PurposeThe aim of this article is to explain why there is a higher degree of trust in some countries compared to others – and which are the main historical factors that explain these differences. The main focus is on how governments relate to and communicate with its citizens in the times of crises.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is based on comparative historical sociology with a modernity perspective with a special focus on Norway and Scandinavia. The authors do a parallel demonstration of history to confirm and expand the theories that could explain the high level of trust in these countries. The authors also bring in the Spanish experience in order to testify how governmental reactions affected the different levels of trust.FindingsScandinavian governments allowed open communication between different social classes on difficult and important issues, in contrast to Spain in the same period. These two factors therefore expand the understanding of the development of trust: (1) The establishment of the nation state as the organising concept and all-encompassing container of the other institutions (democracy, parliamentarism, trade unions, etc.); (2) The open hand strategy in dealing with deviant opinions, based on democratic compromises and a policing of consent ideology.Originality/valueThe article combines the understanding of the first crisis of modernity and the development of trust and contain a comparative analysis of the development of trust in four different countries. The investigation thus clarifies the correlation between specific historical factors and the levels of trust.

No abstract

For the first time in history there is a possibility of both liquid news production and full access to all the information in the same medium. The production in online newspapers is fluent in the way that both journalists and the public can add new information to already published articles. The audience has access to all information that is published unless it is withdrawn. The challenge for online newspapers is then to create a system that will make all the information available where it is possible for the audience to make priorities. Hyperlinks give an impression of freedom of choice, but it is difficult to make conscious choices based on the information offered.

Even though the Scandinavian countries had failed to create a common defence union at the end of the 1940s, their governments soon managed to create a confidential propaganda collaboration. This Scandinavian propaganda model was based on social democratic politicians’ use of the media and civil society to gain support for defence policy and to counter Soviet propaganda. In this chapter, we analyse how the Norwegian People and Defence (Folk og Forsvar) and the Norwegian Atlantic Committee (Den norske Atlanterhavskomité) were established, how they influenced public opinion on defence and security policy issues, and how they influenced support for the Norwegian NATO membership in the 1950s. The analysis is contextualized with the corresponding organizations in Sweden and Denmark, in which there was close cooperation, confidential exchange of information on propaganda activities, and the fight against communist espionage and sabotage.

No abstract