One of the things I've come to learn as a blogger is that no journalist ever responds to criticism. I can count the exceptions on one hand, and I've been doing this for more than three years. I've made it a habit to notify people when I write about them, inviting their corrections or comments, and the one group of people I can count on not to hear back from are the journalists.

Which makes Dagbladet's article today about my criticism of Dagsavisen noteworthy for two reasons, not just because it's rare for a Norwegian blog story to make mainstream news, but because it's so rare for a newspaper to actually feel it necessary to respond to criticism from a blog. And since newspapers respond to such criticism so rarely, they're .. well, not very good at it. We saw this when Lars Ruben Hirsch caught Aftenposten plagiarizing Newsweek, in their strange apology-denial about "poor creditation", and we see it again in Dagsavisen news editor Rikke Bjurstrøm's response to my accusations in Dagbladet:

I note that Marcus Buck is uncomfortable with being labelled a terror expert. Nevertheless he teaches at the center for security studies at the University of Granada, has particular knowledge of ETA and the terror threat in Europe through ETA. Whether he is an expert or just very knowledgeable about the subject, is primarily a question of semantics. The website admits in any case that Buck is a valuable source.

The expert label is a way of saying "trust this guy because he's a professional who has considerable expertise in this field - we've checked his credentials so you don't have to". An expert is not just someone with an interesting or even an educated point of view. When Dagsavisen's readers are told that one of our "leading terror experts" believes the threat from al-Qaeda has increased, they expect this person to be a professional with Islamist terrorism as his field of study, not an election researcher and statistician who has some knowledge about an ideologically unrelated terror organization.

Dagsavisen's readers are peculiar that way, they read "expert" and think "expert". Dagsavisen writes "expert" and means "some guy it took us hours to find who'd say what we wanted to hear". And I believe this is common practice. The expert label has come to say very little about someone's credentials, and is more just something a journalist applies to emphasize a message, much like swearing.

The essence of Dagsavisen's article is also supported by Petter Nesser at FFI, who I believe has enough credibility even for this website: "Anything that connects us with American warfare will also place us on the map for radical Islamist groups, both in Europe and the rest of the world. So this weapons lending comes in addition to the fact that we're already seen as a close ally of the US", he says.

But Petter Nesser does not agree with the essence of Dagsavisen's article, as I pointed out. He agrees with my interpretation of his views, that the weapons lending is insignificant in addition to Norway's already close alliance with the US.

Other sources quoted in the article also talk about this - and support the two claims: Norway is closely connected with American warfare - and the weapons lending can emphasize those close connections even further.

Bjurstrøm appears to have read only the first third of what I wrote. I believe I've documented very thoroughly that none of Dagsavisen's sources apart from Buck (and possibly not even him) agree with the main theme of the article, that the terror threat has increased. And to imply that Dagsavisen merely talked about Norway's close connection with the US being "emphasized" is dishonest. I'll quote the opening paragraphs again:

The threat of terrorism against Norwegian targets have increased because of the weapons lending to the American forces. Norway's contribution will be made known from terror cells in Europe to martyrs in Baghdad.

The weapons lending does not only create noise in Norway. The news about Norway's secret weapons support to American forces have been spread quickly through Arab newspapers in London and Islamist websites. The 25 crates of weapons will thus associate Norway even more strongly with what radical Islamists perceive as an American crusade against Islam. This is the conclusion of leading terrorism experts Dagsavisen has contacted.

This is a strong claim. If true, it would justify the front page Dagsavisen gave it. But as I've documented it's not true. There is a very simple way for Dagsavisen to verify this. Contact all their sources again, and ask them how they feel about those two paragraphs, which they, as leading terrorism experts, are quoted in support of. That's essentially what I did, and the results were clear.

With one exception, Larsen used everyone who had been interviewed for this story.

And how many did he contact in all? What were his criteria for deciding who to interview? How many refused to be interviewed, and what reason did they state? Were any of the people contacted less qualified as "terror experts" than Buck? And while we're asking: Why did they not quote the sources they did use honestly?

These are all interesting questions I would have hoped to get a reply to. And when I've posted this I'll send a mail to Bjurstrøm asking for just that. But I'm unlikely to get one, for the same reason I did not get one before. Dagsavisen knows that they can ignore these questions without consequences. Flukes like Dagbladet's article aside, a blog is still just a blog, and professional journalists, as Tor Andre points out, generally prefer not to scrutinize the sources of other journalists. They might start scrutinizing back.

Bjørn: I think there is something here I do not understand. Maybe Marcus Buck could clarify it. In his response to my comment to your previous article, he stated:

I stated explicitly that the 'lending' in itself would not cause any change in the level of danger against Norwegian interests unless it was to be fomented by Al Queda spokesmen. In short, the 'subjective' element was far more important than the 'objective' association with the US.

From what I can see, this means that the weapons lending doesn't increase any danger - except if Al Qaida explicitly uses that in their propaganda, and targets Norway with it.

I'm not sure whether Al'Qaida has done so, but if not, I can't see that Marcus Buck is in agreement with the main theme of the Dagsavisen article? This notion of mine seems to be supported by his praise for you bringing this issue to the public.

They jump conclusions, actually it should be pretty clear they wanted a specific story.

I wonder why a paper think this would be a good frontline in the first place. I don´t know if this paper is a tabloid, but it seems to qualify with that editorial line.

No Martin Buck was asked a question, answered it with a minor clause, that maybe Al-qaida would take it up for propaganda purposes, but in itself it would not increase the level of a threat which is already there.

Gratz on making the news Bjørn.

Well, Bjørn, at least you got more of a reply than I did when I pointed out that an article about Arnold Schwarzenegger in TV2 Nettavisen was essentially badly researched fiction.

If it hadn't been for the Dagbladet coverage, you'd not even get this lame reply.

Journalists have been thriving on bad research and ignorance for decades, and until now, they know they can totally ignore criticism from normal people. I suspect it may still take some time before the Norwegian mainstream media really has to pay attention to Norwegian bloggers. But they shouldn't feel too safe.

Do you blog? There is currently a research survey out that seeks to know "why bloggers blog." The study is being performed by a graduate student at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. The survey takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Thanks for your time.

Click Here to take the survey

I liked your description of "expert." I have heard one that an expert is "someone from out of town."

I would love to hear the real story about what these experts would say about those 2 paragraphs.

There is in the US a penchant for using "experts" as an appeal to authority. It is particularly repellent in a courtroom where you get dueling experts, one for the prosecution, one for the defense and the amount that they get paid counts. This is very common in medical cases where there are "professional experts" who make their living testifying in court.

As far as the media is concerned the perfect example is with the CBS Rathergate fake documents when CBS tried to pass a typewriter repairman off as a typography expert.

One of the best things that the web and blogs does is to make expertise transparent so the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is harder to pull off.

Congratulations Bjorn.

I would venture to say to you have just made Norwegian history.

Cheers.

As I expected, no response from Dagsavisen this time. That is, I got one short reply from one of the journalists, Nilas Johnsen. He also replied the first time I contacted him only to let me know that he wasn't the one who had interviewed Marcus Buck, it was the other journalist, Jon Martin Larsen. This time he wrote: "As explained to you in an earlier mail I was not responsible for the part of the article you've worked yourself up about", which tells me that one of the reasons journalists never reply to criticism is that they don't actually read it - I attacked all of that article as dishonest, including whatever part Johnsen wrote.

He added: "But I have a question I expect you to answer: Where are you employed Bjørn Stærk?" Where, indeed? Do I work for a mysterious right-wing think tank, an evil multinational corporation, or an easily embarassable government agency? I must have disappointed him when I said I work for Software Innovation, a medium-sized Norwegian software company.

after the shoddy journalism, i guess the next question to ask is how average norwegians feel about lending the arms. personally, i can't imagine any major terrorist group giving a flip about lending some crates of munitions to the u.s. military, considering the thousands of crates of munitions that are expended on a daily basis, and the hedonism to destroy in amsterdam, the territory to reclaim in andulusia, and the inequality to combat in the paris/berlin suburbs.

Bjoern, You might recall Dagens Nyheter's reaction to the Spectator's (very well-founded) accusations of plagiarism. The journalist and editors involved first ignored the story, then deflected all criticism by accusing us of being "funded" by some shadow organization and then accusing me of being a "right-wing extremist." When all the media attention died down, they fired the journalist...and went on the Sveriges Radio one last time to accuse me, obliquely, of course, of being a member of some American conspiracy...

Michael Moynihan: The journalist and editors involved first ignored the story, then deflected all criticism by accusing us of being "funded" by some shadow organization and then accusing me of being a "right-wing extremist."

But Michael, by Swedish standards you are a right-wing extremist. ;)

I also recall what happened to Jarle Synnevåg, who worked at FFI, a Norwegian military research institution, but was better known as an Islam critic on Usenet. The media made some noise about the military having such a dangerous extremist on their payroll, and FFI had him fired. Granted that Synnevåg's criticism was of the "Islam is evil"-kind I despise, the whole affair was shameful, and an example of censorship by the press. It sent a strong message: If you have an easily embarassable employer, and you write things on the internet we don't like, we're going to come after you.

Granted that Synnevåg's criticism was of the "Islam is evil"-kind I despise.

-

Actually it went somewhat beyond that. Synnevåg said things like "merely being a Muslim is one of the worst crimes against humanity one can be guilty off", complained that the Satanists "did not have the wits to burn down churches where church asylants had hid, because then - at least - one evil would smoke out the other". He has also said that if any non-Muslim country went to war against any Muslim country for whatever reason he would support it and he has maintained friendly contact with various people that Norwegian defence-employees should hardly maintain friendly contact with.

In other words; the press was entirely right to go after him, and FFI was entirely right to sack him.

Øyvind

Øyvind: Synnevåg certainly said many quite extreme things. He is also one of the few Islam critics that actually can back most of what he says with the Qu'ran. Of course, he reads it and interprets it the same way the fanatics does - but from a fanatical "counter-fanatic" viewpoint.

However, the newspapers forgot one thing. He posted this on Usenet. One of the places where people post when they're angry, when they're tired, when they've sipped a couple of glasses of whiskey too much in one evening. It's a place you post when you're frustrated and angry - and needs to vent.

When people clash on Usenet - it tends to get ugly. People can get outright nasty in their comments - comments they wouldn't make other places than over a beer at the pub.

Usenet should be read with that in mind. The trouble comes when the press (or other people) goes to Usenet to find things to defame a person. It's easy. If you know about someone that posts a lot to usenet, you can probably find huge amounts of information to discredit that person.

Personally I cancelled my subscription to both aftenposten and dagsavisen when they started the witch-hunt against Synnevåg.

FFI was right to sack him (or get him to resign, which is what they actually did) - they could of course not bear the bad press from not doing so. Standing up for him and trying to explain usenet to the press and the left-wingers would not be fruitfull. The press on the other hand did NOT do the right thing. They did the same as barge into a pub and start listening in on current and past conversation to be able to print them.

The trouble with Internet and Usenet in particular is that it's damn easy to do that eavesdropping, of a place where things maybe shouldn't be that easily searchable.

1. Synnevåg makes his statements all kinds of places, not only on Usenet.

2. I have personally discussed Islam with Synnevåg. He did not know what the word "ijtihad" referred to. Surprising for someone who has such incredible knowledge of Islam. Then of course, all knowledge has sources.

3. If some military expert (not completely accurate, but accurate enough) had a habit of hanging out with the wrong kind of people and say what Synnevåg says in pubs, I would tell journalist: Go get the bastard.

4. Usenet is quite well-known for quite a lot of left-wingers. Do not be silly.

Øyvind

A reporter gets criticised by you Bjørn, and he answer you with a question about your intentions, even implies that you work for an American interest-group of some kind. And if you do? Who cares? This is to me a symptom of decline in Norway - the health of our media, in my opinion, is the first place that decrement of a society is visible to the observer.

We all have our agendas (well not socialists of course). My agenda is freedom - and I want as much of it as possible. I'am willing to pay a price for this freedom, like longer jail sentences, even more terrorist attacks. Personally I don't care what the name of the political system is, call it liberal democracy, capitalism or anarchy. One thing is for sure, I don't want this Orwellian - look alike - society we have in Norway.

Things are not all that bad, it's freedom of speech here (?) and even though we continuously get misinformed and lied to - we have a fairly good standard of living. It's however not easy to be different or exceptional, neither below or above average. The mediocrity is nauseatingly contagious.
Knut Hamsun (spare me the nazi-talk) would have been put on drugs and institutionalised in present day Norway. And we wouldn't be able to enjoy a monumental work like _ Pan_ today.

This is me, just ranting away...

Øyvind: I have personally discussed Islam with Synnevåg. He did not know what the word "ijtihad" referred to. Surprising for someone who has such incredible knowledge of Islam. Then of course, all knowledge has sources.

I think the issue here is whether Synnevåg's personal crusade against Islam was relevant to his work at FFI. Did it affect his judgment, and corrupt his research? If so, FFI should have been able to detect so on their own, without help from righteous journalists. All kinds of people manage to keep their professional lives separate from their wacky private beliefs. A significant amount of the population believes that many of their friends and colleagues will suffer eternal damnation for not worshipping the correct sky-dwelling being. We still grant them the right to carry out their other abilities, without forcing such issues at every opportunity.

If being an anti-Islamic wackoe made Synnevåg bad at his job, FFI would have been right to force him out. That's not what happened here. The motivating factor was embarassment, deliberately created by the media for the purpose of chasing Synnevåg out of FFI, not (from what I know) professional dissatisfaction on the part of FFI. That's a dangerous power for the media to wield, and it sends a very clear signal to others who share Synnevåg's basic views about Islam. And for all his Ann Coulter-like abilities to phrase himself in dumb and offensive ways, Synnevåg is not that far removed from the anti-Islamic blogosphere. Which means that anyone who agrees with the "Islam is evil"-worldview and says so on the internet should do it anonymously or not at all. If you do it openly, and you have the embarassable kind of employer, journalists in major newspapers may gang together to have you fired. Is that really how you want to fight anti-Islamic paranoia?

Njet: A reporter gets criticised by you Bjørn, and he answer you with a question about your intentions, even implies that you work for an American interest-group of some kind.

He didn't imply that. All he did was ask where I work. Which is ominous enough by itself.

I do not know the internal workings of FFI, nor what Synnevåg did work on.

However, I do know that Synnevågs opinions on Islam are not merely anti-Islamic, but in direct opposition to central values of Norwegian society (and interestingly enough he speaks much harder against politicians that will "be dangling from lampposts" than against Muslims). These are views someone employed directly or indirectly by the Norwegian defense forces should not have, just like they should not be Nazis or Stalinists.

And if there are Nazis or Stalinists to be found amongst FFIs other employees, which I doubt, I would be glad if someone in the press noticed and chose to inform the public.

Øyvind

Hei Øyvind

How do you feel about the principal of free speech? Do you think that an "average joe" should have the opportunity to express synnevågs views without the danger of getting fined for it. I'm just curious.

Then - in these antmuslim times - I want to say that I don't share the fear mongering views that f.eks. Fjordman is a spokesperson of...
Oslo wouldn't have been the same beautiful city without its many immigrants. They give the city the color and spice it needs.

How do you feel about the principal of free speech?

principle

Rune Kristina Viken wrote:
"Bjørn: I think there is something here I do not understand. Maybe Marcus Buck could clarify it. In his response to my comment to your previous article, he stated:

I stated explicitly that the 'lending' in itself would not cause any change in the level of danger against Norwegian interests unless it was to be fomented by Al Queda spokesmen. In short, the 'subjective' element was far more important than the 'objective' association with the US.

From what I can see, this means that the weapons lending doesn't increase any danger - except if Al Qaida explicitly uses that in their propaganda, and targets Norway with it.

I'm not sure whether Al'Qaida has done so, but if not, I can't see that Marcus Buck is in agreement with the main theme of the Dagsavisen article? This notion of mine seems to be supported by his praise for you bringing this issue to the public."

This is precisely the point. The journalist and I were talking about a) Islamistic propaganda linking Norway to the US, b) the exposure of the lending of the laser system, and c) the threats against Norway stated in Al Queda bulletins/messages. I indicated no direct link between 'the lending' and the level of threats, let alone actual DANGER of actions directed against Norway. The missing link between lending and increase in the level of threats was action on behalf of islamistic medianetworks exploiting the situation to foment the impression of a close collaboration between Norway and the US.
Frankly, if indeed was worthy of publication in Dagsavisen at all, I had expected something like: "According to MB, Spanish researchers on international terrorism state that any linkage to the US can be exploited by islamistic networks issuing threats and planning actions. Whether Norway fully participates or not in Iraq is of less importance - as the Spanish experience underscores..."
The answers and views that Shared with the journalist are things that I can say to Spanish journalists without fear of making shouting headlines the next day. I have given this much thought and have come to the possible conclusion that since Spain has lived with the domestic ETA terrorism for so many years they have a far better understanding of the phenomenon and refrain from inducing general fear in the population by way of juicy headlines.

Marcus

Well Øyvind let´s say you in the intelligence service of your country, and if you were gonna make a rational, objective decision on who to focus and who to watch more carefully - remember you got limited budget, and restricting laws as well. Who would you focus on ? the kinds of mullar Krekar or Omar bakri, or the kinds of synnervågs ? Who consitute the most valid and truest threat to our societies ?

Now it´s of course due to take a stand against people even just talking about killing or wishing people should dangle, being burned inside churches etc. And groups like the neo nazis are raided now and then to thin out their reservoir of arms, and to make sure they know they are being watched, that´s all rational and necesary pre cautions. The secret police takes those guys seriously, and fine that is.

But answer the qustion above and we continue :)

If you remember or know ? Fremskridts partiet in Denmark was founded by Mogens Glistrup. This man said some controversial statements like "moslems breeeds like rats" And the whole ideological Kremlin apparatus went outraged, using all the big superlatives like "xenophobia" "rascism" "muslimphobia" etc.
This controversial figure eventually caused rift inside the party with a part of it growing tired of the Glistrup gang, and the man himself, and wanting a more sober approach. So in short the party was split, Dansk folkeparti created, and in the long run it took all the votes, even got more votes, so bending to the Kremlin thought police did have some effect. However the price was losing a couple of politicians of high quality and engangement which decided to remain loyal to Glistrup.

AND THE RESULT WAS NOT!!! THAT THE HETZ AGAINST THE PARTY AS; "RASCIST" "XENOPHOBIC" "ISLAMOPHOBIC" came to an end. No all the kicking out controversial figures with controversial statements and views, all the trying to escape the label of "rascist" "zenophobic" did not pay out in terms of changing the barrage from the Kremlin one - correct - way - to - think - opinion elite.

But it did change the minds of some cautious voters, which of course again has the result that Kremlin warfare must increase.

So in a debate where guys like Glistrup are totally discounted for all they say because of a few infamous statements, and where Imans are cherished when they talk like we want them to talk, and not say stuff like "Women that don´t dress in burka are to blame themselves if they get raped" As a note, as far I know Burka does not save women from being raped at all, only leprosy does.

In a biased debate full of taboos, full of not only onesided prejudice, how are you supposed to reach a rational debate, and thus rational solutions ?

My personal thought is that if those multicultural conflicts are not solved and some lines are drawn, some agreements made. It will escalate to a situation where problems gets so deep and so urgent that rational solutions will be something you don´t have the time to think about.
In this debate we much see things the way they are, and what solutions we must apply might not fit the dreamworld of utopians, but in the long run we could be forced to simple struggle for own survival, and when you struggle for your own survival, you certainly don´t pay much attention to the human rights, or utopian ideals.

Most of the problems with immigrants I personally believe will be solved over time, with big cities like Paris, Copenhagen, Malmø, having zones were people do not go unless they have to, and the rich and well to do will move away to other areas or areas protected by fences and security guards, that only for a while, in itself it would probably be solved over time, provided the narrowsighted immigration stops.

What spells the biggest problem is, bearing in mind what happened after 9/11, If another big attack happens, it targets children, or kills thousands by using WMD. Our security services stopped many attacks, but can they stop every one ? I am afraid they can´t and once we have such a new attack we have a very different situation. I know Øyvind you do not disagree with the threat posed by " International militant islam" the term I believe you prefer, I prefer "Jihad international" But what makes me wonder is your focus on the kinds of Synnervåg, by any means I don´t think he poses a threat to our world. His inhumane views are simply not able to compete with cutting of heads, killing barbers that shave in western style, killing women that goes to university and naturally not with coldly calculated mass murder, in terms of arousing "islamophobia".

So where are we supposed to keep our focus, to repeat the question, who would you be watching if you worked for the national security service ?

A sober and objective debate which takes the real issues into consideration is by any means to be prefered, but we running out of time for the sober debate, we don´t have forever.

I do not think Omar Bakri Muhammad represents a great threat to Norway, him being an extremist in Londonistan. He is a good example of the kind of Muslim we should not like, but that is pretty much all he is.

The real treats from within Muslim groups in the West comes from people who are far less obvious than this guy.

Neither do I think mullah Krekar represents a grand problem. He seems to me to be a typical kind of Islamist, extreme, but focused on his homecountry and not on global terrorism. As far as I can see, he is more of a threat to his own people (the Kurds) than he is to anyone else.

By the way, Thomas, I do not like the term "jihadist". It is hardly precise. Personally I prefer talking about militant islamism, but the best would perhaps be to look at militant islamisms as several different lines of thought, which is what they are.

But then, I do not see Synnevåg as a great threat either. It is his ideas that are. There is a long way from saying:

"People who work for the Norwegian defence forces and have views like the one of Synnevåg should be exposed"

and

"People who have views like the one of Synnevåg should be the number one priority for Norwegian intelligence"

In other words the answer is: None of the above. I would focus my energy on the less obvious extremists, some of them to be found in circles around Hizb ut-Tahrir and similar organizations, some of them to be found in far right circles.

Njet:

People should be allowed to say what Synnevåg says without being fined for it, yes.

"I do not think Omar Bakri Muhammad represents a great threat to Norway, him being an extremist in Londonistan. He is a good example of the kind of Muslim we should not like, but that is pretty much all he is."

I agree partly, since he is really the media addict parrot in this connection to some extent, he is a face, an agent provocateur. However I would watch him carefully since he has contact with people that are real terrorists, or he used to have, now he probably treads more carefully. But still he should be watched. Anyway he is pretty open mouthed proponement of the idea that we as kaffirs are worthless and without value and can be targeted for terror attacks each and everyone.

"The real treats from within Muslim groups in the West comes from people who are far less obvious than this guy."

Agreed, anyone planning a terror attack and being close to to carrying it out would hardly announce it on speakers corner:)

"Neither do I think mullah Krekar represents a grand problem. He seems to me to be a typical kind of Islamist, extreme, but focused on his homecountry and not on global terrorism. As far as I can see, he is more of a threat to his own people (the Kurds) than he is to anyone else."

Disagreed, that is what they used to say about Zarqawi, and al-ansar has links to both zarqawi and al-queda. Actually on formation zarqawi was chief and both zawahiri and OBL visited their camp offered a donation., as far as I remember.

However he will probably be restricted by being watched to closely to do anything, atleast that is what you can hope.

Hiz ut tahrir could attract some of the people that might perpetrate terror, actualloy out own security service has advocated they were not banned in the hope it would attract fundamentalist into a known circle that might be easier for them to watch.

"By the way, Thomas, I do not like the term "jihadist". It is hardly precise."

I think it´s quite precise enough, especially with the international prefix, but of course there are other groups like hezbollah, hamas etc. they are not fighting for a global khalifah in general, the annihilation of Israel would probably be enough :) But they still interact globally and are certainly not friendly to the west in general.

Anyway for a terror threat vs Norway I would not be much worried, possibly only Sweden is less likely to be attacked. Even denmark with it´s "xenophobic government" troops in Iraq, and the infamous harsh torture case, where interogated iraqis had to listen to swearwords, from a FEMALE interogator! and was neglected full service in terms of getting break to drink water and visit the toilet, is unlikely to cause terror against denmark. We don´t have much stategic importance, moslems in out country actually live quite well and probably make quite substantial donations to the jihadi cause. As far as their strategy is utilizing the growing minorities of immigrants for their purpose, as far they are unlikely to do anything that would trigger a mass expulsion.

Good job,

It's wise to keep in mind that a free press is not enough. Especially if they all think exactly the same way.

A free press still requires an antagonist to make sure that the press is accurate. Otherwise, who will watch the watchers?

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1553

Stromata Blog: Fake-But-Accurate in Norway, March 17, 2005 04:35 AM

Bjørn Stærk presents a pair of anecdotes that illustrate the virulence and pro-terrorist bias of certain segments of the European Left. The first is “fake but accurate� raised to a more brazen level than even Mary Mapes dared. Several months