RSS

In the wake of the Icelandic banking meltdown of 2008, the locals are fed up with behind the scenes deals and a lack of transparency. After a leading bank implicated in Iceland's financial disaster got an injunction against a news story that would have shed light on secret banking activities, the Icelandic parliament has been spurred on by its constituents to take action. The result has been a proposal to take best practice media laws from around the world and melt them together into one comprehensive media law as proposed by the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative).

In today's age of digitalized and borderless information, the IMMI initiative would seek to strengthen the free flow of information through many means, one of which would be providing a computer server haven for investigative journalism beyond the reach of foreign governments and corporations. Furthermore, a media haven could protect journalists and media outlets against unfair libel charges. Iceland's proposed haven could become a powerful tool to expose powerful corporate irregularities as well as oppressive governments. It seems ironic that such a noble endeavor in the pursuit of truth and accountability is strikingly similar to some of the same principles used to justify tax havens in certain European countries.     

First of all, while laws governing tax havens may differ slightly from country to country, the principle of secrecy is consistent and paramount regarding the confidentiality of client-bank communications in European tax havens. This notion is even enshrined in national constitutions. Bankers are required to protect their client's money from native tax authorities and more importantly withhold names unless proof of a crime can be presented. Exactly the same principle could be used by Iceland to protect journalists' stories from censorship by governments and corporations being exposed by sound investigative journalism. In addition, the idea of media organizations being granted a type of journalistic working asylum in Iceland from governments with a track record of human rights abuses and persecution is being mulled but may prove impossible. Journalists on the frontlines would still have to bear the greatest risk while their registered operations in Iceland are granted protection.

Furthermore, Iceland's proposal, if it were to become law, could offer financial protection for small media outlets. Currently targets of investigative journalism can shop around for friendly courts to file defamation charges against the publishing media. Whereas corporations and governments have deep pockets, many journalists and start ups cannot afford the inherent legal costs and simply have to pull stories or risk bankruptcy. Small media outfits based on Icelandic servers would be better protected from libel charges, although this point is legally quite technical.

Many wrinkles still need to be ironed out and the true effectiveness of this proposal may not be measurable until it is put into practice. However, if tax havens continue to be tolerated, why not promote some of the same standards for important investigative journalism? Surely the work undertaken by journalists reporting on human rights abuses, unethical business practices or government oppression should be deemed as worthy if not worthier than the work done by bankers. The economic benefits resulting from the high end infrastructure, technology and skilled workforce needed to implement this vision could become a business model for other smallish countries, for example the Baltics.

This development in international media is a potential game changer. It will be interesting to follow this story and the potential spread of this model. I welcome your comments, both positive and critical, on this issue.

Gregg Dubow is a language trainer based in southern Germany and is currently studying International Relations as segway into a different career.

Related Material:

• Ulf Gartzke: General McChrystal: Repeat Offender
• Abbas Daiyar: Terrorists Are Winning the Media War