(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
To be the leading intellectual to be, in their response to me (16.9 and 30.9), Knut Olav Åmås is exceptionally poor at enduring criticism. It becomes somewhat parodic when Åmås uses Liv Jessen against me, and rhetorically asks if she does not what she is talking about. Åmås does not cite any of the articles where Per Edgar Kokkvold from PFU supports me in my critique of Samtiden. Well, Jessen knows the prostitution environment very well. But Kokkvold knows press ethics better than anyone, and that's what was the theme of my criticism.
Cheating and cheating is boring to discuss, and the four points the editor has set out to claim that I am lying, readers can even go back to the comments to dismiss or reveal as differences of opinion.
I still mean that Gaarder's article is an interesting meeting with a prostitute in Oslo. But I am not surprised that she can talk, have education and different ways of explaining her own situation. I don't need close-up and personal details to consider the article exciting, and I don't think it's particularly groundbreaking either. If Åmås really wanted to be groundbreaking, it was the whore customer and the African expert who were interviewed with a full name and picture.
There are more important things to be concerned about than Gaarder's article in Contemporary, and so I do not want to spend any more time separating dirt and cinnamon in this matter. Gina has left the building.
Martine Aurdal is responsible for the debate in Ny Tid.
