[Dagbladet is launching a political blog to cover the election this year, with me and a whole bunch of interesting Norwegian bloggers. Should be fun. I'll be writing shorter entries than usual, so I don't plan to halt this blog. Anyway, here's a translation of my first post.]

Let's begin this with some honesty. Once in a while somebody points out that it is dishonest of journalists who cover politics to pretend that they're neutral observers, who care nothing for ideology, just cold facts and solid reporting. For they have opinions too.

Journalists are uncomfortable with this subject, and prefer not to talk about it. But can anyone really doubt that journalists who vote left are more motivated to dig up stories and angles that are damaging to the right, and that journalists who vote right are more motivated to write something that is negative for the left? How much this influences their work depends on the person: It could be a lot, a little, or none at all. But surely the readers are the ones who are best qualified to judge this?

Some journalists seem to think that if they can manage to keep their private opinions hidden from the public, that will make it easier for them to be neutral reporters. It takes some effort to actually believe this. For surely it is those who admit their weaknesses who feel the strongest pressure to overcome them, not those who deny them. I have more trust in a journalist who says "yes, I vote Conservative - but I try not to let it influence my work" than someone who hides behind fake neutrality.

Openness is primarily important for those who work with objective journalism and neutral analysis, and less important for the pundits - their political leanings are usually transparent. But to set a good example I would like to admit that I might very well vote for the Progress Party this fall. More about why here, (no I don't hate Muslims). If this makes you skeptical, that's a good thing - you're supposed to be skeptical when people want to tell you something, whether they're bloggers, journalists or researchers. And even more so when they try to keep their agenda hidden.

So can we hope for a little more openness in this year's election, and fewer legends about the mythological journalist hero?

why not vote the only classical liberal party of Norway DLF (http://www.stemdlf.no)?

This is ofcourse a scheme from db.no to turn independent bloggers into 'embedded bloggers' ;)

Ah, the conspiracy!

Finally some quality has been brought to the rather miserable "blog" sections of norwegian online news sites. I suspect they thought they could compete with the blogosphere by making a few of their own journalists write opinion pieces and allow for comments. Well, it's not that simple.

Maybe this initiative will get you some hits and a bit more fame Bjørn, you sure deserve it. But I suspect you'll have more discussion here than on dagbladet.

On the topic, researcher and commentator Frank Aarebrot came out a few years ago announcing his support for Labour. It doesn't appear to have damaged him one bit, he's very popular in the media. And interestingly he was one of the more vocal people on the debate about the left-leaning of most norwegian journalists, stating that this in fact is a problem. Now, maybe this is nothing more than what we should expect from the guy... but the rest of the norwegian commentators who are not former politicians have a far less respectable record. And the average journalist.. don't get me started. Media people, look to Frank Aarebrot, you might learn the value of being straight with your audience.

I actually miss the days when the newspapers would be controlled by the political parties. Back then, a journalist could not switch from a far-left paper like Klassekampen to a supposedly conservative paper like Aftenposten.

If you take a paper like Dagsavisen, I used to think it was interesting to find out what the Labour Party thought on the issues. These days the paper is totally uninteresting, because what some faceless lefty thinks about something really doesn't matter to me.

The different political agendas of the newspapers have been replaced by a wishy-washy, half lefty - half commercial ideology we could call journalism. And as every newspaper thinks the same thoughts, reading them has become sooo dull.

Halvor: I actually miss the days when the newspapers would be controlled by the political parties.

I don't think that's the solution. Party-controlled media are inherently dishonest, they're worse than bland. It's sad that people can jump between the national media like they're interchangable, but it would be worse if they were jumping between parties and newspapers. There's a third option, though: Media and writers who are both opinionated and independent. Who can think for themselves, without being limited by professional consensus or party dogma.

Bjørn, I agree with Halvor. When newspapers had party-colours at least you had diversity. Thats gone now. Problem is we are so small a country, niche papers can't survive and they all compete PK mainstream. Add political colour of journalists and you got the picture. They are opinionated but not diverse.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1566