It’s actually hard to believe, but listen – whilst we’re waiting for the allocation of press subsidies (production grants) at the end of October/beginning of November: Over the last ten years, the socialist newspaper Klassekampen has received a total of 420 million kroner in press subsidies – 45 million last year alone, or ten per cent of the total pot.
By contrast, the newspaper *Document*, so vilified by those in power and the authorities, has received a total of 8.4 million kroner (over the last three years) – in the entire time the newspaper has existed, and NOK 2.7 million in the latest allocation in October/November 2025.
Dagsavisen, Morgenbladet, Vårt Land and Nationen
Morgenbladet received 31.4 million in the latest allocation, Vårt Land 26.7 million, whilst Dagsavisen had to make do with 23.6 million kroner.
Dagsavisen, or Arbeiderbladet as the Labour Party’s newspaper was formerly known, is the newspaper that has received the most press support overall since the scheme was established by the Borten government in 1969 ‘to prevent the demise of opinion-forming, competition-exposed newspapers in towns and rural areas’.
As far as I can see, the party newspaper *Nationen* (Sp) ranks right at the very top of the list of recipients of press subsidies over the years (alongside *Arbeiderbladet* / *Dagsavisen* and *Vårt Land*), and most recently, in the latest allocation, the newspaper – which has a higher subscription figure than Document, but comparable total readership figures, including Facebook – received just under 22 million kroner in press subsidies. This is simply to illustrate the proportions – or the lack thereof – in the scheme.
Unequal rules
Document is defined by the Norwegian Media Authority as a niche newspaper, whatever that might mean beyond the fact that its press subsidy is shrinking sharply. As a media expert with a long career, I am tempted to say that Doc. has been given that label, and thus been placed in the tightest of boxes, because those in power (in this case the Norwegian Media Authority) wish to limit the newspaper’s influence – both in terms of content and finances.
If the rules were the same for, say, Dagsavisen and Document, Document – in its current competitive position as the sixth or seventh-largest newspaper in Oslo and around 15th–20th nationally – would have received at least an estimated six to seven million in press subsidies. Avisa Oslo, which is of a comparable size, received just under ten million kroner in the last allocation.
Clear political motives
We can clearly see who are the privileged few, and who are placed at the bottom of the ladder, when those in power and the establishment distribute their funding and, in many cases, decide who shall survive and who is at risk of facing the death of the press.
The fact that the former AKP-ml newspaper *Klasskampen* has, over the last ten years, received almost as much press support as the entire combined annual pot (an average of 430 million over the last ten years) and around ten per cent of the total support allocated for the same period, and *Dagsavisen* has received almost exactly 400 million over the same period (with *Nationen* and *Vårt Land* hot on its heels), speaks volumes about who this scheme is designed for and the political motives at play.
Once again: What matters here is being on good terms with those in power, not being overly critical, just a respectable socialist, such as ‘Klassekampen’, a staunch supporter of the National Farmers’ Party, like Nationen, or a non-committal Christian/Muslim coalition newspaper such as Vårt Land. Possibly a newly converted mainstream cultural newspaper, such as *Morgenbladet*.
In short – to put it in a nutshell: Go woke.
