“Letting the victims’ next of kin speak with their feelings and experiences had to be tolerated without being problematized”, writes news Sørlandet in its Baneheia apology and its response to my criticism of them. Perhaps Norway’s most powerful victim, Ada Sofie Austegard, accused Presse-Norge of lying, and of deliberately withholding truths. She got to do that in front of an open microphone on Dagsrevyen. Even after the attorney general’s acquittal, news Sørlandet is not willing to problematize its own journalism. What value then has a regret? Several Norwegian newsrooms have regretted their own coverage of the Baneheia case. On Monday, news also got on the field. They also responded to my criticism. But now what? How can one avoid touch anxiety, vanity, arrogance and a lack of curiosity in the future? The Editors’ Association and the Norwegian Press Association have announced large meetings where the press’s handling of the Baneheia case is on the agenda. Former journalist Svein Tore Bergestuen advocates a much more thorough investigation. It’s probably wise. There is much evidence that Presse-Norge – and news Sørlandet in particular – is facing an editorial culture that needs to change. It’s not just-just. It is gratifying to read many of the regrets offered by Norwegian commentators and editors in the aftermath of the Attorney General’s acquittal of Viggo Kristiansen. It is particularly important that many are open about what went wrong, this makes the apologies more trust-inspiring. But there is still a lot of work to be done if trust is to be restored. Arrogance and condescension have characterized the dialogues Viggo’s supporters have had with the press. All they wanted was to make the rest of us open our eyes. One of those who has been at the forefront of getting Kristiansen’s case reopened is Mikkel Tronsrud. He describes his meeting with the press in the following way in an article on news Ytring: “Norwegian media have never shied away from exposing Viggo Kristiansen’s problematic aspects. However, when we want to shed light on evidence that suggests he may still be innocent, problems arise. It’s as if there is a kind of Lex Kristiansen in the newsrooms.” Several journalists I have spoken to say that the resistance from the editors and other actors is great. One journalist said that it is as if separate rules apply to Kristiansen. Another said he was almost scolded when he wanted to look into Kristiansen’s case. “What’s next? Shall we claim that Breivik was innocent too?” a colleague must have almost shouted.” In that case, excuses that also contain a “but” will not do. As when news explains that it is understandable that many journalists have strong memories of the case, and thus have also accepted the prosecution’s assessment of guilt. In many ways, news delivers a general apology without going into specifics about what has not been good enough. At the same time, they continue to defend that they did not ask critical questions to the next of kin when they accused the press of lying. Dagbladet writes that, by and large, they followed the procedures they had in the 2000s, but that the procedures are fortunately better today. What is the value of such regrets? Procedures are of little help when the errors that are pointed out are complex and in sum constitute a lack of culture. I believe there are at least four factors the Norwegian press must be aware of when evaluating the Baneheia case: 1. Fear of touching – and the fear of offending. One did not dare “to tear up old wounds”. It was accepted that actors from the police and the prosecution would not shed light on the case, and rather let the next of kin’s feelings stand as a counterweight to new analyzes from experts and “helpers”. It was easier. 2. Lack of curiosity, prejudice and laziness. Several editors have pointed out that they did not find good enough sources to shed light on the matter again when Bjørn Olav Jahr came out with his book. Some say they simply just believed the verdict was right. 3. Vanity and the fear of being criticized. No one could stand the ridicule and criticism from other media – led by news and Fædrelandsvennen – and the relatives (- led by aid lawyers and the publicly supported Stine Sofies Foundation). 4. The arrogance and biased confidence that has characterized some of the editorial offices. Newsrooms that set the tone have stuck to the same bias that Arne Pedersen has stood for – also in the face of new assessments from experts. The latest was Aftenposten’s Andreas Slettholm, who on 7 October chose to quote a selected stanza from the readmission commission in his headline: “A number of evidence and circumstances can still speak for the verdict against Viggo Kristiansen being correct.” It was stripped by the Attorney General. Taken together, these four factors are a dangerous combination. An uncultured, far removed from the ideals of a free press which should “protect individuals and groups against abuse or neglect by public authorities and institutions”. Only a handful of members of the press have dared to step out of their comfort zone in the Baneheia case: Eivind Pedersen and eventually also Hege Ulstein and Svein Tore Bergestuen. In addition to – of course – Bjørn Olav Jahr, who was the first to dare to say out loud that he thought Viggo Kristiansen was innocent. He had to do that in a book. Pedersen and Jahr have at times been portrayed as clowns by representatives of the press. To all those who doubt: See Fædrelandsvennen’s Connie Bentzrud’s interview with Bjørn Olav Jahr in connection with the launch of the book “The murders in Baneheia – two stories, one truth”. These people broke a culture and a mindset. This is the task the Norwegian media is facing today. It’s easy to say sorry. Being completely open about why you failed is demanding. Changing a culture is even more difficult. Complete transparency and thorough self-examination are required. Then one meeting and seminar will not do. This text has also been published on the media website M24
ttn-69
Excuse me, Viggo, but… – Speech
