(THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Neither facts nor accounts of assessments have made an impression on Martine Aurdal in the case we have discussed – Contemporary three articles on prostitution.
Aurdal now teaches (23.9.) Ny Tid's readers that "it is not the editor's task to convey everything as an interview subject and an article writer want, but to make independent, editorial decisions about what constitutes good press ethics".
I share this view of the editing role after eighteen years as editor of other people's texts. The Gina interview and conversation with Phillip has been through editing in three to four rounds each. The ethical considerations are devoted a lot of time.
In his post, Aurdal introduces factual errors to strengthen his case:
1) It is not true that I "maintain that the anonymisation of customers is total". I have argued that it is "sufficient that they cannot be identified" (New Time 16.9.). It has been a point to illustrate that it is the most resourceful and knowledgeable people with otherwise completely ordinary lives who buy services from African sex workers in Oslo. (Maybe Ny Tid could shed light on, for example, Norwegian aid workers' relationships with prostitutes in Africa? And their relationship with African prostitutes in Oslo? Maybe it hurts too much in Ny Tid's core market?)
2) I have not committed a "disclaimer" based on an "unconscious attitude" or made any "accusations about. . .
To continue reading, create a new free reader account with your email,
eller logg inn if you have done it before. (click on forgotten password if you have not received it by email already).
Select if necessary Subscription (69kr)