The complaint concerned two publications on news about social debater Sumaya Jirde Ali’s review against comedian Atle Antonsen for hate speech, made at Bar Boca in October 2022. The first a broadcast in the program Arena in November 2022, the second a feature in the program Nyhetsmorgen in January 2023. Complainant: Atle Antonsen complained to PFU via a lawyer, and pointed out that the report was dropped by the state attorney after the state of the evidence four days before the Arena broadcast, and that the Attorney General upheld the drop a good two weeks before the feature in Nyhetsmorgen. The reasoning was that the reported statement “must be understood as a poorly successful attempt at satire on racism”. The complainant reacted to the fact that it was claimed in the Arena broadcast that the Ali/Antonsen case was an example of the existence of racism, and a possible example of a racist act by “the unconscious racist”. The complainant also pointed out that it was wrongly claimed that there was no dispute about what happened at Bar Boca on the evening in question. Furthermore, the complainant believed that it was established in Nyhetsmorgen that Jirde Ali had been exposed to quite grave racist experiences. The complainant stated that the presentation in both broadcasts was extremely unbalanced and lacked dissenting voices, and that statements were published that were irrelevant, stigmatizing and left the impression that the complainant was guilty, even though the case had been dropped. According to the complainant, it was about accusations that triggered his right to simultaneous opposition. The media: news stated that no one in the Arena broadcast claimed that Atle Antonsen is a racist. On the contrary, it was clarified that they do not believe that Antonsen is a racist. In the broadcast, it was discussed whether the incident was an example of racism or a racist statement, and such a discussion must be legitimate to have, believed news, which also rejected that the publications triggered the complainant’s right to simultaneous opposition. news thought it was about expressions of opinion in a broad and ongoing coverage, where there must be a high ceiling. Furthermore, the editors believed that the complainant took individual statements out of context, and gave a partly misleading picture of the content of the broadcast, which in news’s view was balanced. news acknowledged that the statement that there was no disagreement about what happened at Bar Boca was imprecise. However, news pointed out that four times during the Arena broadcast it was said that the report against complaints had been dropped by the state attorney. Furthermore, news denied that the interview in Nyhetsmorgen triggered the complainant’s right to simultaneous opposition; the statements must be seen as expressions of opinion and not established facts in an ongoing public debate. The information that the report had been dropped by the police was corrected and Case no. 036/23 2 apologized for in Nyhetsmorgen the following day, with reference to the Attorney General’s reasons for the drop, news pointed out. PFU’s assessment The Press’ Professional Committee (PFU) points out that it is the right of the press to inform about what is happening in society and to reveal objectionable circumstances, cf. Vær Varsom plakatens (VVP) 1.4. In the wake of the incident at Bar Boca and the report against complaints, it was justified by news to invite a debate about racism in Norwegian society. No protection against critical publicity The committee understands that the complainants found the publications complained of burdensome, but at the same time reminds that press ethics is not intended to be a protection against critical publicity. Weighed against the case’s public interest, the complainant had to bear the spotlight on himself, without this being in conflict with VVP 4.1, on objectivity and consideration. The PFU also cannot see that the racism debate linked to the report against complaints was in itself contrary to VVP 4.3, which requires the media to be careful when using terms that can have a stigmatizing effect. In doubt As the committee sees it, it was understandable that complainants experienced the opinions and characteristics in the broadcasts as attacks. In doubt, the PFU has, however, come to the conclusion that no actual accusations were made in the broadcasts which triggered the complainant’s right to simultaneous opposition, cf. VVP 4.14. Instead, these triggered the complainant’s right of reply, cf. VVP 4.15. In contrast to the right of opposition, the right of response does not trigger an activity obligation for the medium; it is the person attacked who must be allowed to ask to speak, which the complainant did not do. Room for action and ceiling height The PFU emphasizes that the media must have room for action to mention and debate topics of public interest in live broadcasts, without all parties being represented during the broadcast. Lack of participation cannot prevent these matters from being discussed. In ongoing debates, there must also be a high ceiling for opinions and characteristics. However, live broadcasts are not a press ethics free zone. It is therefore crucial that the necessary precautions are taken that the attacked person is not present to defend himself, or can correct any erroneous information that appears. The one-sided committee reacts to the fact that the case, seen from the complainant’s side, is absent from the Arena broadcast. news should have made it clear that the parties do not actually agree on what happened on the evening in question, contrary to what was claimed in the broadcast. The lack of dissenting voices and reservations means that the broadcast appears too one-sided, cf. VVP 3.2, regarding the breadth and relevance of the source selection. In the Nyhetsmorgen feature, it is claimed that Sumaya Jirde Ali had been exposed to serious racist experiences, and that complaints were behind it. There were no dissenting voices in this feature either, and no reservations were taken that could balance the presentation. The feature also lacked a very central piece of information; that the Attorney General had dropped the case about two weeks before. The PFU concludes that news’s correction and apology in Nyhetsmorgen the following day, cf. VVP 4.13, do not make up for the original overstepping. news has broken good press etiquette in point 3.2 of the Be Careful poster
ttn-69