In November 2023, news published the documentary series “Ingen elsker Bamsegutt”, about a Norwegian who lived in the Philippines with his family and did not make it home to Norway. In the series, presenter Tore Strømøy investigated the Norwegian’s life story, and his problems with Nav and child protection. Complainant: The secretary-general of the Norwegian Press Association complained about the series to the Press’ Professional Committee (PFU) through the right of initiative, which gives the secretary-general the opportunity to raise matters of special interest. news should have shown greater consideration for the protagonist’s son, argued the general secretary, when the boy was exposed with his full name and picture, and details emerged about, among other things, missing school and a report of concern to child protection. Complainants also reacted to the fact that news did not tell the public that the main character had been convicted in a morality case in 1991. It was a key piece of information and obviously relevant to the story, according to complaints. The secretary-general also believed that the presenter got involved in the case in a way that weakened news’s editorial independence. The presenter became a “party helper” when he applied for a residence permit on behalf of the Norwegian’s wife, the complainant pointed out. The media: news admitted to having broken good press etiquette. The media house should have paid more attention to the protagonist’s son. The identification of the boy in combination with other information was not in line with the requirement to take account of the consequences the media coverage may have for the child. news also admitted that they should have told that the main character had been convicted of assault. It was particularly relevant since the documentary series told about how the main character himself was said to have been abused as a child. However, news denied having breached the press ethical requirement to safeguard editorial independence. It was clear to the viewers that the presenter took a position in the matter, and that he tried to help the main character, argued news. It is not prohibited in press ethics, as long as one is open about it, the media house maintained. PFU’s assessment: The Press’ Professional Committee (PFU) points out that the committee can only assess what has been complained about, and that the committee cannot take a position on other issues arising from the public exchange of words about the publication. PFU emphasizes that it is the press’s task to protect individuals from abuse by the authorities, cf. Vær Varsom plakatens (VVP) 1.5. news was fully entitled to mention the man’s problems with the Norwegian authorities. At the same time, the PFU emphasizes that press ethical vigilance is required when individuals in challenging life situations are to be mentioned. The editors must think carefully about which information is relevant to include. Children have special protection Special vigilance is required when children are involved. The media must assess what consequences the publication may have for the child, in both the short and long term, cf. VVP 4.8. PFU sees that some of the information about the boy was relevant to explain the situation the family was in, and how they had ended up there. The committee is, however, reacting to the fact that information that could have a stigmatizing effect was combined with broad exposure of the boy through the use of names and images. news interviewed the boy for open camera, and showed a number of still images of him from various ages throughout his upbringing. At the same time, the publication contained details about the family’s social challenges, which also directly affected the boy. The exposure caused an unnecessary media burden for the young teenager, and a clear breach of VVP 4.8. Omitted central information Journalism must be truth-seeking, cf. VVP 1.1. It should try to give the public as accurate a picture of history as possible. This means that the media must not only check that the information that is published is correct, but also that essential information that can contribute to giving a truer and more complete picture of the case is included in the publication, cf. VVP 3.2. PFU notes that news failed to mention that the main character of the documentary series was convicted in a morality case in the 90s. PFU considers that it is information of a sensitive nature which required that different considerations had to be weighed against each other. news had to assess how the information could affect the man, his family and others concerned, and the committee sees that the editors made such an assessment. The PFU nevertheless insists that news’s decision not to mention the judgment was a wrong press ethics decision. The documentary series tried to tell the man’s life story, and how he could end up in such a difficult situation. The judgment was relevant in such a context. The information was necessary to nuance the story that was conveyed about the man. Editorial independence PFU notes that the presenter actively intervened to help the mentioned Norwegian return to Norway, and that he told the audience that he wanted to do just that. The committee also notes that the presenter reflected that he did not have the opportunity to help the man with what he actually needed, namely money for the plane ticket, because he has rules he must follow as a journalist. PFU points out that there should be room for publications that use other journalistic methods and narrative techniques than what is found in traditional news journalism. It is important for the social mission of the press that there are different ways of expression in journalism. That a presenter gets involved in the matter does not automatically imply a breach of good press etiquette, and it is positive that news was open about the presenter’s intentions. If a journalist takes a stand and gets involved in the case being investigated, however, it is not always only required that the media be open, cf. VVP 2.3. The editors must equally fully safeguard the necessary independence, so that the public can have confidence that the information control and the storytelling are unbiased and credible. VVP 2.2 requires that the individual editorial staff protect their “independence, integrity and credibility”, and avoid “dual roles, positions, assignments or ties that could create conflicts of interest or lead to speculation about incompetence”. PFU finds that the publication is problematic on this point. The presenter conducted critical interviews with the authorities, and did investigative journalism on the main character’s story, while also applying for a residence permit on behalf of the man’s wife. news thus became a formal party in a case with the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. The PFU concludes that in this case the media was given a dual role which could weaken the public’s trust in the publication’s credibility and the media’s independence. news has broken good press practice on 2.2, 3.2 and 4.8 of the Vær Varsom poster. Oslo, 28 February 2024 Anne Weider Aasen, Nina Fjeldheim, Øyvind Kvalnes, Gunnar Kagge, Melissa Jocelyn Lesamana, Ellen Ophaug Dissent: The presenter conducted critical interviews with authorities, and did investigative journalism on the main character’s story, while at the same time applying for a residence permit on behalf of of the man’s wife. news thus became a formal party in a case with the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. The minority believes, without doubt, that news has not broken good press etiquette on VVP 2.2, as news had a clear position and was transparent about its participation in the process. Oslo, 28 February 2024 Frode Hansen
ttn-69
