This article was submitted to Iceland Review. If you would like to make your voice heard, read our Submissions Guidelines here.
Four stories in little more than two weeks suggest a curious editorial fixation with portraying Iceland as overpriced, dysfunctional and hostile to visitors.
There is a familiar rhythm to tourism coverage in Iceland. A visitor pays too much for something. A traveller encounters a queue. Someone posts a complaint on Facebook. Someone else writes an angry account on Reddit.
Within a matter of hours, an everyday irritation has been transformed into a small morality play about Icelandic tourism. Few local outlets appear to embrace this formula as enthusiastically as DV, who I would use as a case study here.
Over a little more than two weeks, the outlet has published a striking run of stories about tourism in Iceland, and as a local, I find it troubling that we as Icelanders are fostering an unwelcome atmosphere.
Individually, each of these pieces can be defended as light news. But taken together and they begin to look like something else: an editorial pattern in which isolated complaints are repeatedly elevated into evidence that tourists are not particularly valued here.
On June 21, DV published an article about a social-media discussion concerning campsite prices. The headline foregrounded a figure of ISK 21,600 for three nights.
On July 1 came another: “Tourist names the one thing that was cheap in Iceland – ‘I’m not coming back’.”
The source was a Reddit post.
An American visitor complained that Iceland had been more expensive than expected, particularly when it came to food. The article proceeded through a catalogue of grievances: petrol-station hot dogs, meat, eggs, restaurant meals, pizza, lamb soup, KFC, accommodation, campsites, washing machines, tumble dryers and a bathing lagoon.
The one thing the visitor found relatively affordable was Iceland’s public swimming pools. The headline, naturally, selected the declaration that the tourist would not return.
Five days later came the caramel story.
An Icelandic tour guide complained on Facebook after buying a Coca-Cola and two individual caramels from a food truck near Kerið. He said the caramels cost ISK 200 each and compared that price with the cost of a full bag in a supermarket.
Okay, some might think this is a perfectly legitimate complaint. Iceland is known to be expensive. Tourist sites can be extremely expensive. Businesses should expect criticism when customers believe prices are excessive.
But DV did not merely report the price. It built an article around the outrage generated by the Facebook post and elevated one of the ugliest comments into the headline: “The idiots are, of course, those who buy this.”
The article then reproduced a selection of hostile reactions. People called for businesses to be named and avoided. One commenter suggested that, at this rate, Iceland would be rid of all tourists within a year or two. Another described the pricing as disgusting.
Again I ask… What, exactly, was the public-interest story?
There was no allegation that the price had been concealed, no evidence presented of unlawful conduct and no broader investigation of pricing practices. Instead, a trivial transaction became another opportunity to present Icelandic tourism as a theatre of greed and fools.
That same day, DV published yet another tourism complaint. This time the subject was Keflavík Airport.
A traveller described difficult conditions at the airport and invited comparison with Heathrow. Again, criticism of Keflavík is entirely legitimate. Airports are public-facing infrastructure. Delays, queues, overcrowding and poor passenger experiences deserve coverage.
But four stories in little more than two weeks raise a reasonable question.
Why does a campsite price discussion become news? Why does a single Reddit post from a disappointed tourist become news? Why does a Facebook complaint about two caramels (of all things) become news? Why does an individual traveller’s account of airport conditions become news?
More importantly, why do all of these stories point to the same tired conclusions?
Iceland is too expensive. Tourism businesses are greedy. Visitors are unhappy. The airport is dysfunctional. People will not come back.
Yada yada yada.
Surely, any reasonable has to ask; at what point does repetition in our media landscape become deliberate framing?
My point is that most of these posts are not news. Yet when a negative anecdote about Icelandic tourism appears online, DV seems remarkably willing to promote it into a national story.
Tourism is one of Iceland’s most important industries. It deserves aggressive journalism. There are major questions to investigate: working conditions, environmental pressure, taxation, land access, safety, housing, infrastructure, ownership and the balance between private profit and public cost.
There are legitimate questions about whether visitors are being overcharged. There are legitimate questions about conditions at Keflavík Airport. There are legitimate questions about campsite prices and whether Iceland offers value for money.
But answering those questions requires reporting.
It requires data, comparison, speaking to businesses, workers, authorities, economists and visitors. It requires establishing whether an anecdote represents a trend.
The distinction matters because tourism is not some abstract foreign force imposed upon Iceland. It is an industry made up of workers, guides, drivers, hotel staff, cleaners, restaurant employees, small business owners and families.
On top of that, it sustains jobs across the country. It supports communities far beyond Reykjavík. It helps maintain international air connections that Icelanders themselves rely upon.
Still, none of that places the industry above criticism.
But there is an uncomfortable contradiction in Iceland’s relationship with tourism. The country benefits enormously from international interest while simultaneously cultivating a domestic language of resentment towards the people who respond to it.
Visitors are invited, marketed to and economically depended upon, then routinely discussed as though their presence were an imposition.
Businesses are encouraged to serve them, then portrayed as morally suspect for charging tourist-market prices. Infrastructure is allowed to lag behind demand, then the resulting congestion is presented as proof that tourism itself is the problem.
DV did not invent this contradiction. But its editorial style appears particularly well suited to deepening it.
Perhaps this is not an anti-tourism agenda. Perhaps it is simply click-driven journalism doing what click-driven journalism does best: finding irritation, stripping away proportion and packaging resentment.
So, is DV merely reporting dissatisfaction with Icelandic tourism, or actively helping to manufacture the impression that dissatisfaction is the whole story?
A country can hardly complain that the world has come to visit while making a habit of telling itself that the visitors are the problem.
