The man who is charged with attempted murder after the shooting at Furuset is married to an editorial manager at Dagbladet.
The media house should inform about that, says debater Anki Gerhardsen.
On Tuesday evening, a man in his 30s was shot at Furuset in Oslo.
The shooter, a previously convicted man in his 40s, was arrested in Romerike in a luxury Mercedes model. He admits to having shot, but says it was not an attempted murder, for which he is now charged.
The man was remanded in custody for four weeks on Thursday.
VG has previously written that the man who was shot shortly before the incident should have sought out the shooter at his home.
In the same villa also lives the man’s spouse, who for several years has held a management position in Dagbladet. On the night of Wednesday, the police bomb squad moved out to the villa, and it was searched by the police.
– We cover the case in the usual way. Beyond that, of course, we cannot comment on this specific case, apart from the fact that there is no personnel matter with us connected to it. In general, we follow, and have good and concrete guidelines for how our employees and the editorial staff should deal with issues of competence, says news editor at Dagbladet, Frode Hansen, to VG.
On Thursday evening, after VG’s publication, Hansen states that Dagbladet has published a briefing in its correction log:
“The man who is charged with attempted murder after the shooting at Furuset has a close relationship with an employee of Dagbladet. The employee obviously has no involvement with Dagbladet’s journalistic coverage of the case. Dagbladet covers this case in the ordinary way.”
VG has been in contact with the relevant media manager, who does not wish to comment on the matter.
1 / 2
The man who is now charged with attempted murder has previously been convicted of, among other things, violence, complicity in robbery, complicity in the attempted importation of drugs, breach of the Weapons Act and theft.
The convictions are mainly from the 2000s, but last autumn he was sentenced in the Oslo district court to five months in prison for negligent embezzlement of NOK 1.5 million. This judgment is not final.
– Should disclose the relationship
Media critic Anki Gerhardsen, who spoke to VG before Dagbladet published a briefing on the case in its correction logbelieves the case may contribute to creating doubts about the newspaper’s credibility.
– I think they have to disclose it, but it doesn’t have to be done in a very identifying way. It is sufficient to say that the accused is related to someone in this media house, and that the person in question has nothing to do with the coverage, she says.
Gerhardsen was previously on the source committee – and prepared a report with proposals for changes in Be Careful Poster, which is a list of ethical norms to which the press adheres.
She warns against disclosing the relationship. And the seriousness of the matter makes it even more important to play with open cards.
– The moment rumors start to circulate, it quickly goes beyond the trust the media depend on. Then it is easy to claim that you are trying to protect your own, or that the coverage is not competent, she says.
– Is it compatible to be a media manager at the same time as being in a relationship with someone who is linked to serious crime?
– I think it is brutal to punish an innocent person because that person has a family member who commits criminal acts. Then I think the social sanctions go too far.
– But care must be taken that there is never a suspicion that the coverage is affected by the relationship the person has.
– Should be spared
Ethics expert Gunnar Bodahl-Johansen believes the case is complex.
– There are several sides to this case that need to be sorted out. But if we’re going to start with the most elementary: The person must be spared in the first place for what he has done, he says.
Bodahl-Johansen believes that the starting point must be that there are probably more people who know about the relationship, and that therefore speculation can arise about the newspaper’s credibility.
– Then comes the complication that the person in question is a media manager and the newspaper must cover this. It is clear that it is a problem not only for the person in question, but also for the newspaper, that the person in question is in that situation.
– The easiest thing is to explain how the situation is, and not speculate any more about it, says Bodahl-Johansen.
He emphasizes that ultimately it is the audience – i.e. the reader – who decides whether they have confidence.
Bodahl-Johansen draws a parallel to the case where TV 2 had to disclose that news editor Karianne Solbrække had previously been in a relationship with the well-known criminal Arfan Bhatti. Initially, Solbrække was not identified in the media when she testified in a trial against Bhatti, but she was referred to as a TV2 journalist.
Many years later, a discussion arose about her competence in connection with matters surrounding the well-known Islamist, and she was identified. TV channel chose to be open about the matter himself.
– There are many considerations to take into account. But it is not possible to simply say that this is not in the public interest. The press addresses the public, and the public is the client, says Bodahl-Johansen.
Bodahl-Johansen currently believes that the person in question should not be identified by name in public.
– Unless it affects the case in one way or another, or in a completely different direction, I think one should be careful and avoid identifying. If it affects the press coverage in some way, then I think there is no doubt that one should identify.
Dagbladet’s news editor Frode Hansen does not wish to comment further on the matter.
– In general, we have good and concrete guidelines for how our employees and the editorial staff should deal with potential integrity issues, he says of the press ethics experts’ statements.
Previously convicted
When the man was sentenced to prison last autumn for negligent healing, the district court pointed out that the defendant cooperated with the police in the healing case, in addition to having received an education, started a family and got a job.
“He thus seems to have put his criminal past behind him. The court considers it to be the case that a longer unconditional sentence will seem unfortunate for the positive life situation the defendant now seems to be in.”, the judgment reads.
He was convicted of having received a large sum of money from others which he further invested in a “lucrative antibac agreement”. Among other things, the money will come from NAV fraud of a scheme that was supposed to remedy the consequences of the outbreak of covid-19.
The judgment has been appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal, and is thus not legally binding.
Correction
In the fact box “VG’s editorial assessment”, the accused man was first referred to as the accused of murder in the first sentence. This is not true, he is charged with attempted murder. This was corrected on 23 February at 22:52.
