The complaint concerns an article in news about a parish priest who believes that women should not be allowed to be priests. In the article’s URL field, news wrote that the parish priest “refuses to cooperate” with female priests. The wording in the URL field became the article’s title when it was shared on social media. In the article itself, the title was “Victory no to women priests (…)”. Complainant is the mentioned parish priest. He states that it is wrong that he does not want to cooperate with female priests. He never said this, and the title was therefore incorrect, the complaint emphasizes. The complainant also states that news has quoted him despite the fact that he clearly expressed that he did not want to be interviewed. The erroneous title, the quotes and the rest of the article make his opinions appear different than they actually are, complainers argue. news states that the wording “refuses to cooperate” was only used in the URL field, and that the article itself was correct. The editors changed the URL title approx. three hours after the complainant made contact and thus corrected the error as quickly as possible, in line with Vær Varsom plakaten’s (VVP) 4.13, news argues. With regard to the quotes, news maintains that it was natural to refer to the complainant’s answer that he would not comment on the case. news emphasizes that the case concerns the complainant’s public role as a priest. Furthermore, news states that the article was created in the wake of a portrait interview in Sunnmørsposten, where it emerged that complaints are against female priestly service. The Press Professional Committee (PFU) emphasizes that the complainant had to accept mention of his views as a parish priest. PFU notes that the complainant did not want to comment on the case, and that news reproduced this. The PFU also notes that news also gave a short explanation of why the complainant would not allow himself to be interviewed, specifically that he wanted calm about his positions, and that journalists’ desire for conflict was at their own expense. Sources must be confident that they can have contact and dialogue with the media without what happens outside the interview situation being published. It is the responsibility of the press to clarify the premises for the contact, cf. VVP 3.3. The committee understands that the complainant reacts to the fact that his answer was reproduced beyond the fact that he did not want to comment on the matter. However, the quotes can also be seen as part of the complainant’s refusal to be interviewed, which news was within its right to reproduce. As PFU sees it, it is limited how apt the published appears to be, and the committee points out that the case concerned the complainant’s public role as a parish priest. The PFU sees that news could have been clearer in its contact with complaints, but after an overall assessment comes down to the fact that the editors have not breached good press etiquette on VVP 3.3. The PFU, on the other hand, reacts to the use of the title. The title was correct in the article itself, but news did not have the coverage to write that the complainant refuses to cooperate with female priests, as the title expressed when shared on social media. PFU points out that there is a fundamental difference between refusing to cooperate with one’s colleagues and having a theological position that women should not be priests. The former may also have an impact on the employment relationship, and the committee understands that the complainant experienced it as an abuse that the incorrect title was spread on Facebook. It was positive that news corrected the error when the complainant spoke up, cf. VVP 4.13, but the correction does not make up for the breach of press ethics, cf. VVP 4.4, about having coverage for titles.news has broken good press etiquette in point 4.4 of the Vær Varsom poster. Oslo, 26 October 2022 Anne Weider Aasen, Jonas Stein, Ellen Ophaug, Nina Fjeldheim, Ingrid Rosendorf Joys, Gunnar Kagge, Tove Lie
ttn-69