(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
“The complaint concerns the premises around a publication in Ny Tid in December 2015. The newspaper then had a larger article that two asylum seekers from Chechnya, who had been expelled from Norway, had died, probably murdered, in their home country.
Complainants are the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE). A section chief in UNE was interviewed in the article. The complaint states that this interview took place as a TV interview with NRK Dagsrevyen in October, two months before the article in Ny Tid. The interview was never broadcast on NRK. The article in Ny Tid was written by the same journalist who two months earlier appeared as a NRK employee. It appears that he is a freelance journalist and that he was engaged by NRK specifically for this case, but that NRK decided not to publish it. UNE believes that there is a violation of the Vær Varsom poster section 3.3, because the premises were not clarified in connection with the publication in Ny Tid. UNE points out that they were not made aware that the person in question was a freelance journalist, and believes that there is a significant difference between a TV interview and a newspaper interview, and also that the facts may have changed in two months.
Ny Tid rejects the complaint and claims that the premises were clarified in connection with the unpublished TV interview. This is because both documentation, topics and questions were available in advance. It is further pointed out that UNE must be obliged to give the same answers regardless of where the journalist works, and that a freelance journalist must have the right to choose where the publication will take place.
Pressens Faglige Utvalg states that the complaint only applies to the premises on which the publication of the interview with UNE's section manager in Ny Tid was based, and that it does not affect the actual content of the publication. Furthermore, the committee assumes that UNE had every reason to believe that the interview should be published in Dagsrevyen, on NRK's website and also on radio, and that it had to do with a NRK employee. It was not until the day before the Ny Tid publication, two months after the TV interview, that UNE became aware of the change of place of publication.
Be Careful section 3.3 of the poster belongs to the third chapter of the poster, on behavior and the relationship to the sources. It is not a question of ownership of the interview, but whether the premises were sufficiently clarified. It is in any case the responsible editor who must relate to whether the medium, ie Ny Tid, has acted in violation of the stated point in the poster.
As the committee sees it, the relatively clear premise was changed so that what would be an interview in NRK Dagsrevyen two months later became an interview, albeit with the same wording, in a newspaper with another editor. The committee believes that it would be both natural and reasonable to inform the source about this, in time to allow for updates or corrections. An offer of defense, paragraph 4.15 of the poster, was not sufficient in this context.
Ny Tid has broken good press practice. "
