(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
All of us humans make mistakes. Both in private and in public spaces. Why can't we just say it as it is, then?
No, it is better to conceal all or part of the truth than to admit mistakes. We are too afraid of the consequences of our mistakes. Whatever the consequences, whether lying or telling the truth. This is how you act even when you have made a mistake that “everyone” sees. When the press takes the matter, you become easily uncertain yourself. One closes in a corner where one is forced to doubt one's own decisions. Been there, done that.
One never has a one hundred percent overview, and certainly the press has a larger overview of the individual case than the person himself has. It often starts with a core of a case that then develops and lives its own life until the starting point is forgotten and you are left with a new case. Who remembers that Saera Khan got confirmation that she had settled her mobile phone bills? The only thing we are left with is that she has called fortune tellers – for her own money, it turns out.
Is this just the press's fault? Of course not, but there is reason to question the power of the press and the responsibility of the press. The press often confuses its responsibility to reveal with its responsibility to bring absolutely true information. Of course, nuanced information does not sell. It is therefore better to create a news item that sells than to take responsibility for the information being 100 percent correct. Because it is rare or never.
Although, like me, there is a fundamental liberal attitude to the market, it seems absolutely necessary that the state regulate the conditions of the press so that the consumer has alternatives. Small, niche-oriented newspapers and local newspapers receive press support and VAT exemptions, and these are important tools. Fritt Ord has also seen the significance of this, by supporting many niche newspapers. However, the fact that a profitable newspaper such as VG receives indirect press support makes it legitimate to question whether there is any point at all. Maybe the rules are ripe for revision?
I myself have experienced the press both as a celebrity and as a politician, and the difference is not very big. Sensations and speculation sell. But how many mistakes can you endure because you are a celebrity or because as a politician you have become dependent on some form of goodwill? Who has given the press the power to define what the object should and should endure? And what kind of body does Norway have to intervene against? The Press's Professional Committee? No newspaper is particularly serious about criticism from PFU, as long as circulation increases as a result of the overtramp being criticized. The press people are of the opinion that they can define the rules for where the boundaries should go and what a celebrity, politician or artist should endure.
In the name of freedom of speech, the press invokes the right to self-assess its own activities. But integrity must always be considered from the outside. The press should be required a justification for their own choices and angles. In all other areas of society, the interventionist is required to have a legal basis for this. The press demands transparency from everyone else. Why has no one raised the ethical issues surrounding background calls? Background conversations are a phenomenon that many newspapers, especially VG, master to perfection. Here you are invited at lunch or dinner by a journalist to provide you with details that can give the journalist a better background for understanding political events and situations. Pure customer care. Of course, this goes both ways: The politician wants to gain the trust of the journalist by leaking information, while the journalist wants to get information. The way this is used is rarely to cite the source itself, but to refer to "sources close to" the politician. When it says "sources close to politician x", you can rest assured that it is the politician himself who is behind it. The distinction between customer care and corruption in these contexts is unclear. But it is obviously on the edge of ethics.
So let me ask the question again, this time to the press: why can't you just say it as it is then? Namely, it is more important to create news that sells than to be 100 percent true.
Rewritten and adapted from the book "Inside the outside", published at Aschehoug publishing house.
