ARENDAL (Dagbladet): – Hundreds of thousands of viewers are left with a false impression. NRK must do what is possible to try to rectify it, says leader Truls Gulowsen in the Nature Conservation Association about Monday’s party leader debate on NRK.
– EMBARRASSING: Une Bastholm in MDG is upset about the way NRK presented an oil report during the debate. Photo: Hans Arne Vedlog / Dagbladet
view more
In the debate, program manager Fredrik Solvang was bitten by MDG leader Une Bastholm when she referred to research from Statistics Norway which states that an end to Norwegian oil production will lead to lower global climate emissions.
Solvang then drew up an unpublished report from Rystad Energy which tells the opposite.
Advertiser Content
–
Alfa Holt – the new bestseller from Alfa
–
Subsequently, Dagbladet has revealed that the report has been commissioned and is owned by the interest group Norwegian Oil and Gas, something Solvang was not informed about.
BLEME: Fredrik Solvang and NRK are reprimanded for the way a report commissioned by Norwegian Oil and Gas was presented. Photo: Hans Arne Vedlog / Dagbladet
view more
NRK blemish
Dagbladet is aware that the reason for drawing out the report from Rystad and the oil industry was that NRK thought Bastholm was referring to Statistics Norway research commissioned and funded by the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation.
However, that is not correct.
Bastholm referred to independent and peer-reviewed research on the global climate effects of reducing Norwegian oil production, carried out by Statistics Norway on its own initiative. The conclusion, which has been published internationally, is that it will lead to reduced global emissions.
NRK’s answer
Last year, Statistics Norway correctly came up with another research report that was funded by the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation.
But it was about something completely different, namely economic consequences in Norway of closing the Norwegian shelf.
– We were injured for mixing up two Statistics Norway reports. One that is financed by the Nature Conservation Association and the one that Bastholm referred to in the broadcast, which is from 2013 and initiated by Statistics Norway itself, says NRK editor Knut Magnus Berge to Dagbladet.
Fredrik Solvang used an unpublished lobby report
I or we
In an interview with E24, a few hours after Dagbladet’s revelation, Berge said that it was “we” who had made the mistake with the reports.
Now he claims that the fault was his alone.
Advertiser Content
–
Back to the office – the clothes you need now
–
– It was I who in an interview with E24 the day after the broadcast mixed the two reports. I apologize for that, of course, says Berge.
– In this case, we could probably with advantage also state who had ordered the report, not just state who had the professional responsibility for it. It shows the debate that is going on now. But I want to emphasize that it was we who took the initiative and contacted Norwegian Oil and Gas, and it was we who talked to Rystad Energy, it was not planted with us, says Berge.
Erna about Afghanistan- Absolutely awful
– Nothing wrong
Berge says NRK did broad research ahead of the debate, but Dagbladet has spoken to a number of large environmental protection organizations that were not contacted during the research phase.
– It is our job to investigate the matter from all sides, including what is referred to as the oil lobby. There is thus nothing wrong in referring to commissioned research, as long as one states who has the professional responsibility, but I see that the fact that this is unpublished material makes it difficult for actors and the public to follow it, says Knut Magnus Berge in NRK.
– I’m crying blood
– Embarrassing for NRK
Une Bastholm is not gracious in her assessment.
– It is embarrassing for NRK, but there are many opportunities to make up for it in that we have a discussion about the difference between independent research and analyzes commissioned by the industry, she says to Dagbladet.
Advertiser Content
–
Extreme demand for foldable treadmills – only one model left in stock
–
– It is possible to confuse two different works by Statistics Norway, but it shows how important it is to be vigilant. For several years, the whole of Norway has been presented with the story that Norwegian oil and gas are good for the climate, that it is cleaner and that other countries will replace production.
That’s why she wants Jonas
– Misleading and unprofessional
Knut Einar Rosendahl, professor at NMBU, is one of the authors behind the research report from 2013 to which Bastholm referred.
– The comparison between the reports is misleading, he says to Dagbladet.
– The report Bastholm referred to was an independent research article published in a recognized international journal. It was not paid for by anyone else and is openly available. The Rystad report is paid for by the oil industry and is owned by the client. It is also not publicly known, he continues.
– NRK says they have done a broad and thorough research work here. What do you think about them then mixing reports like this?
– I think it is unprofessional of Solvang and NRK. It is bad that Solvang is so wrong when he throws out the Rystad report in that way. That comparison is very unfortunate, says Rosendahl.
– What do you think is grossest here?
– It is that Solvang throws out a sentence to kill the argument of the one debater that no one else has heard of. It becomes impossible to relate to.
–
