Not an “assault” to show Moxnes stealing glasses

Not an “assault” to show Moxnes stealing glasses

Bernt Olufsen believes that former Dagbladet editor John Arne Markussen is wrong in his criticism of the media in the Moxnes case.


“VG managed to get hold of the leak. After the party leader’s paragliding flight, it was absolutely necessary to see the video with my own eyes,” Bernt Olufsen wrote.

Dagbladet’s former editor-in-chief, John Arne Markussen, believes that the publication of the surveillance video of Bjornar Moxsens was “assault”, and asks the Journalism Professional Committee to look into the matter on the initiative of the Norwegian Press Association’s general secretary.

A solid journalistic ethics bombshell from the veteran journalist!

The post does not breach point 3.10 of the press’ “Be careful” label, Markussen claims in his book. Facebook page.

This point in VVP concerns the media’s use of hidden cameras or false identities in the press, and is not intended to publish legal video surveillance recordings that are evidence in a criminal case.

That’s why VG posted the surveillance video with Moxnes

Obviously, we refer to the media’s publication of the surveillance video from the ongoing criminal case against a police officer from Kongsberg. It is true that the name of the policeman is anonymous here, but this question belongs to a different ethical vessel of journalism.

Publication of police surveillance photos of convicted spy Arne Treholt, as he walked with two KGB officers in Vienna probably wasn’t a breach of journalism ethics either. Posting the photos was informational and legitimate.

So one could argue that the cases against Moxnes and Treholt have an entirely different social significance.

According to VVP 3.10, hidden cameras can only be used by the media when objectionable circumstances of great social significance cannot be documented in any other way.

See also  Newcomer of the Year: Weird and Wonderful Cinema

without losing confidence

In Gardermoen, there is no hidden camera either, but there are video surveillance signals.

Since Romerikes Blad broke the news about the simple theft of Moxnes’ glasses, the party leader has tried to portray the case as an embarrassing “omission” and “panicked reaction”. In an apparent effort to portray the matter as a very small matter, Rudd’s other leadership says Moxness “made a fool of himself”. Absolutely no loss of confidence.

I do not think that the leader of any other party in the Norwegian Parliament would have emerged unscathed from such a slippery escape from the truth as Moxens demonstrated in this case. Suffice it here to refer to the fate of Kjell Ingolf Robstad, Trond Jeske and Hudaya Tajik.

VG editor penalizes Nettavisen for posting the video: – Not in line with the right to quote

Allegedly, parliament should contain a segment of the population. In that case, there should be room for a shoplifter or two, some vandalism worker, a prostitute, or a couple of profiteering criminals or tax evaders.

In voters’ perception of the law, there is still a big difference between a simple thief and a rough-and-tumble driver or a rule-breaking sushi-eater, some commentators have pointed out.

VG got the video

After Bjørnar Moxne’s urgent call to a press conference on Friday, many may have been waiting for the publication Surveillance video.

VG managed to get hold of the leak. After the party leader’s slipping trip, it was absolutely necessary to see him with his own eyes. The video leaves little doubt about the sequence of events.

See also  We become more reasonable by seeing ourselves as older

On the other hand, John Arne Marcusen believes that publication was not necessary: ​​Moxnes was exposed, confessed and took his punishment. Let him rest now, writes the former Dagbladet editor.

Yes, there may be good reason to remember the psychological and health toll of standing up to the storm of revealing journalism. Mentions of this in media outlets controlled by editors have led to a century-long flood of hateful and inappropriate comments on social media.

However, it was not superfluous to publish a video documenting a criminal act committed by a prominent member of our National Legislative Assembly. It was necessary to document a relationship of great societal importance.

And, as usual, it was the disapproving handling of the situation that fueled the revealing press in this case.

with different glasses

The former editor of Dagbladet believes that “the surveillance community is a bigger problem than theft of spectacles”. Perhaps he should instead look at the comments of fellow former editor John Olaf Egeland, or those of Dagbladet. Current commentator Martin Ordal, Who sees the Moxnes case with completely different lenses.

“The video of the spectacle theft posted by VG changes the story about Moxnes in Gardermoen. Here we see not a forgotten party leader, but a shoplifter with a clear strategy for securing his loot,” writes Egeland on his Facebook page. Egeland has several years of almost legendary membership in the PFU on his resume.

“Surveillance images clearly show why it was right for the police to give Bjornar Moxnes a hint of grumbling,” writes Martine Ordal.

Video has become more important

Video documentation has become an increasing part of journalism’s resource base in recent years. In our society, everyone walks around with a live documentation tool in their pocket – the mobile phone. This is why we see an increasing component of video in journalism.

See also  The Earth will cool with artificial volcanic eruptions

It’s not just about surveillance video and body cameras. We’ve seen how the video recording of George Floyd’s murder created fertile ground for the Black Lives Matter movement around the world.

In Sweden, surveillance videotape as evidence in a criminal case is likely to be a public item when an indictment is issued.

These are the biggest drivers in the media industry: – A conscious strategy

It is right and reasonable that our journalism ethics regulations set strict requirements for the use of hidden recordings and false identities in journalism.

The press also does not have a comprehensive crime record when it comes to violations of point 3.10 of the Be Careful poster. Only dozens of scathing statements from the PFU on this point in the past 20 years, mostly against TV channels NRK, TV 2 and TV Norge. The PFU archive contains much more exculpatory statements on this point of complaint.

However, it is interesting to note that NRK often uses hidden cameras in its revealing news journalism. Examples include reports of failed care for elderly people with dementia, and the shady business of massage parlors. Whether hidden cameras are a justified method in these cases can be debated.


This is a comment and expresses the opinion of the author. Do you like to write in Medier24? Send your message to [email protected].

Dalila Awolowo

Dalila Awolowo

"Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *