(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The complaint concerns Ny Tid's coverage of the documentary film "The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes". In three articles, the film was criticized for giving a wrong picture of the Magnitsky case. Sergei Magnitsky died in a Russian prison in 2009, allegedly after reporting a multibillion-dollar theft, and the circumstances surrounding his death have received a lot of media attention worldwide.
The complainant is Piraya Film, which together with the Russian director Andrej Nekrasov made the documentary film. The complainant believes that Ny Tid has not simultaneously countered all the accusations in the articles. Nekrasov is accused of having been bribed by Russia, and the complainant believes that neither Nekrasov nor Piraya Film have had to deal with this. The complainant further believes that Ny Tid has presented the documentary film incorrectly. The film does not claim that Magnitsky died of natural causes, but that he died because the prison service denied him medical treatment, the complaints emphasize. As the complainant sees it, Ny Tid's coverage lacks balance.
Ny Tid cannot be seen to have broken good press etiquette. The newspaper states that the editors asked Nekrasov questions about the bribery accusation. Ny Tid points out that the newspaper wrote in the paper edition that Nekrasov has previously rejected the allegation, and in the online edition also wrote that he has rejected the allegation towards the newspaper. Ny Tid believes that Piraya Film and Nekrasov have had plenty to say. Ny Tid also believes that the coverage is based on a wide range of sources, and that the newspaper has published objective facts based on documents in the Magnitsky case.
The Press' Professional Committee (PFU) emphasizes that the committee has no opportunity to assess the factual basis of the Magnitsky case itself. The PFU is not a control body that carries out independent investigations to check the facts, and the committee has not received sufficient documentation to carry out a complete review of such a large and complicated case. There is an allegation against an allegation between the complainant and the newspaper.
The PFU will only take a decision on the extent to which the documentary film is discussed in a press ethically acceptable manner, and whether the film company has been given sufficient opportunity to counter accusations.
When it comes to Ny Tid's presentation of the film, the committee points out that there should be a certain amount of room for interpretation and simplification in journalism. The film contains controversial and sensational information, and the selection emphasizes that the production company and the director had to endure a critical spotlight. The committee believes it was imprecise for Ny Tid to write that the film's message is that Magnitsky died of "natural causes". The committee understands that complaints are reacting to the wording. But as PFU sees it, Ny Tid has not published anything that contradicts the Vær Varsom poster's point 3.2, on information control, or point 4.1, on objectivity and consideration.
One of the main arguments in the complaint is that director Nekrasov was not allowed to respond to an allegation that he has been bribed by Russia to make the documentary film, cf. point 4.14 of the Vær Varsom poster, about simultaneous countermeasures. PFU notes that Ny Tid sent a question to Nekrasov about this accusation, and that Nekrasov rejected the accusation in a reply to this email. The committee further notes that Ny Tid wrote in the paper edition that Nekrasov has previously rejected the allegation, and in the online edition that Nekrasov has rejected the allegation both previously and to Ny Tid. The newspaper also pointed out that the claim lacks documentation. Director Nekrasov also received a response in Ny Tid's subsequent newspaper edition, in which he denied the allegation.
However, the allegation – which claims that the film director was allegedly bribed by Russia to make a film in line with the Kremlin's views on the Magnitsky case – is very strong, and of a factual nature. Clause 4.14 states that the person who is subjected to strong accusations must be allowed to counter factual information, and that the countermeasure must be published at the same time as the accusations. The PFU has stated several times that it is not normally enough to show what the attacked party has previously said to other media; the charges must be presented to the attacked again. The committee believes that Ny Tid should have included Nekrasov's answer in the paper edition.
In the online edition, Ny Tid wrote that Nekrasov has rejected the claim to the newspaper. However, the paper did not quote directly from his response; the newspaper contented itself with writing that he has rejected the claim. In addition, the opposition only appeared in one of the articles. It was not published in the main article, where the accusation received the most space, nor was it linked to the countermeasure in a clear way.
Ny Tid has broken good press etiquette in point 4.14 of the Vær Varsom poster.
Oslo, 27 February 2018
Alf Bjarne Johnsen,
Anne Weider Aasen, Stein Bjøntegård, Martin Riber Sparre,
Reidun Førde, Erik Schjenken, Nina Fjeldheim
