement during World War II. The newspaper was seen as a politically bourgeois publication in tabloid format and became Norway’s largest newspaper after 1981 (Eide 1995). Dagens Næringsliv (formerly Handels og Sjøfartstidende) was a politically independent conservative business paper (Møst and Bugjerde 2015).
All the newspapers in the sample were in print during the entire period from 1945 to 1991 and were strong advocates for the political establishment and in varying degrees supporters of the long enduring terms of Norwegian foreign policy. It is still unclear what impact the end of the party press arrangement had on the content of the foreign news coverage in Norwegian newspapers.
The location of Norwegian correspondent offices abroad at the end of the phase 1945–1964
The location of Norwegian correspondent offices abroad at the end of the phase 1965–1974
The location of Norwegian correspondent offices abroad at the end of the phase 1974–1995
Year Zero: Establishing the Norwegian Foreign-News System in 1945
The organization of Norwegian foreign-news journalism in 1945 can best be understood in light of how it was organized before World War II. During the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s, only a few Norwegian journalists had experience working as long-term foreign-news correspondents living abroad. The foreign newsroom in Norwegian newspapers consisted mainly of one or two journalists in charge of editing the foreign news. Their coverage was based mostly on newswires from three major monopoly agencies Agence Havas, Reuters, and DPA, and on reports from random Norwegian freelance reporters and stringers abroad. Aftenposten already had a special arrangement with the British newspaper Daily Telegraph dating from the 1930s. Some of these British journalists had special agreements with the Norwegian editors.
The conservative newspaper Aftenposten was the largest Norwegian daily in 1945. It was also the first daily to establish its own foreign news network during the last days of the war. Many other Norwegian newspapers came out of the war in bad financial shape, while Aftenposten had ample funds to meet the new situation. The newspaper had been running throughout the whole war, while many of its competitors had been shut down by German occupiers. At the war’s end, it hired four foreign-news correspondents: one each in Paris and in New York, and two located in London, on account of Great Britain’s financial and diplomatic importance. All sites were directly connected to the Western war alliance during World War II, and, in the case of New York, to the Norwegian government’s strong affiliation with the newly formed United Nations, where the former Norwegian foreign minister Trygve Lie had served as the first Secretary General. In addition to the four correspondents abroad, Aftenposten’s foreign newsroom in 1945 consisted of five journalists led by a foreign-news editor and a co-editor. Later, in 1951, Aftenposten expanded its network to Bonn. As a close neighbor to Berlin, which was the very hotspot of the Cold War, the Western capital of the newly divided country became a crucial location from which to monitor the relations between the big powers.
The Labor newspaper Arbeiderbladet had a staff of five foreign-news journalists in 1945. Foreign-news editor Finn Moe was effectively a part of the Norwegian diplomatic corps in New York when the UN was established. Arbeiderbladet also launched its first correspondent office in London in 1945. The new correspondent assigned there had been a part of the Norwegian government’s information service in London and Stockholm during the war. The foreign newsroom in Oslo consisted on a daily basis of only two journalists, who shared the editing of the foreign news and writing commentaries on events abroad (Werenskjold 2008).
The liberal cultural newspaper Dagbladet established a correspondent office in London in 1945. We know very little about it. At home, the foreign newsroom practically consisted of one person—Ragnar Vold who alone accounted for the editing of foreign news in the newspaper. Vold was renowned for his bold warnings against the German Nazi-regime and Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, when he had been a correspondent in Germany (1929–1935). He studied languages at the École d’Études Internationales in Geneva, but did not graduate.
Also, the politically independent business newspaper Norges Handels og Sjøfartstidende launched a correspondent office in London in 1945. Given the paper’s focus on trade topics related to Norway’s immense merchant marine, the choice of London, the leading European financial center at the time, was useful for its news coverage. The newly appointed foreign correspondent Martin Marius Martinsen had been living in London since the early 1920s and had worked for the British Information Ministry during the war. A graduate of the Norwegian Naval Academy, he had been working as a journalist since 1917. The newspaper did not establish any foreign newsroom at its office in Oslo; instead, the news from abroad was handled by the general newsroom staff. And finally, the NTB also chose London when it created its first foreign-news correspondence office in 1945. The foreign newsroom in Oslo at the time included only three journalists. The new correspondent in London, Johannes Seland, had already worked as a journalist before the war. Shortly after war broke out, he served as part of the British Intelligence, Special Operation Executive, and later as a secretary for the Norwegian Government’s Information Service. At the end of the war, he was a press officer in the Norwegian Army in Norway. He had no college-level education. The NTB was the main provider of foreign news telegrams to the Norwegian newspapers. NTB also provided news from such large international news agencies as AP and Reuters.
The total number of foreign-news journalists in the Norwegian press amounted only to twenty-one in 1945. Eight of these were foreign correspondents assigned abroad. This was the point of departure for the development of modern Norwegian foreign-news journalism after Wold War II.
All the newspapers in the sample had established their own bureaus in London. Only Aftenposten was able to extend its foreign news network to several other major Western countries. All the newspapers assigned foreign-news correspondents who had served in the Norwegian Government’s Information Service in the United Kingdom or Sweden during the war. Some had also been involved in American propaganda efforts in Europe. One of Aftenposten’s new foreign-news correspondents, Theo Findahl, had stayed in Berlin during the whole war. The other foreign newsroom journalists had various ties to the Norwegian Resistance Movement during the German occupation.
The close relations between the Norwegian government and the Norwegian press continued throughout the 1940s and 1950s. The Norwegian foreign minister Halvard Lange (1946–1965) had regular informal meetings with the foreign-news editors in the major dailies for many years. These relations were especially important when Norway became a member of NATO in 1949. The Norwegian government was in general backed by a very loyal press in terms of support for its foreign policy (Werenskjold 2008, 128).
A number of the foreign-news correspondents had received higher education—sometimes interrupted by the war—or had served as experienced journalists before the war. The organization and establishment of the Norwegian foreign news network in the Western capitals contributed to what several studies have defined as the great “Western turn” (the substantial increase of news from Western Europe and the United States) in Norwegian foreign journalism. Some have argued that this change was directly associated with developments between 1947 and 1949 that led to Norway’s membership in NATO (Skre 2010a, 169–191; 2010b). There is good reason to believe, however, that the Western turn came earlier. The foundation was laid when the modern Norwegian foreign-news system was established in 1945. It seems obvious that having more Norwegian journalists abroad generated more foreign news in the newspapers at home. World War II also altered the old monopoly system of the interwar period, and opened the European market for American news agencies.
When Aftenposten established its foreign news network after the war, it also helped bring about the elite status enjoyed by foreign correspondents among Norwegian journalists, by offering wage and working conditions that surpassed industry averages and that became normative for all Norwegian correspondents abroad up until 1995. Aftenposten, in 1945, paid its correspondents the same rate that the Norwegian state department paid attachés at embassies. Compared to ordinary Norwegian wages, this was very high. The system resulted in a foreign-news system that became increasingly expensive, with high fixed costs (Werenskjold 2006a, 127).
The Transformation of the Foreign-News Corps
The growth in numbers of Norwegian foreign-news journalists, 1945–1995
The changing generations of Norwegian foreign-news journalists, 1945–1995
(Note The chart shows the percentage of foreign-news journalists in each cohort who were present in the earlier cohorts studied. Of foreign-news journalists active in 1950, for example, only half (47%) were active in 1945)
Characteristics by percentage of Norwegian journalists as a whole, total foreign-news journalists, and foreign-news correspondents in particular, 1950–1995
1950 | 1965 | 1980 | 1995 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JOU | FJOU | COR | JOU | FJOU | COR | JOU | FJOU | COR | JOU | FJOU | COR | |
Age (mean) | 42 | 38 | 41 | 43 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 43 | 44 | 44 |
Female | 11 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 28 | 19 | 21 |
Married | 76 | 62 | 79 | 80 | 75 | 71 | 59 | 43 | ||||
Father’s occupation (if known) | ||||||||||||
Farmer, fisherman, craftsmen, manual | 24 | 0 | 7 | 20 | 25 | 35 | 21 | 14 | ||||
Clerk or salesman | 19 | 0 | 26 | 30 | 21 | 20 | 13 | 9 | ||||
Teacher or public official | 24 | 50 | 37 | 10 | 19 | 15 | 26 | 18 | ||||
Technician | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 18 | ||||
Businessman | 14 | 25 | 7 | 0 | 11 | 10 | 15 | 23 | ||||
Professional or academic | 19 | 25 | 15 | 30 | 15 | 10 | 13 | 18 | ||||
Father university education | 10 | 13 | 8 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 20 | 29 | ||||
Born in Oslo | 28 | 13 | 29 | 33 | 20 | 24 | 25 | 32 | ||||
Educational level | ||||||||||||
Some form of higher education | 24 | 52 | 38 | 26 | 50 | 27 | 30 | 77 | 75 | 78 | 80 | 89 |
Bachelor’s degree or higher (4 + yrs higher education) | 13 | 27 | 11 | 13 | 36 | 12 | 13 | 54 | 50 | 34 | 42 | 43 |
Master’s degree | 10 | 21 | 12 | 9 | 24 | 13 | 5 | 25 | 25 | 6 | 20 | 14 |
Studies abroad | 34 | 25 | 29 | 33 | 23 | 21 | 14 | 14 | ||||
Educational subject (incl. minor) | ||||||||||||
History | 21 | 40 | 26 | 64 | 38 | 50 | 41 | 50 | ||||
Political science | 3 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 31 | 19 | 31 | 10 | ||||
Social science, law, or economy | 21 | 20 | 13 | 9 | 21 | 12 | 24 | 30 | ||||
English | 17 | 30 | 29 | 55 | 25 | 38 | 15 | 10 | ||||
Norwegian or literature | 17 | 30 | 8 | 18 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 10 | ||||
Other language | 17 | 30 | 24 | 36 | 16 | 12 | 20 | 30 | ||||
Journalism education | 7 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 11 | 20 | 25 | 14 | 17 | 32 | 31 | 32 |
Military, state and political experience | ||||||||||||
London press office in war or resistance | 31 | 38 | 13 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Military education | 14 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 19 | 25 | 17 | 21 | ||||
PR worker for state organization | 10 | 25 | 13 | 13 | 17 | 17 | 12 | 11 | ||||
Political position | 14 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 14 | 21 | ||||
Professional experience (years, mean) | ||||||||||||
In foreign journalism | 7 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 14 | 12 | ||||
In journalism in total | 13 | 16 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 22 | 21 | ||||
Years as a correspodent | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | ||||
Age when first held job as a foreign journalist | 32 | 36 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 31 | 32 | ||||
Leadership in press organization | 21 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 23 | 21 | 19 | 25 | ||||
Various | ||||||||||||
Prize for journalism | 14 | 0 | 18 | 27 | 11 | 21 | 12 | 18 | ||||
Written nonfiction book | 22 | 21 | 13 | 24 | 16 | 27 | 26 | 22 | 38 | 16 | 42 | 57 |
In the later periods under study, however, foreign journalism appears to have been a career path increasingly reserved for experienced journalists rather than expert journalists, with less prior specialist knowledge of the countries from which they reported. Hiring practices also became more democratic: whereas in the early periods, it was not uncommon to find foreign-news journalists whose fathers occupied the country’s highest professional and political positions (e.g., professors, members of Parliament, and justices on the Supreme Court), such elite backgrounds were rare in the last two periods. While until 1995 foreign journalists were more likely than other journalists to have been born abroad, they were not more likely to have been born in the largest cities of Norway. In the latest period studied, however, this pattern has reversed.
Whereas only 4% of the male population in Norway had received some form of higher education as of 1950, more than half of the foreign-news journalists had some college experience, and one in five had the equivalent of a master’s degree. In 1980 and 1995 higher education appears to have been more or less a requirement for those working in foreign journalism—approximately 80% had received at least some college education or experience at a similar institution. It is notable, however, that the percentage of those holding a master’s degree did not increase from 1945 to 1995—a period when the educational level of the population in general rose considerably. And while foreign journalists from the fifties to the early eighties were much more likely to hold a master’s degree than other journalists and to have contact with academia—by writing for scientific journals, appearing at conferences, holding part- or full-time posts as lecturers—this difference largely disappeared by 1995. Foreign-news workers were becoming less involved in academia. In terms of educational subjects, there is a great deal of continuity: history, languages, and various aspects of social and economic-legal sciences—usually studied at the University of Oslo—are the most common areas of study for foreign-news journalists in all periods. After 1965, however, there appears to be a slight shift from the humanities toward the social sciences, where comparative politics and, after 1980, journalism, become more popular, and language studies less so. It is notable that while more foreign-news journalists in 1995 had some form of higher education, studies abroad became less common, dropping markedly from 1980. In terms of actual experience in foreign settings, however, a more striking difference can be found. Given that the earlier foreign-news journalists were also very likely to have lived and worked abroad during the war years, whether working for publications or in state organizations operating outside Norway, international experience appears to have decreased markedly overall among foreign-news journalists in the later period. This seems to be a part of an international trend.
As noted, the first generation of foreign-news journalists were heavily embedded in Norwegian state and military organizations. In 1945, every correspondent had served the war government in London’s press office, and many had served in the resistance movement or spent their time in Stockholm or the United States during the war. Although only a minority of foreign-news journalists may have undergone a military education, four of the six major foreign newsrooms (Aftenposten, NRK, NTB, and VG) nevertheless had journalists or correspondents with such backgrounds in 1980 and 1995. Also, working directly for state organizations in the area of public relations was not uncommon, and such involvement gave many of these journalists continuing ties with the military and state apparatus during the last part of the Cold War.
Foreign-news correspondents have very high public visibility. This was particularly true for those employed by NRK, given that Norway did not have other national television and radio channels until the 1990s and thus its foreign news reporters would be familiar faces and voices to every citizen. The typical newspaper layout—with pages devoted to opinion columns and special features and displaying headshots of the writers—made it so that correspondents and regular columnists in the largest newspapers would be familiar to most of the reading public. Importantly, however, their role as intermediators and interpreters of world affairs was not limited to their reporting. Many were active public speakers and lecturers, tour guides and authors, and they played a prominent role as public intellectuals. Two outstanding examples are Jahn Otto Johansen and Hans Wilhelm Steinfeld, both correspondents for NRK. Johansen (Moscow 1975–1977, Washington 1985–1990, and Berlin 1995–2000) has written over sixty books—including several national bestsellers on international politics and history—and in 1991 was voted as the most trustworthy Norwegian in a national poll. Steinfeld (Moscow 1980–1984, 1988–1994, 2000–2003, 2010–2014 and the Balkans in 1999) has similarly written dozens of books and given countless speeches on political history.
Correspondents in all years studied are more likely to have had fathers with higher education and higher social positions than those of other types of foreign journalists. Compared to descriptions of the recruitment of foreign correspondents in other countries, their backgrounds do appear, however, to have had fewer of the traditional elite markings, and to have been more comparable to those of regular journalists. In Norway, even educational capital does not appear to have been decisive for such assignments: correspondents were more often educated in history and languages than were other foreign journalists, but were not more likely to have had a master’s degree or longer experience working in foreign news—actually, quite the reverse (see Table 9.1).
Norwegian foreign-news editors and co-editors usually had markedly longer careers in foreign journalism behind them and were generally more highly educated than correspondents, more likely to be married, and more likely to hold positions in press organizations.
The Cold War in the Field of Foreign-news Journalism
While our investigation so far has suggested some broad and persistent differences among some groups of Norwegian foreign-news journalists, such group-by-group comparisons are limited. First, they disregard the enormous variation inside each of these categories—not all foreign correspondents are equal in status and experience, and there are many examples of news workers working in Norway having more experience and status than many foreign-news correspondents, and so forth. Second, focus on such editorial categories leaves out many of the other characteristics that contribute to the structure of the corps. Given our interest in the Cold War, we are particularly interested in the differences among newsrooms (with strongly varying political affiliations) and the status of various cities as assignments for correspondents.
The field of Norwegian foreign-news workers, selected characteristics, 1980
(Note Cities and publications in monospace font refer to present or previous postings and places of work, regular fonts refers to position in 1980)
The field of Norwegian foreign-news workers, active individuals, 1980
The vertical axis on the graph sets apart the more experienced foreign-news journalists (at the top of the graph) from the younger (at the bottom), and foreign-news correspondents from other journalists. Seniority in the field—which tends to go with various forms of distinction and recognition (e.g., being mentioned in Who´s Who, having published books or received prizes for journalism)—separates journalists for the NTB and Arbeiderbladet from the older journalists in Aftenposten and NRK, with the tabloids (VG and Dagbladet) in a more intermediate position. The horizontal axis nuances this opposition by separating foreign journalists with higher educational investments (on the left of the graph) from those with less or no university experience at all, while the latter more often have some form of journalism education. More extensive university educations also tend to be linked with slightly more socially advantageous backgrounds in terms of cultural capital. In regard to the more experienced journalists, the axis separates younger correspondents and editors from the older editors (who are themselves often former correspondents), where the former not only more often have spent more years in college—often studying history and languages—but often have some link with academia and political organizations; whereas the older editors more often have held positions in journalist organizations. Such traits also underlie the contrast between Dagbladet and NRK versus Aftenposten and VG.
One should here note the tendency for correspondents who occupied the central postings during the Cold War (Moscow, Washington, Bonn/Berlin) to have fulfilled the strictest requirements in terms of previous experience and general capital in this field, reflecting the importance and prestige bestowed to these places by their importance in the Cold War.
Conclusion
The locations and the extension of the correspondent offices abroad were determined by the political events taking places in a region, the international news events during the Cold War, and especially by the financial resources of each publication.
As stated in the introduction, the Cold War was in fact the golden age of the Norwegian foreign-news system. Its organization developed through three main phases. In the period 1945–1964, the modern foreign system of permanent hired foreign-news correspondents working abroad was established. In the second phase—from 1965 to 1974—the system expanded with an increasing number of foreign-news correspondents located in new countries and continents, but still within the main East-West axis of the Cold War. Most offices were located in the West. In the third phase—from 1975 to 1995—the Norwegian foreign system reached its peak, before the economic crisis in the media industry toward the end of the 1990s forced the closing of correspondent offices and changes in the organization of foreign-news journalism in Norway. In the third phase, the Norwegian foreign-news system also adjusted to the North-South dimension of the Cold War, by establishing new foreign-news correspondent positions in the Third World countries in Africa and Latin America. Aftenposten and NRK dominated the Norwegian foreign-news system during the Cold War. The other Norwegian media failed to maintain their correspondent network at the same level. The most experienced foreign-news journalists and correspondents were employed by Aftenposten or NRK.
We have demonstrated not only the numerical expansion of the news corps in this period, but also its transformation. Whereas foreign-news correspondents in the first decades after World War II were a journalistic elite—especially those assigned to Cold War hotspots (Washington, Bonn, and Moscow), many of whom included active public intellectuals and celebrities with relatively higher educational attainment and a more privileged social upbringing—the data suggest a general mainstreaming of the foreign-news corps, in particular after 1980. Foreign journalists have become increasingly similar to regular journalists in their recruitment, and journalistic experience appears to have become gradually more important than formal expertise on the regions covered.
It seems likely that new journalistic ideology, often referred to as journalism (Petersson 1994), was well adapted to the needs of organizational changes during the media crisis in the late 1990s, when many of the Norwegian media companies instituted a hiring freeze to save money. The idea that a good journalist could write about anything was combined with economic imperatives. The management refrained from hiring new journalists with expertise, and instead very often reused journalists from other departments in the publication. This appears to be in line with common trends in the media worldwide.
By 1995, few of those who had reported world news for Norwegians during the most important years of the Cold War remained, and there was considerably less expertise within foreign newsrooms and among correspondents than in previous decades. There are reasons to believe that the foreign-news system developed during the Cold War made the Norwegian public better informed about the world affairs than if they had been totally dependent on foreign sources alone. There is also reason to believe that changes in the foreign-news system also contributed to changes in the media content. What impact this had on shaping Norwegians’ worldviews we still do not know.
Notes
- 1.
Melle (1973), Ottosen (1991, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2010), Bastiansen (1997), Ottosen and Nohrstedt (2001, 2005), Hagvaag et al. (2002), Nohrstedt et al. (2002), Ottosen and Eide (2002, 2013), Melle (2006), and Godbolt (2010).
- 2.
For a more comprehensive discussion and bibliography, see Broady (2002).
- 3.
In Norway, two examples are the earlier mentioned study by Werenskjold (2011, 2013) and Høyer and Ihlen (1998). The latter collected data on the education and social background of Norwegian journalists active during the period 1930–1990 from the biographical collections published by the Association of Journalists.
- 4.
When NRK closed the permanent correspondent office in London in 1994, Anne Groth continued as a stringer correspondent in the British capital from 1995 to 2000. She was the first journalist who signed onto the new stringer correspondent role in the major media. See Nakken (2007).
- 5.
Bourdieu (1996). Some early works in this tradition are collected in Benson and Neveu (2005). In Norway, the journalistic field has been studied by Hovden (2008, 2012).
- 6.
Space does not permit us to go into the details of this statistical construction. More details can be found in an earlier version of this chapter (Hovden and Werenskjold 2014).