PFU has decided in favor of NRK in Ester Kristoffer's complaint against them. There goes my respect for PFU. I'll get back with more.

Hei Bjørn.

Jeg har følgende kommentarer:

Hovedproblemet ved reportasjen i dag er ikke at jeg føler det som noen stor belastning å bli tatt til inntekt for å være ansiktet utad til et overveldende nettverk, med angivelig skjulte identiteter som ikke vil framstå med navn, som i vrikeligheten er Jo Benkow, Berthold Grunfeld, Jahn Otto Johansen, General Major Tryggve Thellefsen, og inflytelsesrike personer på Stortinget, som da ikke kan være andre enn jeg har nevnt, som er Jagland, Lillethun, Nilsen, Hagen, Sæhle med videre.

Reportajsen oppleves ikke LENGRE som personlig belastende, utover at jeg føler meg naiv og litt dum i sakens anledning, som ikke gjennomskuet NRK i større grad enn jeg gjorde.

Hovedproblemet med reportasjen er først og fremst at den er LATTERLIG; USANN OG ANTISEMITTISK.

Vedrørende løgnen om at jeg fikk vite hva som ble redigert inn på forhånd:

Jeg spurte NRK flere ganger om å få vite hva som ble redigert inn på forhånd. Jeg truet med å trekke intervjuet hvis jeg ikke fikk vite det. Veum sier da til meg på telefonen: Vil du virkelig TREKKE intervjuet. Stoler du ikke på meg? Det er jo så viktig å få fram meningene dine. Det er jo så viktig det du sier. Dere har jo prosjekter som trenger publisitet.

Veum sa at det var utelukket at jeg kunne trekkes inn i redigeringen, og at det derfor var umulig for ham å gi meg informasjon om hva som ble redigert inn av mine uttalelser

Jeg formidler at intervjuet fortrinnsvis handlet om en kritikk av mediene, og at jeg derofr ikke ubetinget stoler på hvordan NRK takler en slik kritikk, og jeg holdt på mitt.

Etter å ha tenkt med om, ringte jeg Veum, først på telefonsvarer og senere ved personlig kontakt, og jeg sa da at jeg VELGER å stole på dine intensjoner, og velger å gå med på at du kan bruke av itnervjuet, til tross for at jeg ikke får vite hva som blir redigert inn.

Like før sending spør jeg hva som ble sendt. Veum sa da at det kunne han ikke si så mye om, men at de forsøkte å fremstille meningene mine så godt som mulig.

Det finnes en rekke detaljer i denne framstillingen som underbygger mine påstander. Mine påstander kan også underbygges av at jeg holdt flere foredrag, og senest dagen før sending, hvor jeg formidler hva jeg har sagt i intervjuet med Veum, og hvor jeg uttrykker stor spenning vedrørende hva NRK kommer til å sende. Blant annet lurer jeg på om NRK TØR å sende den spesifikke og godt underbygde kritikken av mediene.

Jeg ser også i ettertid at NRK gjorde mislykkede forsøk på å få meg til å sende en mail, hvor det kunne ha sett ut som om jeg har kjennskap til innholdet, men jeg formulerer meg annerledes i denne mailen, slik at den i større gra underbygger min egen versjon. Jeg skriver at NRK står fritt til å bruke alle de uttalelsene som jeg kommer med i intervjuet, med unntak av en som vi har drøftet. Jeg skrev ikke slik som NRK ba om: Jeg har ikke innvendinger mot at NRK bruker "de andre" av mine uttalelser som NRK ønsker å bruke.

Alt dette er for meg et uttrykk for utspekulert manipulering med sannheten. Man har omhyggelig unngått mitt innsyn, samtidig som man har søkt å få det til å se ut som om jeg fikk innsyn. Når NRK etterpå sier at jeg fikk innsyn, er dette ikke en alminnelig løgn for å skjule et dårlig håndtverk. Jeg oppfatter det som en omfattende og omhyggelig planlagt løgn.

Innslaget baserer seg på at man klipper mine uttalselser slik at det virker som om jeg underbygger NRKs påstand om at den Israelske Ambassaden "i all stillhet" har tatt initiativ til et nettverk, hvor jeg er ansiktet utad, hvor de fleste innflytelsesrike personene ikke vil framstå med navn, hvis hovedhensikt er å forsvare Israelsk politikk. En prest sier at nettverket opererer mest i det skjulte.

Foruten at påstandene er latterlige og usanne, underbygger de en fabelaktig mytologi om at jødene konspirerer verden. Koblingen mellom manipuleringene, usannhetene og støtten for disse mytologiene, gjør at jeg ikke viker tilbake for påstanden om at innslaget er et uttrykk for antisemittisme.

Det aller groveste er at NRK presenterte for meg og deg Bjørn, og for 10-15 andre personer at NRK nå ønsket å ta antisemittismen på alvor. Bakgrunnen for innslaget var en økt bekymring for en jødehat. Veum presenterte en nærmest tåredryppende historie om hvordan han hadde kommet til noen dype erkjennelser på Carl Johan ved å overvære folk som demonstrerte mot Israel, som uttrykkte jødehat. Veum trodde det ville være farlig å bære en jødestjerne der. NRK hadde diskutert medienes rolle for denne økende antisemittismen, og var kommet til at noe måtte gjøres. Man søkte derfor nå å formidle det israelske perspektivet ved hjelp av israels venner i Norge. Det var altså nødvendig å få fram begge perspektivene i MidtØsten for å motvirke økende antisemittisme.

På møtet var det flere jøder.

NRKs beskjed til deltagerne er: SLIK ER DET VI HÅNDTERER EN ØKENDE ANTISEMITTISME. Hvor alvorlig er den? Jo så alvorlig at vi lager akkurat dette programmet.

Jeg mener at det underliggende budskapet her er rått, hensynsløst og grusomt. Det er å tråkke på sårbarhet som allerede finnes på gatene i Oslo, spør du meg. Det er å lure seg til tillitt og innsikt i folks sårbarhet, for å tråkke med hælene på deres opplevelser.

Hvor viktig er den økende antisemittismen i Norge. Jo, så viktig at vi tar hånd om den SÅ GODT VI KAN.

Ester

Bjørn and Ester et al.,

I cannot say that the statement that came out in the piece linked to above surprises me in any way. My expectation has been that PFU could not possibly confront this issue in a way that was proper. This is not because the facts are unclear, or that it is difficult to establish the nature of NRKs malfeasance in constructing such a distorted "narrative" that had little if any relationship to the truth. Rather it was because to confront this, would be to undermine profoundly, the heavily staked out investment that so many institutions have in the "narrative" that NRKs 'creative' story fits into.

This piece represented quite nicely in fact, the disparity between image and substance that dominates virtually the entire public discourse and as Ester herself indicated, one of the points of allowing Veum in was to see how the media would address the critiques agaist it.

This was not going to happen... not then, and not now. The only existential "consolation" in the saga, is that this disparity ... is unsustainable.

Its quite interesting to note that in the fourth paragraph of the Journalisten piece, a bit of lip service is given which blithely indicates that NRK may have contrived to create something that was not supported by the facts, and this is addressed as though it were a minor issue. It is interesting because following the line of that inquiry really establishes what SHOULD be the main concern of PFU. Yet, after expressing an obligatory gesture of what amounts to slight consternation, PFU simply "moves on" with the result being that NRK "won" on every point.

They ... did?

If one were not jaded in the extreme, one would be shocked at the arrogance. For my part though, I am jaded thus, and am not shocked even slightly. Saddened though... and distressed at what such a lack of accountability nor even the slightest deference to some distant standard of truthfulness, means for the metaphysics of a free and open discourse. One can conclude with great certainty from this, that here and in many places in the West, what we will "see", almost across the board from the sources that project the vision of the world... will be the result of a filter that passes through an already established narrative of what "ought to be" within the minds of the few. Tragically, those few also dominate the very instruments of that projection, with the result being that we are not in any meaningful sense, "Free Peoples" engaged in an open disucussion of our world.

That is not a sustainable phenomenon, and the further it persists, the more profound will be the reaction to inevitable cracks appearing in the facade.

I do not at all relish this prospect.

But I do indeed despise the unprincipled intellectual and philosophical arrogance, elitism and in the end, ruthlessness... that enables the likes of Veum, and all those who sat in the AV room at NRK and took part in this grand and creative edit (including music selection) where the ends justified the means despite the fact that honesty and decency were long since disdained.

It is, in truth, professionally disturbing and personally disgusting.

But that is not what we will be seeing of this in the projected story is it? In fact, I have little doubt this will be touted, in duly Orwellian logic, as a victory for free speech... Veum may get an award and a dinner for his "brave public stand".

Most people will breathe a sigh of relief that Mother Norway has rebuffed an insidious "cabal" of Jews/Zionists and their minions... that they remember from some documentary they saw last year, who have been trying to infiltrate the tolerant and open minded public discourse here in our progressive minded homeland.

Perhaps some will think: "Maybe we should start getting a little tougher on people who engage in this kind of 'hate speech' before they abuse the privelage of our innate tolerance..."

If so, I'm sure we can depend on NRK to pump out an effective documentary to address the idea, ikke sant?

KM

At least any PFU complaint leads to internal discussion in Norwegian media houses. And internal discussion is definitely needed when it comes to Middle Eastern coverage.

Without the possibility to completely fact-check the case, however, I am not surprised that PFU made the decision they did. I am, however, looking forward to reading the whole 'judgement', still waiting for that to come here.

By the way, there's loads of interesting things in those archives. Other cases concerning Israel-coverage (I'll skip the coding here):

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/pressemeldinger/02-03-19.htm

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/pressemeldinger/01-03-27.htm

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/2001/01-216.htm
(Erez Uriely pops up again)

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/98/98-020.htm
(well, this one is just bizarre, but a good example of... I don't know if I dare to say it, but it begins with "Christian" and ends with "ism")

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/2001/01-131.htm

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/97/97-135.htm
(this one raises quite interesting questions in my opinion)

http://81.0.149.237/pfu/2000/00-176.htm
(and this one is also quite interesting)

Øyvind

I skimmed through those, Øyvind. And it's depressing to read. Don't expect any people who doesn't view the palestinians' cause as the most righteous to dare to appear on norwegian television in the near future.

The current practise of the FPU, while defending the right of free speech, however misapplied in some of these cases, actually serves to scare people who doesn't fiercly sympathise with the palestinians away from the public debate.

And the jury has reached a verdict (Norwegian language).

Note that site for some reason doesn't work with Opera (at least not with mine). Use Mozilla or IE.

It's a very long and complex document, because several different people have complained about the program on different backgrounds. The conclusion, however, is quite short. PFU does not find it substantiated that NRK has made any promises about what the end-product was going to be like, and they emphasize that this product is a result of choices that were and should be of an editorial character.

In my opinion they are perfectly right about that part. Neither do I agree with Ester Kristoffer when she refers to the program as 'anti-Semitic'. But then comes the point where both yours truly, and in fact, PFU, does agree with Kristoffer. PFU states:

i>[NRK] goes far in suggesting that Israeli authorities has a secret cooperation with the Norwegian Israel-friends, something the news report does not fully document.

In my opinion PFU touches something crucial here. I do not think the problem with this news report was what it said. The problem was what it implied. Another problem: What it implied was subjectively coloured, but presented as objective truths. This pretend objectivity is a problem with most journalism in Norway and many other countries, for instance the United States.

I wouldn't expect PFU to raise a discussion about it, as the ideal of objectivity is still close to a religion in some media circles. But it wouldn't hurt of PFU had used the opportunity to at least criticize NRK and the implications made in the news report in their one-line-conclusion [1].

For me, the saddest part of the story is that it damaged the work of Aksjon Buss. In my opinion this action was a serious attempt at focusing on terror victims and their families without drawing strong conclusions about Middle Eastern politics. Sure, several actors wanted to get the story 'of the other side' across, but could that really hurt?

As someone many would consider a pro-Palestinian myself, I would not say so.

There was a problem with Aksjon Buss and that was that several Norwegian newspapers left the same impression as the Jerusalem Post, which wrote: Norwegian Christians sponsor anti-terrorism demonstrations, and told about pro-Israeli Christian rightwing groups trying to get 'the real picture across'. For these confusion to arise, also in the Jerusalem Post, I fear there has been a lack of clarity from the people behind the action.

But still, both non-religious people and people who are supportive of the Palestinian cause took part.

Øyvind

(1) A 'verdict' in PFU can be either 'in breach with good press ethics', 'not in breach with good press ethics' or the halfway 'worthy of criticism'.

Øyvind,

As you say (and as I said above in citing the fourth paragraph of the journalisten piece), the main crux of this issue was in actuality, around the fact that NRK recast the facts that they acquired as journalists, in order to depict something not supported by those facts. There is an even simpler way of stating this: NRK lied and is lying still. I hope you will refrain from responding to that "simplistic" interpretation with a postmodern soliloquy on something which amounts to arguing ovger what the meaning of "is" is.

The 'something' they depicted, was not only "unsupported" by the facts, it was in fact unsupportable. This was in spite of the fact that it was the story that they intended to report from the beginning. Failing to "document" it, they weaved a stroyline that was far indeed from anything remotely related to the truth, or even something so prosaic as merely the facts. As such, they committed the very essence of journalistic malfeasance, and if PFU cannot find it in their mandate to censure such behavior, than they are complicit with it. Period.

Yet you noted that PFU said it "does not find it substantiated that NRK has made any promises about what the end-product was going to be like, and they emphasize that this product is a result of choices that were and should be of an editorial character."... and then stated that you agree with this. But I do not see how that can be so unless you are willing to compartmentalize things that should not be, and to connect things that are not. If indeed NRK was guilty of reporting a story as though it were true, but which was in fact simply not supportable, how can the results whether they were of an "editorial character" or not, be considered unimpeachable.

What are we saying here about editorial character?

Does this mean that editorializing, even if it includes character assassination and demagoguery... is necessarily untouchable because someone who is entrusted with reporting what IS, holds the title of journalist or editor? PFU has in fact, abrogatedt completely, any substance to that trust that must exist in a "free" press, and empowered that institution to become an unchecked force for abuse of that most precious right in free society: The right to know.

This is a truly terrible, odious and disgusting event... and so I am sure there will be awards and commendations among the elite vanguard of progressive thought over it.

KM

Kevin:

I do not feel that I know the case well enough to draw conclusions on whether NRK, as you put it, 'lied and is lying still'. They did, however, imply things that I have not substantiated. They should not have done that. It smells like sensationalism. It smells bad.

I look forward to hearing Bjørns opinions on this. I would also like to see NRK defend themselves publicly, i.e. in a debate against Hallaråker, Kristoffer, etc. The first is likely to happen soon (right, Bjørn?). The latter... oh, well. I am not holding my breath. There's a lot of arrogance amongst journalists. I should know.

Øyvind

Correction: have not seen substantiated.

Hei.

Det er noen som engasjerer seg. Blant annet NEI TIL EU ved en leder i Tromsø. De mener at de har vært utsatt for lignende som meg. De når ikke fram i de store avisene, som de mener at alt for tett linket opp mot hverandre, gjennom Schibstedt. Dernest lager NRK en dustete reportasje hvor hovedinnholdet er at alle som stemmer ja er landsforrædere i følge Nei til EU. Klagen går til PFU, som ikke foretar seg noe. Tilbake står Nei til EU med en følelse av at det er umulig å nå fram i mediene med deres informasjon.

Nei til EU sier at de har arbeidet gjennom lengre tid med å kartlegge hvor problemet sitter. De ønsker rettsak. Og drøfter mulighetene for at flere kan gå sammen, slik at vi kan diskutere prinsippene og problemene, i stedet for de ulike politiske ståstedene.

Nei til EU vil nedlegge PFU i sin nåværende form, og vil ha en klageinstand som fungerer mer uavhengig av pressens egne folk (som har flertall i PFU) Blant annet sitter Egeland (Dagbladet) der - og en tidligere AKPmler.

Ester

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1506