| dc.description.abstract | Denne masteroppgaven er en mediesosiologisk analyse av to medierte skandaler, Statoilsaken (2003) og Telenorsaken (2008). Skandaleoppslagene i Statoilsaken handlet om avsløringer knyttet til korrupsjon i forbindelse med selskapets ekspansjon til det iranske markedet (2003). Telenorsaken handlet om spørsmålet om brudd på etiske retningslinjer med hensyn til avsløringer om dødsfall, forurensning og arbeidsskader i forbindelse med selskapets virksomhet i Bangladesh (2008).<br>
Problemstillingen for oppgaven er hvorvidt Telenorsaken og Statoilsaken kan kategoriseres som mediedrev i en skandinavisk forskningskontekst. Hvilke implikasjoner får i tilfelle det? Hvilke fellestrekk finner man i mediedekningen av sakene, og hva er forskjellene?<br>
I teorikapittelet redegjøres det for begrepet mediedrev. Begrepet mediedrev ses innledningsvis på bakgrunn av mediesosiologen Thompsons diskusjon av den medierte skandalens funksjon som drivkraft innefor mediefeltet. Begrepet diskuteres i teorikapittelet med henblikk på problemstillingen og forskningsfeltet slik det skisseres i casestudiesamlingen Skandalens Markedsplass. Politikk, moral og mediedrev (2009). Skillet mellom politikk skandaler og politikerskandaler tematiseres i forhold til de ovenfor nevnte momenter.<br>
I metodekapittelet redegjøres det nærmere for valg av casestudiemetoden mht. problemstillingen. Avgrensingen av analysematerialet, hvor det fokuseres på avisdekningen av Statoil september 2003, og Telenor mai/juni 2008, begrunnes og diskuteres. Det redegjøres også for Corbin og Strauss (Grounded Theory) sin diskusjon av evaluerende kriterier for et forskningsopplegg. De evaluerende kriterier er veiledende for metodiske valg og refleksjoner i denne oppgavens casestudium. I denne sammenheng vil det også diskuteres hvorvidt saker som ikke lenger settes på dagsorden er noe man kan tematisere og vurdere i forhold til et innsamlet datamateriale.<br>
Analysekapitlene er bygd opp i tre deler. Først analyseres avisdekningen av Statoil, så avisdekningen av Telenor. Til sist vil mediedekningen av de to casene sammenlignes i et eget kapittel. Avisene som er valgt ut er primært Aftenposten, Dagens Næringsliv og nyhetsbyrået NTB. Begge avisene var sentrale i dekningen av sakene, mens NTB er tatt med for å belyse spredningen av sakens vinklinger til andre medieplattformer. For å sammenligne likheter og forskjeller i mediedekningen, har jeg konstruert en kodebok som deler inn avisartiklene mht. om vinklingen er kritisk og/eller stillingtagende. Kodebokens kategorier er konstruert for å operasjonalisere forskningsspørsmålet om mediedrev mht. sakens omfang og kritiske dekning. En nærlesning av artiklene er nødvendig for om man kan identifisere ulike faser i opprullingen av skandalene, og hva slags implikasjoner dette har mht. likheter og forskjeller mellom de to casene.<br>
Analysen av Statoilsaken viser at mediedekningen er personfokusert og knyttet til en prosess rundt konsernlederens avgang. Jeg finner dermed støtte til tesen om mediedrev, hvor kritisk vinkling, fokus og omfang sprer seg på tvers av forskjellige redaksjoner. Dette mediedrevet medvirket til at pressen, med Dagens Næringsliv i spissen, ble en sterk pådriver for at konsernleder Fjell ble sparket av styret fra sin stilling den 24. september 2003.<br>
Jeg finner også ansatser til et ledersentrert mediedrev i Telenorsaken. Det er særlig hovedtendenser i avisdekningen som illustrerer denne formen for mediedramaturgi. Dokumentarfilmen, som først var ute og avslørte brudd på Telenors "Codes of Conduct", skiller seg ut fra resten av mediedekningen, ved at kritikken i større grad setter fokus på selskapets institusjonelle praksis enn konsernsjefens eventuelle normbrudd og fratredelse.<br>
Den negative medieomtalen i avisene eskalerer imidlertid ikke til en prosess som ender med konsernsjef Baksaas sin avgang. Selv om jeg i dette tilfellet også finner empirisk belegg for en varig og kritisk mediedekning, hvor det stilles spørsmål ved konsernlederens tillit i kommentarstoffet, er den medierte skandalen sammenlignet med Statoilsaken mindre omfattende. Reportasjestoffet i Dagens Næringsliv illustrerer at avisen ikke var like intens i sin kritikk i Telenorsaken. Dagens Næringsliv overtok dermed ikke Aftenpostens tilløp til en relativt kritisk dekning av Telenor og konsernsjefen i sakens første faser.<br>
En av grunnene til at Telenorsaken ble mindre omfattende kan være at "eierskapet til saken" er mer fragmentert mellom ulike medieplattformer (NRK, Aftenposten og Dagens Næringsliv). Andre viktige forutsetninger er at medieutviklingen ble styrt i en annen retning ved at: 1) Telenor bidro til å styre hvem som fikk eksklusivitet, der selskapet byttet fra Aftenposten til Dagens Næringsliv i viktige vendepunkt for saken 2) Telenor var på offensiven i forkant av visningen av dokumentarfilmen 3) konsernlederen la seg fullstendig flat for kritikken 4) en ny sak dominerte mediebildet i juni (Telenors eventuelle oppkjøp av Telia Sonera), som overskygget den medierte skandalen. | nor |
| dc.description.abstract | Mediated Scandals: The case of Statoil and Telenor<br>
Comparative case study: This thesis is a case study where I explore two mediated political scandals in a Nordic context. Both mediated scandals are connected to two different partly state-owned Norwegian companies; Statoil and Telenor.<br>
The two cases related to the media coverage of Telenor (2008) and Statoil (2003) are selected on the basis that they are somewhat atypical scandals compared to the cases selected for investigation in the case-study collection: “Skandalenes Markedsplass” (Allern & Pollack 2009)” (translated to "Mediated Scandals" 2012, Allern & Pollack, red). The cases investigated in “Skandalenes Markedsplass” are mediated scandals that often concern political leader’s personal life. This is not the case for the two scandals selected for further inquiry in this study.<br>
The study starts off focusing on the media coverage by the Norwegian press in 2003 related to allegations of corruption in Iran connected to the oil company Statoil. The corruption scandal emerged as a result of Statoil’s new involvement with developing its enterprise in the middle-east. The case of Statoil’s corruption scandal is then systematically compared with the media coverage related to the allegations of breaking the “Code of Conduct” in Bangladesh for the telecommunications company Telenor, as it was reported by the Norwegian press in 2008.<br>
In the case of Statoil there was a whistle-blower, recruited from within the company, who leaked the story to the biggest national financial newspaper in Norway called “Dagens Næringsliv”. In the case of Telenor, there was an independently produced Danish documentary, called “A Tower of Promises”, (aired on national television, spring of 2008) which revealed that the company had broken ethical guidelines for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As a consequence of breaking the ethical framework for working conditions, children working in their factories in Bangladesh had lost their lives. Further, the documentary also revealed that the local environment around the factory was polluted to the extent that crops had started to fail.<br>
The Problem Statement: To what extent can the case of Statoil (2003) and Telenor (2008) be characterized as a media drive hunt in a Scandinavian case-study research context? If so, what might the implications of this be? What are the common traits of the media coverage of the two cases, and what are the differences?<br>
The thesis starts out with defining the Scandinavian research context, to shed some light on what characterizes a mediated political scandal, and how this is related to the definition of a "media drive hunt" . After explaining the difference between personalized scandals (connected to politicians and exposure of sex-scandals, politicians personal economy and so-forth), and political scandals (as are the case for Statoil 2003, and Watergate 1978) as defined by Allern & Pollack (2009), the thesis goes on exploring whether the media coverage of the two cases follow the same media logic as portrayed in the typical personal-oriented media scandals.<br>
Findings: In my thesis, I found that the two cases, to an extent, follow the same media logic as more personalized political scandals. The analysis of the media coverage shows that even though both cases, to a certain degree, are framed as problems related to wider social and political challenges, the solution-frames and further media coverage in the Norwegian press, focuses on a more personalized frame. The question of replacing the leadership becomes central for the journalists in the later stages of the “mediated scandal”. Institutional concerns and structures are then left in the shadows, and are not as clearly articulated in the later phases of the media coverage of Statoil and Telenor. One of the implications of this is that replacing leadership becomes the top priority of the media coverage of the two cases, even though this was an absent perspective in the documentary “The tower of promises” related to revealing the Telenor-case. Because the story in the newspapers were framed as a “moral” and personalized one, it could be “solved” by retirement and/or showing remorse, and thus shifting the focus away from a more structural oriented perspective.<br>
Furthermore, I find that there are crucial differences between how the two state-owned companies make use of media strategies to respond to the negative media coverage. Baksaas, head of Telenor in 2008, admits and takes responsibility for the allegations at an earlier stage, compared to Statoil and its leader Fjell’s response to the media coverage. The newspapers sole ownership of the news story – partly a result of access to news sources – (Dagens Næringsliv) also contributed to the heavy media coverage which ended with Fjell’s resignation in 2003.<br>
By comparing the two cases, I also found that journalists covering the Telenor-case to a lesser degree asked him if he was going to withdraw from his position. “News ownership” of the story, and media coverage, was more dispersed, and less intense in the Telenor case; where the documentary, and the two traditionally liberal-conservative national papers “Aftenposten” and “Dagens Næringsliv” took turns in having “news ownership” to the story. The thesis argues that this could partly be understood as a result of Telenor’s media strategy of choosing which paper to give exclusive statements and interviews to. In addition, another news story, related to taking over a Swedish telecommunication-company (TeliaSonera), contributed to a shift in the national press framing of the company’s image to an “business as usual perspective”.<br>
Empirical material and operationalization: Corbin and Strauss (Grounded Theory) criteria for evaluating qualitative research was applied to discuss methodological challenges related to the research design. Their perspective, where they stress the importance of constant comparison and being sensitive to what is visible and what is systematically not apparent in the empirical findings (for example related to media agenda and articulation of interests), was crucial for the conceptualization of this thesis research design.<br>
The media coverage in the Norwegian press of two different cases were selected and compared, because they were both rooted in state-owned companies ambition to expand their business to international markets. The state-based ownership implied that they were still, albeit to a decreasing degree, under democratic and political control. These common features were the rationale behind the comparative study. Moreover, the thesis investigates in both cases the same two Norwegian national newspapers “Dagens Næringsliv”, and “Aftenposten”, and the national news agency “NTB’s” coverage of the issue. The two newspapers were chosen because they had a central role in the development of both cases, regarding revealing and setting the story for the Norwegian audience. NTB is studied to explore how the frames were spread to other newspapers and media platforms. I also investigate the frames offered in the documentary “Tower of promises”, who was aired by the national broadcaster NRK, two days after the story was leaked in an announced press-conference by Telenor to the newspaper Aftenposten.<br>
I have constructed a consistent scheme for investigating the news articles, where one important factor is whether the journalist is taking a stand or not in the article against the company/head of the company. This is found for example in how questions are posed (“Do you now reconsider holding on to your position?”). In my analysis, I also present how the news story develops over time in different phases, inspired by former research on political scandals (Allern & Pollack 2009, Thompson 2000), and decipher through a chronological reading of the selected newspapers, what became the focus of the story throughout the media coverage. | eng |