upvote

points

by defrost9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby matsemann8 hours ago|
next
[-]
One thing I've seen a bit in Norway, and which is relevant this month, is opinion pieces by "concerned parents" that get their writing into national news, but a quick search show that they're often head of some bigoted organization. Of course they should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it as any other, but the news papers not disclosing this is unethical imo.
reply
upvoteby jeltz7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There was recently in Swedish media an article about harassment of Jews in Sweden and the guy they talked to was a member of a Zionist organisation who advocates for that Jews should move to Israel. It is fine to interview him, but such a clear conflict of interest should have been disclosed.
reply
upvoteby ifwinterco7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would argue it's not fine to interview him when (from the sound of it) he literally works for a hostile foreign intelligence agency
reply
upvoteby pcf8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Many parts of Norway are much less functioning than many Norwegians understand. The media sector is one of them.
reply
upvoteby vintermann7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Well of course, if you're a concerned parent or concerned person of any kind in Norway, the first thing you do is start an organization. There are even some who start many, in the hope of cross-pollination.

What's more extreme to me is people like NRK's economy commentator Cecilie Langum Becker, who I read today went over to a lucrative job as communication chief in Aker. A corporate PR person by trade, for 8 years, she had front page space every day to push austeritarian, interest-scold propaganda that would make The Economist blush. So good of our public broadcaster to promote voices we rarely hear from in the media /s.

Actual grass roots organizations, even for unsympathetic causes like anti-pride, worry me less than the whole Orkla-Schibsted consensus.

reply
upvoteby jeltz7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think you are underestimating these grass roots groups. Some of them are supported by foreign inyerests who want to undermine trust in the government.
reply
upvoteby vintermann6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So we are told, but generally I don't buy it. Certainly not just for moustache-twirling "destabilization" purposes. If foreign interests bother with fringe Norwegian issues, it's because they get something directly from it. It may of course be that e.g. Israel gives support of various kinds to groups like SIAN or MIFF, or Russia to groups which are critical of Norwegian military support for Ukraine. But even that doesn't give us right to dismiss these groups as insincere - it's quite a way from that to actual front groups and astroturfing.

Either way, I think the focus should be on the "respectable" corruption, not on unhinged noisy attention seeking outsiders.

reply
upvoteby alansaber4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You don't buy the idea of a comically diffuse goal? That seems to be the end state of most major organisational committee meetings
reply
upvoteby amiga3864 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What you're seeing there is churnalism; journalists just want to get a piece printed and move on. Sometimes the whole piece comes from a source that benefits from the piece being printed, not just the expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism

Sometimes the expert benefits just by being in the news, see for example NPR banning the expert they quoted 77 times, law professor Carl Tobias. Mainly because he'd write to them offering his opinion on the topics of the day, and as he is a law professor, even if the topic isn't law, NPR journalists couldn't help but accept his quotes to pad out their articles. https://www.mediaite.com/media/nprs-new-rule-for-2026-stop-q...

reply
upvoteby buran778 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in).

Doctors commonly have kickback arrangements to prescribe specific medication. Sometimes it's the correct course of action they just always go for the particular brand, other times it's the wrong course of action but they prescribe it anyway for the kickback (the OxyContin scandal comes to mind).

reply
upvoteby defrost8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Pharma reps "bribing" doctors prescribing habits is a thing, for sure, and varies in degree by country.

This is a separate issue for media reporting on (say) new tanning treatments that are endorsed on screen during traditional "news hours" in undeclared infomercial segments that feature "independant" medical experts gushing over benefits of perineum UV treatments.

Frequently both the company that paid for the faux news segment and the guest experts that also benefit fail to have fiscal interests disclosed.

reply
upvoteby NopIdoN2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Try TainTan™ Today!
reply
upvoteby buran778 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Oh, I just meant it's not just "quack doctors" doing it. it's a fairly common practice.
reply
upvoteby defrost8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In a doctors suite:

Doctors prescribing drugs recommended to them by pharma reps should disclose that connection.

On a media "news" program:

Producers of media programs should disclose any connection "experts" they interview on a subject have to the financial returns or funding of that subject.

reply