Aftenposten is concerned about NRK's credibility:

The danger is that professional journalistic criteria for news programs are being sacrificed in favor of public appeal. In the long term, credibility - NRK's foremost capital - may suffer.

What brought this on? NRK's dishonest attack on Ester Kristoffer? The neo-pacifism and soft-left slant of their foreign news section? Their dependence on public funding? General incompetence and lack of curiosity?

Nah, seems a resident expert on one of their health programs also writes books and sells food products. Fedon Lindberg, the Norwegian inventor and promoter of an Atkins-related diet, appears regularly on the program Puls, presumably to discuss dietary issues. Aftenposten and others consider this problematic, because it is difficult for viewers to "separate Lindberg's commercial interests from the advice he gives as a professional".

I see their point, but let us keep potential dangers separate from real ones. Lindberg is a dietary outsider, a one-man insurgency against what he believes to be outdated official dogma. I don't know or care if he's right, but he has created a debate where there was none, and debate is good. Unless there are professional reasons he shouldn't appear on a health program, I don't see a problem. It's not like his commercial interests are a secret to viewers.

But let's keep Aftenposten's line of thinking open for a moment, and while rejecting their specific example, ask ourselves if there may be other, similar problems at NRK and other media: Program invites neutral commentator, neutral commentator voices opinion, various incentives are not disclosed.

There was a recent case where NRK invited Ingebrigt Steen Jensen to defend the dairy giant Tine against charges that it was actively sabotaging its competitors, without mentioning that he had consulted for them in the past, but that's not what I have in mind.

I'm thinking of NRK and nearly all other media's use of state-funded foreign policy experts. Primarily from NUPI, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, which is publicly funded and controlled by the Department of Research and Education. I don't mean that NUPI parrots government policy, the incentives are more complex than that. NUPI is in a position where it is both a force that influences government foreign policy, and a "neutral" observer that comments on that policy in the media. It is controlled both by people who, at the department level, decide government policy, and at the organizational level by people who one day hope to decide government policy. This close association with political networks provides all kinds of incentives on researchers that interfer with objectivity.

For instance, Espen Barth Eide, who heads the NUPI department for international politics, was also a high-ranking official at the Foreign Department under the previous Labor government. He remains a foreign policy player within Labor, and yet is consistently referred to only as a "researcher at NUPI". Though theoretically a researcher, in actuality Barth Eide is a pundit, who regularly criticizes the administration from the perspective of the moderate left, on issues I sincerely doubt he has professional expertise in. Most recently, he speculated that Norway's decision to send more forces to Afghanistan is the result of "a certain pressure" from the US. Is this his belief as a person who has done objective research on the political channels between Washington and Oslo, or as a politician who aims for a position in the next Labor government? Who knows?

Though we can do no more than speculate about the specific incentives of NUPI researchers, the result is a remarkable unanimity around a soft-left/neo-pacifist worldview, a worldview unlikely to strongly provoke either the current centre-right government or any future centre-left government.

A certain overlap between political networks, bureaucracies, research institutes and think tanks is probably unavoidable, and it is a rare policy organization that isn't afflicted by feedback loops, but the problem is larger than it has to be when that overlap primarily involves only one major institute, and that institute happens to be state financed. In fact NUPI's only competition for media attention on foreign policy issues appears to be FFI, a military research institute which in my view has more realistic assessments of terrorist threats, but has a much smaller media presence, and is still a government organization, subject to the incentives and worldviews of the military.

The solution has four parts. First, we need independent think tanks. Though a research institution is ostensibly of a higher order of reliability than a think tank, this is not so for NUPI, which is both. Norway's only self-acknowledged think tank at the moment appears to be Civita, a pro-market think tank financed by private companies and individuals. Though they're understandably underused, Civita fills a void in the landscape, and is an example of what we need more of: Independent policy organizations with a diversity of views. No such organization will ever be without financial or political incentives, but at least we can ensure that they're motivated by conflicting incentives, which makes a broad debate more likely.

Second, the media should stop hiding opinion in news articles with the rent-an-expert method. If you make a call to Espen Barth Eide at NUPI, you do so knowing what he's likely to say. Are you then quoting him because he has valuable expertise, or because he can be trusted to say what you're obligated by professional standards not to say yourself. Would it perhaps be more honest to quote a politician instead, who would say the same thing without pretending to be neutral? This has to be cleaned up.

Third, the media should make sure not to blur the line between expertise and punditry. A researcher may have particular expertise within only a limited field of study. Any views they voice outside that field will have a strong element of punditry, armchair speculation by possibly but not always knowledgeable amateurs. There is no such thing as an all-round expert - which means that the most popular so-called experts are actually just pundits. This difference should be indicated, at the very least by dropping the words "expert" and "researcher" where they aren't strictly justified. Even better, leave punditry to the pundits.

Fourth, journalists need to become more knowledgeable themselves about the issues they write about, so that they don't have to depend on experts to put the news into context. This won't violate the principle of objective reporting, as long as the journalists only write what they think is provably true. And if they're wrong, at least they'll be wrong in conflicting directions, whereas a NUPI expert is wrong only in one direction. If you can't have true objectivity, at least you can have conflicting biases and incentives.

Interesting topic. I have read it, and you point towards som persisting problems of media coverage in Norway. Parts of the problem stem from the fact that Norway is such a little pond that there just aren't enough ducks to fill all the different roles. People wear different "hats" for different settings.

These allegations of my colleague occur from time to time. There is a double-role to be aware of here. However, I believe that pointing out such a role is the media's task. It would be great if my head of department were to say after making a statement: "I say this as a devout Social Democrat hoping for a government change come autumn."

Many people here are uncomfortable about the 'expert' label. But, the media love it, and it is a way for them to demonstrate that they have assembled the right people for their report. I am just a "petty" Research Assistant, and time after time when I am in the media, journalists ask if they can call me researcher. That sounds better, and they want me to be more than I am, so that I come across with greater "authority".

NUPI and FFI have a very close collaboration on security studies, especially on terrorism. We agree on a lot more than we disagree about.

http://www.nupi.no/English/Research/Knowledge_base_on_terrorism_and_int._crime/Consortium/

Finally, do keep in mind that NUPI only gets 33% of its budget from the Norwegian state. The rest of the funding must be acquired from other places....guess where... ministeries and departments! So personally, I am more concerned about NUPI paying lip-service to the establishment. There are examples of researchers critizing departemnets who appearently have fallen out of favor for future projects.

I'll be in England the rest of the week so any further response from me on this is unfortunately unlikely.

Aftenposten shouldn't be talking at all about professional journalistic criteria. At least in regards to its coverage of the U.S., Aftenposten does not feel itself constrained by any code of journalistic ethics or professional standards. NRK is no better. Objectivity -- and, consequently, truth -- is of no concern whatsoever to Norwegian journalists, so far as I can see. I thought it was understood that, in Norway (and in Europe, in general), a newspaper plants its flag on the right or on the left of the political spectrum and does not disguise its bias. I think its naive to expect, from such media, an honest attempt to report the truth. In both Aftenposten and NRK, I have seen lies of omission and lies of a more blatant nature. Norwegian journalism is in very serious trouble. Compare either NRK or Aftenposten to berlinsketidende.dk or dn.se, and you will at once see the difference between the tabloids of Norway and the more professional Danish and Swedish organizations. No kidding -- Norwegian journalism is seriously ill, and the Norwegian public has got to start taking notice.

FoxNews is now in Iceland and another country.

Is it in Norway or getting closer????

Or are they beginning to pay attention w/Eason Jordan, Dan Blather, the American blogosphere and the suggestion the Brit blogosphere is about to explode and have an impact on future elections????

There's fear in that article.

Not to talk of NRK itself. NRK has only one sponsor. That sponsor is the sitting Storting (Norwegian parliament). It gets all its money (3+ billion NOK a year) and all its privileges (appropriations, concessionary privileges) from that Storting. It has a existential interest in the composition of that Storting. The only way NRK can influence its income is to try to affect the composition of the Storting.

Torkill Bruland: Not to talk of NRK itself. NRK has only one sponsor. That sponsor is the sitting Storting (Norwegian parliament).

Yeah, and I believe NRK should either be privatized or refocused on its original purpose: to air programs that are too narrow for a commercial channel, but still considered (by arbitrary cultural standards) beneficial. I don't see much need for that kind of channel either, (cable and sattelite TV provides all the narrowness anyone could want), but at least that would be in line with the arguments everyone use for preserving NRK. I don't recall that anyone has ever argued that we need NRK because a commercial channel is unable to make mainstream Friday night talk shows.

But at least NRK faces competition. NUPI are almost alone.

That would be a great idea. But I'm afraid that we are so entrenched in the ideology of the many "universal considerations" that the media itself has put forward to help build their advantage, that you would need some half way solution.

One consideration is that a government sponsored broadcasting corporation shouldn't be institutionalized so as to have its vested interest in one of the contending political alternatives, as NRK is.

I think it is impossible to reach something like that, if NRK gets all its funding trough annual decisions in the Storting.

Another consideration is that if for some reason you need government funded public service broadcasting, then you should make out specifically what it is you need, and why. What purposes and job it it that you need done? How should public service be defined? What should it consist in? Why do we need it? Is it possible to finance somehing like that and not make it institutionally impartial, not economically interested in some rather that another political alternative or party. The curious thing is that this question is handed over to NRK and its discretion.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
- Thomas Jefferson

I totally agree. It is a tyranny.

The way the socialdemocrats have introduced it, is to make it illegal to own a TV set without paying an annual charge directly to the government brodcasting corporation. There is a similar system in other contries in Europe. The Swedish government is currently discussing new ruling to widen the compulsory fee to include owners of personal computers and maybe mobile phones too (the "tv licence" is to be the "media licence"). The size of the charge is set annually by the Storting. Since the 1980 when NRK lost its monopoly, and on the outset of every parliamentary election, labour has been careful to assure NRK of what it is going to do to strengthen and consolidate the prominent position of NRK, if it wins the election.

Trouble is that critizing NRK is very difficult.

One reason is that nominally - and in the ideology preached by the NRK to the norwegian people for 50 years - NRK is the only really free and independent media institution in Norway. The others, the competitors of NRK, we are told, are dependent on profit motives, commercialism, on shareholders influence, on advertisement, economically powerful sponsors that could mount some pressure on them, and so on, making them less free and independent than the government journalists of NRK. Thus the NRKists feels that they are beyond criticism and above suspicion. They behave as if they where like those pure and bodyless creatures in the Bible, hovering high up on the great seraphical hights, with no interest of their own, no egoism or mundane dealings, no idiocyncracies or egocentrism. NRK is the voice of Norway, the Norwegian view, and what unites us.

Contrary to the "commercialism" news media, the "public service" NRKists seems unfaltering in their conviction that they are motivated only by the most non-profit, general, disinterested, and superpersonal considerations, only taking into its account values like "diversity", "liberty of the press", "independent" news reporting, "criticism", "security" in times of national cricis, and so on. And all norwegians seems to be as persuade of the NRKist ideology, as the NRKists is convinced of it.

In my personal view, the perverted reality is that sitting Stortings has not been able to resist the temptation to use positive government sanctions (privileges, subsidies, power of taxation ...) to make important channels of influence economically dependent on them, to counteract the dangers of democracy, the dangers that the mandate of voters always poses to the governement, the danger of not beeing reelected.

I also think that positive sanctions could be an as strong kind of interventionism into the liberty of the press, as the negative sanctions that is used in autocratic states (ban, not getting a concession, taxes, censorship).

I suspect that, when it comes to the discussion, in Norwegian media, of moral issues (as opposed to purely financial or other technical issues), the truth no longer matters. Provided the journalist comes down on the popular side of any issue (the politically correct side), the facts are irrelevant. And so, in any discussion of US foreign policy (a moral issue for Norwegians), accuracy doesn't matter at all -- provided the journalist ends by condemning American policy or methods. When an NRK columnist recently stated that the majority of American soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq are poor and colored, he could rely on the fact that

(1) his readership doesn't know enough to discover his error or lie and
(2) his readership doesn't actually care if what he says is true.

Anti-Americanism is so ingrained now in Western European culture as to discourage accuracy in reporting American affairs. A journalist who actually cast the US in a favorable light would upset readers who, at this point, are wed to a vision of the world that requires that America play the villain. While it's comforting, maybe, to think that all problems can be blamed on the US (some Europeans recently sued the US for what the tsunami did to them in Thailand), these prejudices won't help them make intelligent choices when it comes time to vote for politicians who will implement Norwegian policy. If there are still rational and well-informed Norwegians anywhere out there, they ought to stand up soon and see what they can do to lead Norway out of Mirkwood and back to the real world.

I think some of you are over-dramatizing a little bit here. There are some major problems with Norwegian media, but I doubt that it is much worse than any other country as some of you have suggested.

The only comment I want to make is that of responding to criticism. I have been in several debates in Norway where I have criticized news papers such as VG, Dagbladet and Aftenposten and Tv-stations such as NRK and TV2. (Several of them are commented upon in this forum too) Believe it or not, my personal experience is that NRK and Dagbladet are in a league of their own when it comes to giving voice to criticism of their work. TV2 and VG hardly ever do it in their own media space.

So you get two parallel tracks where there is a lot of misreporting and unannounced bias going on, but there are some who occasionally listen when such issues are raised. Some never. That is a difference worthy of recocnition.

Thanks for reporting on the double role of Espen Barth Eide. I have wondered about some of the comments made earlier by this 'unbiased' NUPI researcher.

Fedor Lindberg's doubtful position as 'the nutrition expert' on NRK's Puls programme does not stand out that much from that of other 'experts' on the panel such as, the homeopathically inclined MD Siri Aabel. At NRK's webside, a viewer/reader with tinnitus was explained that among other reasons "Svak nyreenergi kan også gi øresus ettersom nyrer og ører henger sammen rent energimessig." [Weak kindey energy can also produce tinnitus since kindeys and ears are connected energy-wise]. Hmm, makes sense - doesn't it?

OT, but Kyoto will come up again:

Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap
The high-profile collapse of some Antarctica's ice shelves is likely the result of natural current fluctuations, not global warming, says a leading British expert on polar climates.

This surprising finding is supported by analysis of data from the European Space Agency's ERS-1 satellite, according to Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London. The data, measuring changes in ice thickness across the Antarctic ice sheet using the polar orbiting satellite, show areas of growth from snowfall are as common as areas of decline....

Anders wrote: "There are some major problems with Norwegian media, but I doubt that it is much worse than any other country as some of you have suggested."

It's easy to find out. Every time you read Aftenposten and NRK, go check the foreign media. Read NY Times or Washington Post orBBC or Berlingske Tidende or Dagens Nyheter (Sweden). Read and compare. Pick any news story for that day and compare the covereage and analysis.

What is troubling is not what is being written and presented in Norwegian media, but why.
I can answer at least one why: when you read a list of professors at the Norwegian journalist college, the most prestigious at least, it is like reading, verbatim, a list of the leadership of the Norwegian AKP-ml(revolutionary marxists of the 70s).
Why? Because they are the very same people. Yep, the people teaching budding journalists about society and it's workings are the very same who not long time ago were preaching "armed revolution", when not haranging about the blessings of the interesting social experiment in Cambodia. Or Kampuchea, as they spelled it.
And I don't believe they have changed.

As a little example of what appears in Aftenposten and its little brothers -- a headline today reads, "Bush-onkel rik på krig" ("Bush Uncle Rich from War"). It's one of two articles in today's online edition that report on American affairs -- the other being on article on Bush's conversation with Putin. The article about Bush's uncle tells us that the man sits on the board of a company that provides armor for Humvees used by the U.S. military in Iraq. He made a bunch of money this last year on that company's stock. That's the story. There's nothing in the story that suggests that a crime was committed. There's nothing there that even suggests an impropriety of some sort. Is this important news? Well, no, it's not important news. In fact, it's not news at all if nothing illegal or improper was done. Armor is a good and necessary thing. Private companies supply equipment to the military here in the U.S., and America does not believe (as do many in Europe) that all wars are evil. And so why does this article appear in Aftenposten? Well, obviously, Aftenposten means to imply that something improper (and probably immoral) has occurred. It wants us to believe -- without saying this -- that Bush is waging war in Iraq in order to enrich himself and his family. It's an immoral war for riches, Aftenposten wants to say. Technically, Aftenposten hasn't lied. Yet, the editors at Aftenposten have expressed an opinion that can't easily be mistaken. Day by day, Aftenposten and NRK and other Norwegian media tell Norway in this manner what to think about that monster across the sea. It's not necessary anymore to make the anti-American argument. After thirty-plus years of this poison, the Norwegian public is convinced that the U.S. is rotten from stem to stern. All that's necessary now is a little poke every once in a while. Here's a story about Bush's uncle, says Aftenposten. Aftenposten winks and knows that its readers can take it from there.

Bah. Problem with Norwegian news coverage on foreign affairs is that they are too reliant on English-language newspapers.

They read them, then they write pretty much the same stuff themselves. This is also through for the tiny article Gill mentions, a story reported of by Reuters, Newsday, Boston Herald, CNN, ABC News, The Guardian, CBS News, USA Today and a score of other American, British and English-language media. And yet you complain when Aftenposten writes it? Please.

Do Norwegian journalists read German newspapers? Not often. Do they bother reading French? Hah. They mostly do not know French. Do they read Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Czech, Russian, Chinese, Arabic newspapers. Do not believe me? Here is the numbers:

Between 1. januar 2003 and 1. april 2004 the German newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung was mentioned in ONE article altogether looking at the newspapers Aftenposten, Dagbladet, Dagens Næringsliv and Dagsavisen combined. New York Times is mentioned in 827 articles in the same newspapers. Washington Post is mentioned in 514 articles, Pravda in 30, El Pais in 49 (18 after the terror attack 11. March). The Guardian is mentioned 356 times. The Times 186. Die Zeit 30.

After reading this statistics I went over to Kvasirs newssearch to do some simple research myself. I decided to type in "New York Post" and got 50 hits this month. Then I typed in "Die Zeit", got 10 hits this month. What about "Pravda"? 8 hits. And the Belgian De Standaard? No hits this year.

The problem with the Norwegian newspaper coverage of foreign affairs is not hatred of America. The problem is that Norwegian journalists are pretty much obsessed with the country. Or maybe the problem is merely that English is the only foreign language most Norwegian journalists know well enough to use in their search for news?

Øyvind

It's fascinating to think what the explosion of the blogosphere means to small countries such as Norway or Portugal. In a way I suspect that bloggers will be viewed with much less suspicion. At least, native bloggers.

Are you saying, that Norwegian media is actually right-wing influenced? could it be that the (so called) journalists selectively choose which story's to quote? If a writer of a magazine, newspaper, perhaps TV-station, have got the *proper* education, they would probably choose the correct stance in issues which benefits the socialist agenda.

This could of course be written of as a paranoid, but nothing can change the peculiar fact that Norwegian media have a strange left leaning approach on all issues, foreign and domestic.

That American media have a left and right wing biased media should not be used against them Øyvind. It should be applauded!

We can onley thank the lord of the universe that journalists in general dont master German and French language.

Kudos to Øyvind for exposing the provincialism of norwegian newspapers. As for me Bah, Ptah and Ka to the local US newspapers. Their journalists read small latin and hardly any greek .....and no spanish, german, french, dutch.....let's not even mention urdu, indonesian, arabic, chinese and russian. I'll be contented with spanish and french to reflect latin american news and canadian news ( oh forget about portuguese...most folks here in US of A thinks Brazilians speak Spanish to the chagrin of the Brasileiros LOL ).

Our news-fare consists of local and national news with a healthy dose of sports related events, our international news is oftentimes preoccupied with Iraq and news of immediate relevance to US policies and strangely almost nothing newsworthy about Mexico, latin america and Canada...it is as if the american journalistic highway begins at Tonawanda/niagara falls and ends at Laredo/Nuevo laredo ,south of the border..... to heck with the vast civilization south of the border - they might as well be in patagonia and as for the Canadians...are'nt they those folks who have something to do with the mounties and speak funny , saying 'zet' instead of 'zee'LOL....!!!!

Actually I'm not sure whether the problem is lack of polyglot journalist in the american news-scene or whether it is the apathy of the general american public when it comes to eagerness for news foreign. Aside from print ( americans are less avid readers than norwegians i suspect) our T.V. does not serve us fairly as a window to the world. I prefer to watch the BBC news since they give a slightly better synopsis of the real world at large -- at least a synopsis of the 4 corners of the world.

Americans tend to be america-centered with a sort of 'middle-kingdom' attitude . It's not that we are xenophobic, i suspect it is more of a kind of benign neglect. Our educational system is currently struggling with just make do in english ... and is too frail to produce a citizenry that would be vigorous and curious about affairs north and south of the border , much less across the oceans in Eritrea, Luxembourg,Norway,Bangladesh, Sulawesi,Laos or Mongolia.

Oh well, my cafezinho is ready, i might as well flip through this morning's news about Bullshitan . Glad i have subscriptions to Chosun Ilbo /최신기사 and 人民日报海外版 (Renmin Ribao) and O Globo and el Nacional and الشرق الأوسط (Asharq al Awsat)..but then who needs the Newyork times or the Aftenpost when i can go on the internet and the world is my oyster !!!

.....Jakarta , here I come !

Señorita Maria Teresa Kim
Lollipop... uuh polyglot journalist

Njet: Are you saying, that Norwegian media is actually right-wing influenced?

I am saying that what is covered in the media is heavily influenced by what American and other English-language media covers. I have not mentioned politics at all.

Since you want to drag it into this, of course, I can tell you that I used New York Post as an example, to show that this popularity amongst Norwegian journalists is not only there for "liberal" American media.

If you want to look into the politics of it you could of course compare how often politically speaking different newspapers are quoted. I am sure you would discover a left-leaning tendency. But then the American scale for left and right hardly applies in Norway. The American Democrats look much more like the Christian Peoples Party (Krf) than they look like the Socialist Left (SV). Applying American standards to what is leftist and what is rightist in interior as well as foreign affairs is rather misleading.

Perhaps, it also shows that Norwegian journalists are not the only Norwegians obsessed with the States.

Njet: Could it be that the (so called) journalists selectively choose which story's to quote?

Could it be? That is what Norwegian journalists do. Actually, it is what all journalists do. Regardless of country or political views. That is why the very idea of objective journalism is not only silly, but also completely utopic.

Njet: Norwegian media have a strange left leaning approach on all issues, foreign and domestic.

Really? Or is it just that you imagine that they have a left leaning approach, just because you are leaning heavily right in Norwegian politics yourself?

Far leftists say the exact opposite, you know.

Njet: That American media have a left and right wing biased media should not be used against them Øyvind. It should be applauded!

Applause!

But then I have never used that against American media. I could criticize American media on a number of points, the concentration of ownership is at least as worrying over there as it is in our own country, for instance. However, I have no problems with biased media, as long as they do not claimed to be "fair and balanced" when they are not. When they claim stuff like that, I dislike it, regardless of their politics.

In my last post, however, I did not say a word about my opinions on the American media. My points were rather about Norwegian media.

Øyvind writes: "They read them, then they write pretty much the same stuff themselves. This is also through for the tiny article Gill mentions, a story reported of by Reuters, Newsday, Boston Herald, CNN, ABC News, The Guardian, CBS News, USA Today and a score of other American, British and English-language media. And yet you complain when Aftenposten writes it? Please."

No, Øyvind, the point is this: Aftenposten presented that article in a context (Norwegian anti-Americanism) where it knows that its audience will draw a certain (negative) conclusion. You know this as well as I do. Don't pretend you don't. On the day Aftenposten presented that article, this was just one of two articles in Aftenposten that treated U.S. affairs. When this article appeared in U.S. papers, it was, of course, one of many articles about the U.S. and certainly didn't get top billing. Secondly, the context in America is not anti-American. By this time, any reader of Norwegian papers realizes that an article about the U.S. will nine out of ten times have something negative to say about this country. You really ought to know this.

Consider this. Suppose that the only articles about Norway that ever appeared in American papers had headlines like these:
"Ninety percent of Norwegians are obese",
"Boy shoots classmates in Bergen high school",
"Immigrant boy murdered on Oslo streets",
"Norwegian diplomat accused of sexual harrassment".
Suppose that American papers ran articles like this every day, year in year out. In that context, Americans would begin to learn how to read between the lines when news from Norway arrived in our papers.

And when it comes to my opinions on American media? Well, I would be tempted to for once agree with our Korean friend.

Our international news is oftentimes preoccupied with Iraq and news of immediate relevance to US policies and strangely almost nothing newsworthy about Mexico, Latin America and Canada...

And the worst thing of it all, is that it is not even about the language. Thanks to English being a world language of sorts these days, we have newspapers like Asia Times around. Last time I can find it being quoted in a Norwegian newspaper? 21st of October.

Oh, would it not be nice to hear about Taiwanese politics, for a change? Or about Thai affairs, or what about Indonesias business climate?

Gill:

If you think that things like the ones you mention are the only things written on or from the United States in Norwegian media I am seriously starting to doubt how much you actually read Norwegian media. Of course, everything depends on the eyes who see, and if you want to find a reason to draw intriguing conspiracy theories about the power of old AKP-commies, sure you can.

I decided to search for "Bush" on Kvasir, to see if I could find only negative stuff. What came up?
Loads and loads of op-eds expressing hope for more transatlantic cooperation after Bush visited Europe (quite hellish to get about in Brussel those days, by the way).

Do you want the truth, Gill? We do not hate America. We love it. And that is why we hear all the bad news from America. Because that is what media has become all about. Bad news. The day you picked out a story about Bushes uncle Aftenposten did actually write something about France. A guy has been arrested with 400.000 child porn pictures. Those French bastards...

Well, Øyvind, let's see what NRK thinks is important American news for this day. Here it is -- one story. "Arnold innrømmer dopingmisbruk." (Translated: Arnold admits drug misuse.) That's all one really needs to know about the U.S. this Saturday.

Aftenposten has a number of American stories. There we can read about Michael Jackson and learn at the same time that American hospitals give preferential treatment to the rich, while the America jury system is corrupt, as every Norwegian knows already. There's an article about Norway's preeminent interpreter of American affairs, Michael Moore. He's got a new book on the way -- look for that in your bookstore if you really want the truth about America. Aftenposten also carries the Arnold drug story. By the way, one should know that Norwegians revile Arnold the traitor. As a liberal Californian, I have found his work as governor to be fairly good so far. Then we've got a long story about Giorgio Armani and the Acadamy Awards that looks OK to me -- nothing negative there that I have noticed. And finally, a story about the fighting in Afghanistan. That report, too, looks fine to me.

This bullshit about American papers not carrying international news is a very old and very worn stereotype that you ought to shuck, Øyvind. I mean -- only if you don't want to appear ignorant. All you have to do is go look in the American papers, and you will see for yourself what's there. You shouldn't listen to what others, like your Korean friend, say about this. Form your own opinions. Also -- you should try to stay on topic and answer the charges that I have brought against Norwegian media. Rather than try to deflect my criticism by trying to strike out at America for what is really a different and lesser offence. There is a difference between the anti-American campaign that the Norwegian media are waging and the accusations of provincialism that are routinely brought against us by Europeans like you. Sure, we're ignorant hayseeds who don't know what's happening outside our own barnyards. Believe that if it makes you happy. As I've been saying -- the truth about America does not matter in Norway.

øyvinds post:
"Njet: Could it be that the (so called) journalists selectively choose which story's to quote?"

"Could it be? That is what Norwegian journalists do. Actually, it is what all journalists do. Regardless of country or political views. That is why the very idea of objective journalism is not only silly, but also completely utopic."

________________________________________________________________________________
What i tried to say:
Could it be that the (so called) journalists selectively choose which story's to quote? If a writer of a magazine, newspaper, perhaps TV-station, have got the *proper* education, he would probably choose the correct stance in issues which benefits the socialist agenda.

This is very clever Øyvind. Anyway, I have done the same thing myself, and wont put myself on the moral high ground.

You say that I am far right on the political scale, here is one fore you: I AM NOT!

Btw, i like your web site!

--I have no problems with biased media, as long as they do not claimed to be "fair and balanced" when they are not. When they claim stuff like that, I dislike it, regardless of their politics. --

They are, Oyvind.

Compared to the others, they are.

there was even a study done last year, one would have to watch twice as much Brit Hume to counteract the media. and I think one of the profs was from Northwestern U. they were surprised how left the media was.

Besides, FoxNews really doesn't have a lot of domestic viewers except for certain special occasions. So, the lefty media has mythologized them and turned them into something they're not.

---Our news-fare consists of local and national news with a healthy dose of sports related events, our international news is oftentimes preoccupied with Iraq and news of immediate relevance to US policies and strangely almost nothing newsworthy about Mexico, latin america and Canada...it is as if the american journalistic highway begins at Tonawanda/niagara falls and ends at Laredo/Nuevo laredo ,south of the border..... to heck with the vast civilization south of the border - they might as well be in patagonia and as for the Canadians...are'nt they those folks who have something to do with the mounties and speak funny , saying 'zet' instead of 'zee'LOL....!!!!---

This is a feature, not a bug. If we Yanquis really found out what Mexico thought of US, that wall would be up a lot quicker than it is. Mexico's economy would be devastated.

But, Gill, I have not really complained about or discussed American media and their coverage of international affairs at all... I have merely complained about Norwegian medias obsessiveness with American and British media as a source.

What did Norwegian newspapers write about France just now, by the way? It is all about the worst sexual exploitation-cases ever, 66 women and men are charged for abusing children. Then there is a story about a French minister who "had not realized that the time for minister to live like the Sun King is over".

And a story about UN troops raping or sexually harassing locals where they are sent to keep peace mentions France too. Once again; Those French bastards.

Being a Norwegian journalist myself, I am of course part of the problem [1]- and I admit it; I do enjoy reading American newspapers. I buy American news magazines quite regularly, being a leftie I of course have the sad tendency to seek out liberal magazines, like the New Yorker. I also enjoy reading The Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, the New York Times.

Why? Because they offer better international coverage than Norwegian newspapers. Not per se good coverage, but at least better.

Njet:

Sorry for misplacing you politically, but when you throw about conspiracy theories about "the right education" and "the socialist agenda", it makes my vision somewhat blurry.

Thing is that you in my opinion have discovered the effects of the problems in Norwegian news media, but you ascribe it to the wrong illness. Sure, socialist journalists are not only journalist, but also socialists - and therefore they think "that is a good story" other places than a non-socialist journalist would think. But the main problems are not the AKP-indoctrination Kjell dreams about, nor a "socialist agenda".

I have worked in two regional and one local newspaper, and it's not like we sit around the lunch table discussing what would fit the socialist agenda. No, the illnesses of Norwegian media is not some dark commie conspiracy. They are:

1. Convervatism

I am not speaking of political conservatism, here. I am talking about the conservatism of "this is the way we have always done it". Norwegian media are, to be frank, backward. They keep to old styles of reporting. And they keep to the ideal of "objective journalism", thinking that objectivity is possible, and regarding it as a goal. Objectivity is not possible, and the goal should instead be openly confessed subjectivity, which leads me to point number 2.

2. Mainstreaming

The Norwegian media is not leftist. It is not rightist either. Judging by Norwegian standards, it is centrist. Almost every single newspaper is centrist. Aftenposten is. VG is. Dagbladet is. Vårt Land is.

If you want to read something that is not centrist, you will have to look for far left newspapers like Klassekampen, or Christian fundamentalist newspapers like Norge IDAG. They might annoy the hell out of you, but at least those guys mean something. The opinions of VG are, with a few exceptions, opinionless. The newspaper is just like super market food, it is getting increasingly without taste, just to have higher market value.

3. Ownership concentration

This is one of the reasons for mainstreaming. Big owners are getting bigger on the media market, and they want bigger money. Bigger money means that you will have to hunt for more customers, which results in the same boring centrism.

Luckily, blogs are coming along. In time, they have the power to change the media market. Well, most of them will not even get close to do that. But those who are run somewhat in thread with principles of sourcechecking and presenting differing views might have a chance.

Secondly, it is permissible to hope that the Internet can provide smaller groups with the possibility to make their own media. Thus, we can have a broader media market. Both right-wing and left-wing.

Øyvind

[1] Of course, right now I am working in a completely other field, and in another country, so I do have sort of an excuse.

Hei Øyvind

These issues you so eloquently sum up, I agree with. But in my opinion you omit the biggest problem.

When I say "socialist agenda" it's because I believe there was an agenda a few decades ago and that this agenda have somehow survived within the heads of the professors and teachers of our universities. It has become unconscious.

I can not find another explanation of the phenomenon.

Gill, I sympathise with you and understand what you are saying and so do you Øyvind(?).

------------------------------------------------
Carl I Hagen said a few years ago, in a 1 of may speech: (from memory) Our kids go in to the universities as politically insecure and come out a few years later as die hard socialists!

(this does not make me a progress party voter)

Well, Øyvind, it's the first time I've referred to as "dreamer". I agree with you that MSM are conservative in the sense that they are not reacting to the actual changes in the world around them.
As for the old AKP people in higher media education: It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a well documented fact.
They were not democrats in the 70s, and I still do not look upon them as democrats, though they are more silent about the revolution now.
As for your interest in american media, that's praiseworthy, but I kindly remind you that there are notable newspapers and media to the right of those you mentioned.

Kjell:

Maybe it is on time someone told you the truth, then, Kjell. You are indeed dreamy.

However, I do not dispute the existance of neither Sigurd Allern nor Ole Bjørn Rongen, to mention two people working in journalism education that hardly were members of the Young Concervatives in the 1970s.

As a matter of fact, I have been to lectures with both of them, and they looked quite real to me.
I have also read two of Sigurd Allerns books in the field, both of which are about source criticism, and both of which are quite good.

Considering the complete lack of source criticism AKP had in the 1970s that is quite an achievement. It is, however, hardly a surprising one. Few have better reasons to question what they read than these people.

No, Kjell, your problem is that it is only that these people exist that is a "proven fact", not the indoctrination you are supposedly talking about, nor that "they have not changed".

This is where your conspiracy theories come in. And for someone who has been there, done that when it comes to studying journalism under these supposedly despicable people - well - your claims seem quite laughable. Of course, since I have studied there and I am a socialist (take comfort, I did not use to be a Young Concervative before I studied journalism either), I am probably a part of that anti-democratic, pro-Pol-Pot-conspiracy myself. Without even knowing it.

The only indoctrination going on at our journalism schools is the indoctrination of "this is the way we have always done it".

There is still talk about the "pyramide of news", a stupid way to tell a story based on saying the most important first and then telling increasingly unimportant (and boring) stuff. Wise when writing from war zones in the American Civil War and transmitting your reports on telegraphic wire. Stupid when you want to interest people in a modern media world.

However, this culture is not so bad at the journalism colleges. We even heard a few words about New Journalism and about Storytelling Journalism, both of them American inventions, by the way. We learnt how to talk on the radio with ve-ry clear pro-nun-ci-a-ti-on, too, may-be you could call that in-doc-tri-na-ti-on. Did Rongen teach us how society works? Can't remember anything like that. He was more concerned with grammatical rules and having a vivid language.

Øyvind

Oh, and by the way, Kjell, there are indeed heaps of media to the right of those I mentioned. The ones I mentioned were newspapers I frequently read.

I do not bother with the NY Post and FoxNews.com that often. Perhaps I should, but being what would be a liberal nut in the States I hope I am excused if I stick to my Times and Science Monitor.

An old, and still valid rule, though maybe not in journalism, is that if it walk like a duck, looks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Now, norwegian media marches in lockstep on a number of issues, first and foremost on the issue of USA and pres.Bush. There is very little in the way of anti-Bush in US media that don't find it's way into norwegian media. As I am not alone on pointing this out in this debate, I don't think this is a "dream"(btw, I find this usage of words slightly argumentum ad hominem).
Bush is of course only one theme where MSM have a way of presenting a solid front, Middle East questions being another.
The slant in norwegian media, and media education, is decidedly to the left. I still find it objectionable that a great number of their professors(you have mentioned just two of them) are belonging not just to the soft and respectable left, but the decidedly hard left.

There is no conspiracy theory(they are btw. the specialty of the left) in pointing out facts.

And one of them is that norwegian MSM looks, walk and talk decidedly left-wing.

And they are entitled to it, because we are living in a democracy. And I, and others are entitled to pointing this out.

Oh, so if someone is critical of Bush (walks like a duck) and of Israel (talks like a duck) that means they are left-wing, does it?

That makes the country of France leftwing, does it not? And the British Labour party suddenly becomes right-wing, does it? Well, maybe it does, in the United States or in a right-wing head.

But in Norway, ducks are not leftist - they are centrist. And judging by Norwegian standards it is simply not true that the media is particularily leftist. It is centrist.

VG and Aftenposten is slightly right. Dagbladet is slightly left. The Progress Party is far from popular for voting journalists (they vote Socialist Left, Labour, Concervative or Social Liberal, in that order), but they are very popular as guests in TV studios and interview objects (immensely popular at some political talk shows, like TV2s "Tabloid").

The "poor me! poor me! all the media is so left-wing" is pure paranoia. And it is the same kind of paranoia I have heard so many times from friends who are - just like me - so far to the left that they have long fallen of the edge; "poor me! poor me! all the media is so right-wing". It is easy to recognize.

Furthermore, it is hardly an especially constructive way of criticizing media.

I mean, if this is what you feel like and you are true to the classic ideas of supply and demand; why do you not start your own right-wing newspapers? Most of the attempts I see are tear-dropping blogs mostly telling me even more about how terribly left-wing and anti-Semitic and anti-American and evil and socialistic and whatever more the Norwegian media is.

Can you not do any better? In such a hellishly left-wing media culture a serious right-wing newspaper ought to sell good. Go ahead. Please. I would love to see it.

Øyvind

What you are doing, Øyvind, is defining yourself as centrist, hence any deviation to the right must be "extremism". Well, I define you as leftist, and I view my own views as moderate rightist, though they may be seen as extreme as others view them.
We are both perfectly entitled to our views, thank God.
And I still resent your ad hominem verbiage, last time it was dreaming, now it is paranoia?
It is a fundamental right to disagree without being stamped as mentally deviate.
As for media, they may get a pleasant surprise the day they realise there is a great number of persons with a right-of-center view, who needs a voice. With about 70% of journalists voting left, I don't hope too much.

CORRECTION:
Øyvind said:
"The Norwegian media is not leftist. It is not rightist either. Judging by Norwegian standards, it is centrist. Almost every single newspaper is centrist. Aftenposten is. VG is. Dagbladet is. Vårt Land is."

My mistake, I actually said I agreed with Øyvind on the above quote. I do not, still believe Norwegian media in general is leftist.

Øyvind, I don't think you can be entirely serious when you argue that the Norwegian media are no more critical of America then they are of France. As evidence of evenhanded treatment, you point out that there have recently been articles criticizing French officials and peacekeepers. And you ask then whether one is to conclude that the Norwegian media are therefore also anti-French. You're joking, I think.

Of course, I am not suggesting the Norwegian media should ignore America's faults. They should not refrain from reporting on problems in America if such problems are real. And they are certainly entitled to their opinions -- though it would be honest to identify opinion pieces as such. No, what I am criticizing in the Norwegian media is not the appearance there of articles and opinions critical of America. Rather, what I am criticizing is the anti-American policy of mainstream Norwegian media -- a policy of seeking out and stressing American problems in order to mold Norwegian public opinion of America. If Norwegian papers, on a daily basis, published articles overwhelmingly critical of France, then I would say that, yes, the Norwegian media are anti-French. However, it's America, and not France, that the Norwegian media have decided to malign. Even Aftenposten admitted recently that last year, in Aftenposten, there were more articles about Bush than about any other individual -- including your own prime minister. I don't have to tell you that those articles were not written to praise the man. There really is a focus on America that can't be denied, and the majority of those articles about America are critical.

I have often wondered what the point is. What is it that Norwegian journalists want to achieve by converting the Norwegian public to their point of view? When everyone in Norway agrees that America is a malignant tumor -- a threat to the world -- then what? I think you are correct when you say that organs like Aftenposten and NRK are not leftist, but centrist. Yes, I think so too. And there is the worry. As I told you before, even my old relatives in Hadeland -- nice old farmers in their eighties, who still cherish their familial ties to America -- are now of the opinion that my country is irredeemably corrupt. Not just broken, but fundamentally corrupt. And so the Norwegian media have won, I think. After thirty-plus years of criticism, they have succeeded in making their opinion of America the mainstream opinion.

I think we stand at a threshhold. Thanks to the geniuses in Norwegian and French and German media, Western Europeans are convinced now that America is not a partner they want. I don't think that the left-leaning journalists in the Western European media had any agenda in mind when they decided to convince their public that we Americans are bulls in the china shop. It wasn't that they intended a break with America (though they might have hoped for this in their dreams). But now it has come to pass. I think the alliance is dead, and there is the danger now, I fear, that this divorce could lead to something worse in years to come. Hostile words lead naturally to hostilities.

Øyvind wrote: "Oh, so if someone is critical of Bush (walks like a duck) and of Israel (talks like a duck) that means they are left-wing, does it?"

Interesting that you mention Israel here. Of course, Israel is, indeed, the other country that Norwegian media revile. I would say that the "Little Satan" comes in for far worse treatment, in fact, than the "Big Satan." I was just looking yesterday at one of Aftenposten's debate pages and saw this little exchange:

AchtungNorge: "Leser i en artikkel på forsiden av aftenposten at palestinske terrorister nok en gang har gått til angrep på uskyldige mennesker som var ute for å hygge seg. Terroristen blir altså beskrevet som en selvmordsaktivist og de palestinske terrororganisasjonene som aktivistgrupper. Nytale på gang igjen eller, de er terrorister ikke 'aktivister'."

["Read in an article on the front page of Aftenposten that Palestinian terrorists yet again have attacked innocent people who were out to have a good time. The terrorist is described as a suicide-activist and the Palestinian terrorist organizations as activist groups. Newspeak again. They are terrorists, not "activists."]

Philwilli: "Virker som om det er bare Nettavisen som kaller en spade for en spade og
kaller det en terroraksjon.De andre norske media kaller den gale morderen
for en selvmordaktivist som du sier.
Dette viser vel klart at de palestinske terroristene heller vil drepe og lemleste
uskyldige enn å ha fred."

["Seems like it's just Nettavisen that calls a spade a spade and calls it a terrorist action. The other Norwegian media call the crazy murderer a suicide-activist as you say. This shows clearly that the Palestinian terrorists would rather kill and wound innocents than have peace."]

ReodorFelgen: "eg får mindre og mindre respekt for norsk presse. Glad jeg sper på med bruk av internett for å finne nyheter, da norske medier er så skremmende politisk korrekte at det er til å spy av."

["I have less and less respect for Norwegian press. Glad I supplement with use of Internet in order to find news, since the Norwegian media are so awfully politically correct that it makes one puke.']

Interesting use of the term "politically correct" here, on ReodorFelgen's part. He implies that it is politically correct in Norway to dump on Israel. Indeed, mainstream opinion of Israel in Norway is very negative. I have also, in the past, noticed this use of the term "suicide-activist" and thought it odd. Another thing I don't much care for is the way in which Norwegian media try to draw parallels between the Baathist/Islamist insurgency in Iraq and the Norwegian resistance movement in WW2 Norway.

Actually, these three guys give me some hope. There are still people in Norway (like some here in this forum) who have not succumbed to mainstream opinion. Good for them.

Mainstream European opinion of Israel and America is so negative these days that America has now decided that it must broadcast itself to Europe. Some of the "suicide activists" who have blown up Iraqi civilians and police in Iraq have actually come from France. There have been several of these. The 9/11 gang came to us from Hamburg, of course. Mullah Krekar sips his tea in Oslo. It doesn't help that the European media feed the hatred that simmers in Europe's muslim neighborhoods. Here's a story I just caught on Yahoo:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to begin Arab-language satellite-television broadcasts to Europe later this year in a new escalation of its information war against Islamic extremism, officials say.

"Obviously some of the people who are discontented and are recruitable for terrorism are Muslim minorities in Europe," said Harvard professor Joseph Nye, a noted soft-power advocate and former chairman of the National Intelligence Council -- the federal government's strategic intelligence think tank.

"The idea of appealing to these people to try to attract them away from an oversimplified view of America-as-villain seems to make sense," he added.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=1&u=/nm/20050227/us_nm/security_usa_muslims_dc

THOUSANDS OF IRANIANS COMING TO CHRIST, OPEN DOORS REPORTS Aid organization Open Doors reported in its February newsletter that Iranians are coming to faith in Christ by the thousands. An Iranian pastor commented, "In the 1980s we rejoiced over two or three new believers each month. In the 1990s we were impressed when we heard about a group of new believers. Today we're somewhat surprised to discover an entire new underground church." After 25 years of the Islamic Revolution, Iranians seem disappointed in Islam and its broken promises. Sixty percent of Iranians have heard the gospel, and the nation seems to be on a quest for alternative answers to Islam. An Iranian immigrant who found Christ told his relatives in Iran of his new faith. Within a month, 50 of his relatives came to Christ. One year later they had a church of more than 250 believers. Every day 50 Iranian youths secretly join a Christian church, said Shiite leader Hassan Mohammadi of the Iranian Ministry of Education. There are now an estimated 250,000 believers in Iran. (Friday Fax/Open Doors

Interesting thread this. The bet thing said about the Norwegian media so far is in my opinion Øyvind's "This is how we do it" fallacy. Most journalists in Norway have the same education (Oh, Volda is great isn't it?) and they make exactly the same kinds of reports.

Let me give you but one example from my personal experience with this. I was interviewed by a Norwegian TV station for their evening news. The reporter asks me: "Do you have an office with a lot of maps on your walls?" I don't. "Are there other places at your Institute that has it?" So I realized, this guy wants to make a report with a terrorism ""Expert"" (note the DOUBLE "")who is standing in front of maps talking about the prospects of terroris strikes in Norway or London.

I can assure you: There were no maps in the report. And it got me thinking. How much more of the operating procedures of this reporter is equally rigidly moving towards certain formats and templates?

Bottomline: This is what reports should look like. Let's thrill the Norwegian audience with another great example of news in a format (news frame) they know well and can relate to. For the time being, the US mostly is assigned a bad guy part in this utterly predictable script.

Btw: I use NY Times, BBC and Washington Post a lot for World news.

Sorry,
I accidentally posted the preceding in the wrong thread...mea culpa..mea culpa.

Forgetful Jane

Gill:

I will summarize what I think, and I think we are partly in agreement.

1. Yes, Norwegian media is obsessed with the US. This is an obsessity that comes with the fact that Norwegian journalists go to English-language sources for writing about international matters.

2. Yes, a majority of the articles on the US are critical or bad news. So, are the majority of articles about France. I am joking, but I am also serious. When was the last time I read something positive about Belgium in a Norwegian newspaper?

I think it was in an article I wrote myself. I talked about food. They do have nice food here.

This is becomes that is what media sadly has become all about; bad news. The same thing is true for Israel, the same thing is true for Iraq.
When we occassionally hear something from Lebanon or Laos or Venezuela, it is also true (what little has been reported from Venezuela has hardly presented the leftist Chavez in a good light, except in the truly leftist Klassekampen, that is).

Bad news are everywhere. Good news? In the news media ideology of today they are uninteresting. In Norway we talk of K-journalism, in English you could talk of C-journalism. What is interesting? Chaos, catastrophes, conflicts... and celebrities.

C-journalism is definitely a problem with Norwegian journalism, and with journalism in most of the world at large. If you look for stuff about Norway in American newspapers you will not find much; we do not have that much chaos, not that many catastrophes, the conflict level is not that high and our celebrities are below class C.

We do have sports, though. Search for Norway at Google News and you will read about sports.

3. However, Gill, I do not think that the anti-americanism in Norway is something the media has the most of the blame for. Their stereotypies does not help (stereotypes is also something the media can be criticized for on a number of other areas), but these last few years the anti-Americanism of leftist nutcases seems to have become centrist.

It is not that long since I warned a friend, who voted for the Convervatives last election, that she should take care not become more anti-American than yours truly, she did not vote socialist after all. I do not think she is an avid newspaper reader. She does watch both foreign and Norwegian TV channels, though, including the CNN.

It seems to me that the rise in anti-Americanism in Europe might have something to do with its opposite; Americanism. And you are right, that conflict might result in outright hostility.

Kjell:

I have repeatedly defined myself as a leftist. I define Norwegian media as centrist. I have not defined you as an extremist. Since you are keen on the use of Latin words, I think that one could be called non sequitur.

Here is my highly subjective theory of anti-Americanism. And I think we can blame it on (in opposition to Øyvind) media coverage.

America-bashing have become a habit, sure there are issues that needs to be criticised in the US. But there's not only constructive critic that's being reported (as mentioned above by Gill). why? could it be that we have reached a kind of 'this is as good as it gets', Norway is the best place in the world to live (this being repeated in our media as often as possible). So, since it's nothing more to criticise in "the best of all country's" ( Norway) we have to turn our eyes to America where they have a left and right-wing media that is suspicious to their own government and society.And when we read about those strange Americans we can get our own sorely needed - long forgotten - critical instincts pleased.

Social democrats all over western Europe feed on this "US bad guy" for different reasons. scapegoat for some,the war on terror, and inferior complex for others. Anyway it is a tiering situation.

Michael Moore is one of those trouble-makers Norwegian media loves the most, because of - in my opinion - a total lack of society critics in our own dear Little mountain-top-Norway.

You think this is simplistic? yes it is.

njet: It is a nice theory, at least. I do not buy it. But its enjoyable. You should write a book about it or something :).

Interesting thread. Oyvind you've given me something to think about that puts a little different shading on the American media slant to the left.

I've never believed that there was an active conspiracy to put out left-wing propagands. But, the political coverage in most MSM outlets in the US is decidedly left. I assumed that this was due to the liberal culture of the news-rooms. ~85% or so of reporters are Democrats according to surveys so they constitute a closed political loop within themselves.

However, I never thought about how they get that way. Our journalism schools and old line media are no less tradition bound then yours and the traditions grew out of the '30s, '40's & '50s! This makes for the same kind of herd mentality that you talk about. "We've ALWAYS done it this way." makes an easy blindfold that prevents people from seeing those changes in politics and society that they're supposed to be reporting on because THEY are still doing it the same old way.

This also explains much of the problem with NON-political stories (e.g. science & technology). Their tradition bound mental processes can't see outside the box.

That is about exactly it, AlanC. The problem is not what Americans refer to as "liberalism", neither is it "socialism". There is, to put it bluntly, no conspiracy.

But there is concervatism*, a conservatism that preserves the way it has always been done. And the conservatism is found on a number of fields.

Science is an example.

In Norway, it is very difficult to get into journalism colleges. As a result those who study there often have studied other subjects before. What subjects? Psychology, social anthropology, sociology... "soft" sciences... why? Because that is the "right" subjects to study if you want to become a journalist. You could study physics, of course, but few do.

And when you get into the newsrooms - it does not get any better. You are socialized into a culture where the soft sciences rule (I am of course part of the problem, my field of expertise outside journalism is religious science). Result? Well, frankly I suspect many journalists know more about astrology than astronomy.

The methods of journalism are also concervative. American journalism is often extremely refreshing to read for a Norwegian. Maybe that explains why Norwegian journalists read it all the time, what do I know.

Why is it refreshing? Well, the American journalists tend to write longer stories, talk to more people (less one-source journalism), use more literary methods, they simply write better. And when it comes to TV. Well, the Americans have realized that you can actually ADD something to the story with the pictures. If you look at the Norwegian TV2 News you could turn off the pictures, and still get about the same out of it all. Those pictures of people walking in halls and someone pretending to talk on the phone or talking blah-blah in front of a bunch of maps, just are not that interesting.

Just a bunch of not so well-structured thoughts this. Now, I have to catch a train.

Øyvind

* No, I do not mean politically, though social democratic views can easily be regarded concervative in Norway.

Øyvind wrote: "It seems to me that the rise in anti-Americanism in Europe might have something to do with its opposite; Americanism. And you are right, that conflict might result in outright hostility."

Well, I don't know what your "Americanism" is, but it sounds like you might be trying to justify Europe's anti-Americanism. I don't think it can be justified.
Are you alarmed by the possibility of hostilities between your part of the world and mine? I am. I fear that the European public may get out ahead of their leaders and demand that the EU, for instance, do something about America. That "something" would be political and/or economic, I imagine. Doesn't that alarm you? That sort of confrontation could escalate. Everyone could wind up getting hurt. If it's true, as you say, that the Norwegian public is anti-American, but was not led there by the Norwegian media, then the Norwegian media might, at least, try to lead them away from such attitudes. You don't have to follow them over the cliff.

OK. Øyvind you're leftist, I'm rightist. No dispute.
But the MSM are inherently leftist, even VG and Aftenposten, though once upon time they were to the right.
And in your last posting you explained why, even better than I could.
Once journalism was a profession of ordinary people, with middle or working class backgrounds.
Todays newsrooms are filled with academics with little or no real-life background(The same is valid in politics btw. In todays news it was reported that as many as 20 of our 165 members of parliament will have no background but politics, if trends continue).
That's one of the reasons you people(sorry for generalising) have such difficulty admitting the obvious- in this instance that Norwegian media have a left wing slant.
And I hereby declare the parrot to be dead.

--"It seems to me that the rise in anti-Americanism in Europe might have something to do with its opposite; Americanism. And you are right, that conflict might result in outright hostility."--

No, Oyvind, same old, same old.

Via Instapundit:

Meanwhile, with the Civil War in mind, reader Gregory Birrer points out that Europe never changes:

I have been reading a little book I picked up while in Gettysburg recently, entitled, "Memoranda During The War" by Walt Whitman. It is a compilation of his notes from about 3 years worth of visits to War hospitals in and around Washington D.C. from 1862 - 1865. Toward the end he inserts some interesting political commentary (mixed in with a variety of topics) that sounds as if it could have been written today. Here's the piece:

Attitude of Foreign Governments toward the U.S. during the War of 1861-'65 -

Looking over my scraps, I find I wrote the following during 1864, or the latter part of '63: The happening to our America, abroad as well as at home, these years, is indeed most strange. The Democratic Republic has paid her to-day the terrible and resplendent compliment of the united wish of all the nations of the world that her Union should be broken, her future cut off, and that she should be compell'd to descend to the level of kingdoms and empires ordinarily great!There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it. There is not one but would help toward that dismemberment, if it dared. I say such is the ardent wish to-day of England and of France, as governments, and of all the nations of Europe, as governments. I think indeed it is to-day the real, heart-felt wish of all the nations of the world, with the single exception of Mexico--Mexico, the only one to whom we have ever really done wrong, and now the only one who prays for us and for our triumph, with genuine prayer.

Is it not indeed strange? America, made up of all, cheerfully from the beginning opening her arms to all, the result and justifier of all, of Britain, Germany, France, and Spain - all here - the accepter, the friend, hope, last resource and general house of all - she who has harm'd none, but been bounteous to so many, to millions, the mother of strangers and exiles, all nations - should now I say be paid this dread compliment of general governmental fear and hatred?.......Are weindignant? alarm'd? Do we feel wrong'd? jeopardized? No; help'd, braced, concentrated, rather.

We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world.
November 18, 2003

--I do not bother with the NY Post and FoxNews.com that often. Perhaps I should, but being what would be a liberal nut in the States I hope I am excused if I stick to my Times and Science Monitor.---

Which is precisely why you should be reading them.

Depth. Nuance. Objectivity. Why do you think the media's under attack in the US? It's going to go across the pond soon enough.

OT:

Another domino falls.

Now the fun really begins.

Kjell:

You might say that it is a problem with the academics, yes. I definitely think it is a problem that is so difficult getting into journalism college, and so difficult getting a job in the field without it.

And you are right that the same are true for politics. On the whole political spectre. And though there are many academics in the Norwegian parliament today, I would hardly say that the Norwegian parliament as a whole is left-wing (that is, if you do not use American standards, if you did, most Norwegian politicians might be closest to being Democrats).

Thereby, your argument seems somewhat inconsistent.

I am a leftist, Kjell, I have told you this - I am so far to the left that I have long fallen over the edge.

Furthermore, I am one of those loathful academics, I have studied both journalism and religious science, and a tad of Hebrew and Middle Eastern history, too. Still I do not feel like an academic, I am one of the "common people". My father is a janitor, his father being a farmer and a fisherman. My mother works in a public office. Maybe this tells us something about social mobility in Norway, maybe Norway is what the Soviet Union never was, a workers paradise. Where did I learn words like that?

I have read Marx. I did not like him much (his writing is - to put it bluntly - extremely boring and some of his ideas are scary). I have still read him though. Few of those I studied journalism together with had. Some of the teachers, yes.

But I am a leftist radical, Kjell. When I read Norwegian newspapers they feel rightist. Why? Because I am far left. I used to believe that as good as every newspaper in Norway was rightist. I was wrong. Rightist opinions does not sell good enough, you need to make a newspaper that appeals to as many people as possible with the market rule found in the media world these days. You need to make centrist newspapers. And after the death of party newspapers you have.

Bergens Arbeiderblad (Bergen Labour Magazine), a clearly socialist newspaper supportive of Labour, has become a tabloid without a single chocking or surprising opinion. Their name is now Bergensavisen (Bergen Newspaper). Første Mai (1st of May) in Stavanger has become Rogalands Avis, an even blender newspaper that does not seem to have much opinions on anything but movies, sports and music.

Of course, you feel the same. You are a rightist. You reed centrist newspapers, discover that they are to the left of you and think "Oh, dear, they are all leftists". And you could use Aftenposten, or VG, or Vårt Land as examples. They have all moved towards the left. But they are not leftist. They have not moved that far (the only newspaper I can think of which has gone from being truly rightwing to being truly leftwing is Morgenbladet. It has however remained a newspaper for the cultural elite).

I am not only radical in a political manner, however. I have radical views on journalism.

Since I am blabbering away anyway I might tell you what these views are. I will make a nice little list:

1. The ideal of objective journalism is false. Journalism should not be objective, it should be subjective and it should be openly so. Why? Simply because openly subjective stories are better, and more inspiring. They might piss you off, but at least they make you feel something. And that is what journalism should.

2. Objectivity in journalism is also impossible. Already when you choose what to write about you are making a subjective choice. Choose to write about Idol or Big Brother and not about the latest developments in Laos or Iraq? That is not objectivity. It is a lack of such.

3. Mainstreaming is a problem. It ends up with loads of newspapers reporting on pretty much to same stuff in pretty much the same way. And when most journalists are educated at the same schools (there is three more than the one in Volda), it makes the situation even worse. Mainstreaming results in boring, dull and politically correct newspapers.

4. The lack of common people in the newsrooms is a problem.

5. Journalists should use a literary style more often, also in news reporting. Imagine a fairytale, like the one of Cinderella, told in newspaper language. It would begin with: "Today Cinderella married the prince. Her stepmother is disappointed that her evil plans did not work out". Exciting, huh?

6. Journalists should pick up loads of inspiration from journalistic styles like new journalism, gonzo and storytelling journalism.

On some of these areas I think we agree, Kjell. However, while you claim that the mainstream is leftist, I claim that it is not.

As far as I can see the only statements you have made trying to back your claims is their coverage of Israel and the States. Otherwise, you seem to refer to a gut feeling or something.

Well, their opinions on the United States or Israel are not merely leftist, they are centrist too. Actually, those very opinions are found well into rightist circles. When you call them leftist, it is in my opinion not because they differ from the centrist opinion, but because YOU do.

So, you should dig up something more or something better to support your claim. Instead you are no better than me; you just repeat the same claim.

I could pull a number of arguments out of the hat:

- In political coverage, there is no trend of overrepresentation of socialist parties in the news. I can also not see any tendency to let leftist politicians easier of the hook.

- In economic coverage, there is no general trend to criticize capitalism or capitalists. Rather, the media can be said to put a positive focus on personal success, and making people like Kjell Inge Røkke (one of Norways richest men) into a celebrity.

[However, you might say that the publishing of taxation lists is a leftist thing to do. I would not agree, but hey].

- Coverage of the European Union, both now and in connection with the "EU-battle" in 1994, was more positive than negative, especially in op-eds. This is in thread with the Concervative Party, the Liberal Party and the right-wing of the Labour Party, but not in thread with left Labour, the Socialist Left, the Centre Party (centre-left) or the Christian Democrats (centre-right).

To sum it up, the newspapers coverage on this field might even be called right-wing. But that is a bit to easy, since the split is not completely right/left on this issue in Norway.

- In the choice of what to cover the media focuses heavily on celebrities, television shows, etc. Far leftist would mutter something about "bread and circus". For me, the interesting part is what the media then leaves out. What they leave out does not make them decidedly leftist.

Furthermore, you should notice, Kjell, that I have not and will not dispute that there is a heavy overfocus on the US (and on Israel) in Norwegian media. I have never denied that as a dream, on the other hand I have explained why I personally think it is so and I have provided examples and statistics I think support my conclusion; the obsessity with the States is a result of Norwegian journalists not reading too many foreign newspapers except American and British ones.

They seldomly read the Peoples Daily.

Øyvind

Sandy P said: Which is precisely why you should be reading them.

And he is, of course, right. However, I simply do not have the time, and therefore choose to focus on Norwegian rightwing newspapers instead. Therefore I include newspapers like Norge IDAG (rightwing Christian) and Dagen (rightwing Christian) on my daily surf round. I also read this and other rightwing blogs.

Some of those are almost like the Post anyway.

Øyvind

Just came back. After reading all of these various postings can someone explain to me the rules in Norway regarding libel? In the US as regards a public figure they are quite loose and yo have to prove not only that the statement was false but that the author was reckless and not just wrong. That does encourage aggressive reporting in the US -- more so that in Europe so far as I can see.

Hei Øyvind

It would be tempting to ask you to shut down your socialist firewall , just for two seconds at least. You won't even grant Gill his obvious points about Norwegian media. You had to wrap it in to some foggy "meet you on the half way" talk. But that's just sad - it's terribly sad. We are after all debating to win and not to learn (a little sarcasm).

"njet: It is a nice theory, at least. I do not buy it"

Didn't think a rigid socialist like you Øyvind would buy that theory. You are after all a preserver of the existing establishments - that wants to further the state as even more protective.It would be tempting to symbolise your state as ' like a mother of a two year old child'. But that was a digression.

I promise you this Øyvind:
If you ever convince me that I am in fault, in any subject, I would have thanked you and changed my opinion. But You could never do that could you? You have the shackles of socialism on your hands and feet.

PS: it's not my intention to be rude ore aggressive, if i am, it's because my vocabulary is limited.

Comparing the US to Europe you are probably right, British libel laws are for instance quite strics - If I am not mistaken.

However, the Norwegian laws for libel is, in factual use, quite similar to the American ones. If the author claimed something he had good reason to believe was true he would most often get away with it in a court case. Anyway, there are not many libel cases concerning media that has been tried before Norwegian courts the last few years.

Many cases end up, instead, in the own complaint organ of the press - Pressens Faglige Utvalg (The Press Complaints Commission). Though it carries no economical consequenses to have a verdict against you in this commission the newspaper is obliged to print the verdict and it is generally considered a prestige loss.

Øyvind

Send me a virus effective enough to get that firewall down then, njet.

This far I have only heard repeated claims about how leftwing the Norwegian media is, with no other example than that it is critical of the US and Israel. I do not find Gills points to be obviously true, because I think that what he interprets as constant critique of the US is a product of two factors: 1. Norwegian media being obsessed with the States. 2. Media generally focusing more on bad than on good news.

If you read my last reply to Kjell you might see why I think that it is ludicrous claim that the media is leftwing, if you have not seen it before. Gill does at least say that the problem is anti-Americanism. Kudos to him for that.

I am not planning to discuss state issues here, as it is not relevant.

As I have previously said on this blog, however, I believe in a decentralized socialism, that is a weakening of the state to the benefit of local communities, so perhaps you should not be so quick in concluding what being a leftist or a socialist means. Maybe someone could dig up a Latin name for strawmen as well.

Øyvind

And if you consider me a preserver of the existing establishment merely because I am a leftist, njet, you are quite wrong. Might I remind you that:

1. The Norwegian Labour Party is not particularily socialist?

2. The parties in government are even less so?

Please. Refrain from criticizing me for ideas I have never had or for supporting things I have never supported.

Øyvind

Correction: Gill does at least say that the problem is anti-Americanism, not socialism or whatever. Kudos to him for that.

Hei Øyvind

I'm obviously in fault here, so thank you for the explanation regarding your socialistic belief. and at the same time you bring some prejudice of mine to the surface. so, as I promised you: thank you

Regarding Gill:

I Still think you should accept his points.

Øyvind

I just read the post you wrote to kjell.

You're saying that we live in a subjective reality: and I agree

She, Oyvind.

--Well, their opinions on the United States or Israel are not merely leftist, they are centrist too. Actually, those very opinions are found well into rightist circles. When you call them leftist, it is in my opinion not because they differ from the centrist opinion, but because YOU do.--

Depends on where the "centrist" line is. Our perspective might be a little different from yours.

I respect it when Americans have a different perspective on that, because being centrist in America is hardly the same as being centrist in Norway. If American newspapers where like the Norwegian ones then it is possible you could refer to them as left-wing.

But that is, as I have said before, to apply American standards to Norwegian journalism, and I see no reason to do that.

Øyvind

A classic example of sophistry:

A Negro is not black/colored because when he smiles his teeth are white!

As Øyvind has pointed out so well, todays journalists comes from academia, of whom a number, higher than if pure chance should rule, are leftist, even very leftist.
And their POV in writing is not influenced by this?
Thinking of it, I've got a nice seafront property in Nevada for sale, cheaply.
Any buyers?

Kjell

Cause and effect!

Could it be?

Libel laws in Norway are, in theory, clearly cut. Any public claim must be substantiated, and be put forward in good faith . Still,in theory. Now, this is what the law says, and reality is something else. Any court case has a cost, which must be paid for by the plaintiff, if lost. Most cases are lost btw, since truth generally is more difficult to define than most people generally realize, and plaintiff must prove bad faith. So if you are poor, fuggedabout it.
(Bad lawyer joke of the day: What do you do after shaking hands with a lawyer? Count your fingers.) Also the wheels of justice operate slowly, so by the time it comes into court, details are forgotten etc. So while the law is clear, reality is something else.
As for PFU: when the media are their own judges, don't expect many verdicts of guilty.
And loss of prestige? Bah. These few cases where media loses, the verdict is hidden in small type on page 37.
The trouble about media types(In general. There are exceptions) is that they dislike being scrutinized and analysed using their own methods.

I am going slightly philosophical here now-

It is not really a subjective reality. It is an intersubjective reality that we understand news within. Language philosopher Richard Searle speaks of a similar phenomenon:

“In institutional reality we use language not only to describe but partly to create the very facts described” (Searle 1999:133).

A news report about a terrorist that successfully assigns the label terrorist to a person, is what makes the person a terrorist in institutional reality. By academic defiunitions he might be an insurgent, guerilla leader etc.

Furthermore, an "expert" is an expert only if he is accepted as such by people listening to him. And if the news media introduces someone as an expert.....he is regardless of his knowledge and skills...... normally treated and respected as an expert.
This I believe relates to the original thread.

Kjell:

I would love more critique from PFU, myself, and I am fairly critical to the whole institution. However, you should refrain from using outright false information in such a discussion.

From the PFU rules:

"Når det foreligger en «fellende» eller "kritisk" uttalelse, plikter publikasjonen/mediet å offentliggjøre denne snarest, på et godt synlig sted i publikasjonen eller i relevant sendetid. Sammendraget av saken kan behandles på vanlig journalistisk måte, men selve uttalelsen («Pressens Faglige Utvalg uttaler») skal offentliggjøres i sin helhet. Der PFU finner dette nødvendig, lages en egen radio- eller fjernsynsversjon tilpasset disse mediers egenart. I forbindelse med publiseringen skal det i trykte medier og i fjernsyn benyttes en fast «PFU-vignett»".

A bit summarized in English:

"When a "guilty" verdict or a "critical" verdict is given the publication must publish this as soon as possible, on a visible place in the publication (*), or in relevant transmission time. A summary of the case can be treated in a normal journalistic manner, but the verdict is to be published in full and with a PFU vignette / logo".

That is; not on page 37 and not in small types. If you know any case like that, Kjell, and this is not some guess you make because you dislike journalists, I suggest you do two things:

a) Give the examples.

b) Complaint to PFU, as such a behaviour on the behalf of a media house is in clear breach with the rules, and a clear "guilty" case.

Secondly, also the statistics from PFU are quite clear.

Let us take a look at the PFU cases from the last two sessions. There were 11 verdicts saying "breaking good press ethics", 15 saying "not breaking good press ethics" and 4 "critique" (midway solution). Do not expect many "guilty charges", Kjell? Last year 64 of 155 charges were "guilty", 7 more were "critical".

http://www.presse.no/Klagestatistikk%202004.htm

You should also note that there are both press people and people from outside the press on the Press Complaint Commission. There should be more, but there are at least some.

And yes, it is considered a prestige loss if you have a verdict against you in PFU. Some journalists, of course, give a damn, but most do not.

Øyvind

Kjell asked: And their POV in writing is not influenced by this?

Of course their point of view is influenced by this. Their point of view is, however, also influenced by a number of other factors.

And the coverage of Israel or the States that you complain about is also true for journalists that are no academics nor leftists.

Furthermore, you have still not bothered to argue further than saying that: This and that is obvious. I have mentioned a number of areas where Norwegian newspapers are clearly centrist, not leftist, for instance in their choice of interview objects in political coverage and what they choose to cover when it comes to economics coverage. You have not replied to this.

Maybe there is a Latin term even to that.

Øyvind

Øyvind

What this discussion boils down to seem to be perception of what is actually written in media. I have no trouble believing that news and comments about weather, sports and celebrities is "centrist". Economic comments may even have a certain right-wing slant, since commenters on economy tends to be economists themselves, and modern economists are, well, slightly right wing.

But political commentary is slanted to the left. Why?
Øyvind has told us, effectively, that journalism tends to attract the "soft sciences"(which btw. explains much of the hard-science illiteracy often displayed in media), and they are slanted to the left, inherently. Name someone in the soft sciences(sociology, ethnology etc.) with a right wing slant.
Here in Norway I can just think of Sigurd Skirbekk, though there may be more of them.
So, media are perceived as left-wing, and if there is no reason to believe so, why this debate?

It really _is_ a subjective reality Anders. After your inter-subjective reality is presented, the subject through his education, experiences in life etc. makes a judgement of the information presented to him. I know you did'nt relate this to my post, just like to mention it. personally I have tipped over the edge a bit here, believing nothing or at least being extremely sceptical of what is presented to me through media.

Øyvind asked:

1. The Norwegian Labour Party is not particularily socialist?

2. The parties in government are even less so?

They are socialist in my opinion. But this is getting boring. So consider this my last post in this thread.

Ohh!
forgot to mention that paragraph 2. is not socialist of course.Do'nt want to trigger a mis- understanding here!

Okay, they might have a slight slant, but what will the thinkthanks improve? They are presenting propaganda, and gets paid to distort the truth to please their financial backers. Even if public institutions may be slanted, the do not present outright propaganda on behalf of some employer.

When it comes to soft sciences, economy is also a soft science, or should be, if it`s practitioners were more honest. They mostly use the same methods and study phenomena of the same nature as sociology. Also, much libertarian theory makes no sense when you do not choose to ignore the soft sciences. An example is Nozick non-aggression principle. The notion that a trade between two parties does affect a third party only makes sense when you exclude sociology, psychology and biology. Also, rightwing ideologies mostly ascribe a degree of control over own life to the individual, that is quite ridiculous.

Øyvind,
Ok, so the political attitudes of Norwegian journalists is quite a to the left of that of the general population as measured by their voting patterns. Don't you think this constitutes a problem? Certainly it is hardly suprising that the media skewed to the left of the true centre of the 'Norwegian' understanding of the world.

There are no needs for 'Left' conspiracy theories to see explain a 'soft-left' slant in the news reporting.

Real Name:

The lack of rightleaning journalists is a minor problem compared to other faults of Norwegian media, which I have mentioned several off.

As I have stated before, I do not agree with your claim that the media is skanted to the left of "the true centre". Repeating this claim without arguing for it does not really convince me. I am so sorry.

The problem of few rightwingers in the media world is also a problem the right-wing could easily solve. They could study journalism or start newspapers. If they were right that Norwegian media were so left-wing, simple market rules should tell us that there is plenty of room for right-wing newspapers. This would be loads more constructive than the current "buh-huh"-tactics employed both by rightwingers and leftwingers concerning the media.

In my opinion, of course, there is not. Why do I think so? Because, in my opinion, Norwegian media are centrist, not leftist (repeated ad nauseam now).

Øyvind

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1540