TRACED OFF: Program host and journalist Tore Strømøy became a brand with “Tore på sporet”. Now he is criticized for failing to adhere to good press ethics. Photo: Audun Braastad / NTB
Press ethics are at stake when NRK unfolds the life of a Norwegian man and his family in the Philippines, according to commentator Christina Pletten in Aftenposten. NRK replies that they can vouch for it. Now a Spleis campaign has been put on hold.
Published:
Less than 30 minutes ago
Updated just now
In the documentary series “No one loves Bamsegut”, NRK and journalist Tore Strømøy have brought Norwegians into the lives of a Norwegian family man, his wife and son, who have no money to get from the Philippines to Norway.
The disabled father is called “Teddy Bear” and asks Tore Strømøy for help. A simple mistake he allegedly made towards NAV has led to him being deprived of several benefits.
A few days after the four episodes became available on NRK, more than NOK 3.8 million has been collected for “Bamsegut” through the fundraising service Spleis.
Spleis will now be put on pause until Monday, says communications manager Tone Mesna at Spleis Aftenposten Saturday night. She reasons that they want more information on the matter.
The series has generated enormous engagement, but has also garnered criticism, including from Aftenposten’s commentator Christina Pletten:It should never have been sent», she concluded in a comment on Friday evening.
The commentator, who writes mostly about American politics, has in her commentary reviewed why she NRK is going too far.
– I reacted quite strongly to what I perceived as a breach of good press etiquette. It is particularly the fact that a child is involved that made me take up the case, says Pletten.
Aftenposten’s commentator Christina Pletten Photo: Jarle H. Moe
– Incredibly moving portrait
She refers to three points in the press’s own ethical regulations, the Vær varsom poster.
A journalist must avoid ties and double roles. Tore Strømøy takes on an active role where he will help the family to Norway, and fills in applications for the family.The press must pay particular attention when they refer to children, also when parents have consented to it. Children’s identities must be shielded in particular in cases involving court cases, disputes and child protection cases. The son in the family is 15 years old, and the documentary mentions previous notices to child protection. The press should not take advantage of people who do not fully understand what they are standing for. The media must not abuse someone’s feelings, lack of media training, ignorance or failing judgement.
– In the series, Strømøy says on several occasions that the main character does not fully understand the information he receives, he says that you have to talk to him like a child. At the same time, the same main character must be able to understand the scope of the documentary he is involved in, and the incredibly penetrating portrait this is, says Pletten.
NRK: – Something we can vouch for
It is the press’s task to protect individuals and groups against abuse or neglect by public authorities, writes NRK’s program director in an e-mail to VG.
– We cannot make a series about the weakest in society without them being represented and having their say, says program director Kristian Karlsen.
He points out that “Teddy Bear” turned to Tore Strømøy with a cry for help. The story could not be told without his participation, and the family has been able to see and approve the content.
– We have had many ethical discussions and assessments throughout production and the published product is something we can vouch for, writes Karlsen.
– What assessments have been made of whether Strømøy goes too far in her active role in the family’s case, to have the role of critical journalist?
– We have tried to make the premise of the series clear right from the start. Can Tore help Bamsegut and his family so that they can return to Norway? Tore has always been an active helper in the series he has created, and we show that to the audience, and this is something they both expect and understand.
– When the protagonist is portrayed as having limited ability to understand communication with NAV and other public bodies, what enables him to agree to participate in the documentary?
– Through several conversations with Bamsegutt and his wife, Strømøy has talked about what the series and the exposure could mean. He has given consent to full access to public documents relating to him and his family.
Even if parents have approved it, editors themselves must assess whether a child should be shielded and not mentioned in a case that could be burdensome for them to contribute to.
– Has this been a topic in the assessment of exposing the teenage son?
– The situation as of today is that we have a 15-year-old who is a Norwegian citizen and who is not allowed to go to school. He is basically in a very difficult situation, and with no indication that it will get any better. He is an important part of history and to the greatest extent affected by the case, says Karlsen.
At the same time, the mention of him is toned down, says Karlsen.
VG has tried to get hold of the protagonist himself, but did not receive a response on Saturday evening.
Ethics editor Per Arne Kalbakk at NRK Photo: Anne Liv Ekroll
Ethics editor Per Arne Kalbakk says that NRK believes the story is right to tell.
– The series gives a voice to a representative of people in society who very rarely speak in the media. The topic is large and important.
This is how he counters the allegations of breaches of press ethics:
Use of son’s name: – There was no care takeover case, but a report of concern from the hospital 15 years back. Our assessment is that it was right to meet the family where they are today.Abuse of others’ lack of media experience: – He is completely rational in his perception of his own situation today. He, his wife and son have seen the series in advance and consented to the production.Avoid double roles: – It is unusual for Strømøy to send an application for a residence permit on his wife’s behalf. But he is open that it is his journalistic point of view and method to be an active helper.
Strømøy: “Do I take sides?”
VG has been in contact with Tore Strømøy, who says that he does not want to go into the criticism in the commentary. He has sent a statement he have also sent Aftenpostenin response to Pletten’s comment.
There he says about his own role as a journalist:
“Do I take sides? Yes, I might. The premise of “Nobody Loves a Teddy Bear” was to try to help him home. As he requested.
It was already said in program one. As a journalist, I advocate for the weak. I am their advocate. But the power has to let go. I try to understand everyone. But you don’t have to agree with everyone.
Objectivity can be so many things. A TV show is not a court case where everyone gets to say everything. I do what I can to achieve my goal: To touch the audience. If they are indifferent, I have lost.
(…)
But should I have made any mistakes that are so gross that they should be prosecuted, I am ready to take the punishment with a straight back. If Aftenposten believes that this is an important debate, then it certainly is. But I leave it to the experts who see what I don’t see.”
The heles his comment at Aftenposten.
– Represents employees as blunt
Christina Pletten also reacts to Strømøy describing her active role.
– It is dangerous when journalists themselves become actors and influencers in a case. Then you are no longer objective, and you can also influence the affected parties, which in this case are the family members.
– Is it possible to bring out the criticism in the case without exposing the family to a certain extent?
– All media outlets talk about people in vulnerable situations almost every day. We do it carefully and within the rules and framework we have. The rules must also protect the people we refer to, says Pletten.
Journalists should also not manipulate the case by withholding important information, but try to give an honest presentation.
– Public employees in Nav and child protection are portrayed as blunt, but it also consists of people who do a good job and make a mistake.
– Isn’t it common in cases of objectionable conditions at public agencies, that you also have to point out all the right things that are done?
– No, and here we have a story about a man who experienced major mistakes from the public sector in his childhood. But there is also a man who is also followed up by the public system and still receives disability benefits, still today.
Published:
Published: 18.11.23 at 20:51
Updated: 18.11.23 at 21:15
Copy linkCopy linkShare on FacebookShare on FacebookShare by emailShare by email
2023-11-18 19:51:06
#Butcher #NRK #documentary
