Television 2 published in October 2022 an article about a woman who had been suffering from ME for a number of years, and who recovered from the disease after she received cancer and cancer treatment. ME research at Haukeland University Hospital and Radium Hospital was also discussed in the article.
Complaints:
Harald Eia complained about the publication to PFU because he believed that TV 2 should be informed that the journalist who wrote the article collected money for the mentioned ME researchers in 2018, and that the collection went via the ME association, one of the sources in the article. The complainant stated that such a collection could create ties that cause the public to doubt the journalist’s integrity, and that there is “reason to suspect that the journalist’s dual role has weakened his integrity and credibility in this matter”, contrary to points 2.2 and 2.3 of Be Careful poster (VVP). The complainant also pointed to the fact that in 2020 the journalist made a critical statement on Facebook about a VG article about ME, and that this may also indicate that the journalist is not acting unkindly.
The medium:
TV 2 rejected that the publication involved a breach of good press practice, and stated that journalists must be able to continue working in a field even if they have engaged privately to support general and basic research in the field. TV 2 stated that the collection took place in May and June 2018, before the journalist was employed by TV 2, and that the purpose “was solely to finance further research”. TV 2 also pointed out that the article was updated twelve days after publication with a text about the journalist’s collection, and that it happened “against the heated dispute within this area”. When it came to the journalist’s Facebook comment, TV 2 pointed out that it is not unusual for journalist colleagues to discuss specific articles, and that this in itself cannot be a disqualifier for further work on the topic being discussed.
PFU’s assessment:
The Press’ Professional Committee reminds that the public must be able to trust that the journalistic work carried out in a newsroom is independent of the journalists’ own views and interests. It is therefore absolutely fundamental that the media and the individual editorial staff safeguard their own integrity and credibility, cf. VVP 2.2.
Can influence the role of journalist
At the same time, the committee will emphasize that editorial staff also have freedom of expression and must be able to participate in the public debate and get involved in various fields. However, they must be aware that such activities may affect their role as a journalist and, in some cases, which areas they can cover.
No formal dual role
PFU has previously clamped down on journalists having membership of organizations within a field they themselves cover, or have participated very actively in matters on which they have also carried out journalism. In this case, the PFU notes that it is about a single collection that took place four or five years ago. As the committee sees it, this cannot be characterized as a formal binding or obvious dual role for the journalist today, cf. VVP 2.2. The committee therefore concludes that the collection in 2018 alone cannot disqualify the person concerned from covering the ME field several years later.
Expressions of opinion and integrity
What still makes the committee somewhat doubtful is linked to the fact that the journalist has also expressed his views on the topic on Facebook in 2020. The debate within the ME field is characterized by hard fronts, and in the committee’s opinion the journalist commented in a way that indicates that he can have taken a stand in the debate.
At the same time, the committee notes that the comment is largely about the journalist’s view of another medium’s journalism, which journalists and editors must obviously be able to express themselves about. Based on this one comment alone, PFU finds no basis for concluding that the journalist is acting clearly activist in his journalism about ME two or three years later.
PFU encourages every journalist and editor to think carefully about both how and what they choose to comment on and participate in, so that they do not end up in a situation that is suitable for weakening their own, the media’s or journalism’s integrity.
Transparency about relevant matters
As the committee has pointed out previously, openness about the underlying circumstances will often be sufficient to safeguard the editor’s credibility and avoid speculation about incompetence, cf. VVP 2.3. As the committee sees it, that could have been the case here.
In the committee’s opinion, it was obviously relevant for the public to learn about the journalist’s previous involvement. As this was not disclosed at the time of publication, the PFU concludes that TV 2 has acted contrary to good press etiquette.
TV 2 has breached good press etiquette in point 2.3 of the Vær Varsom poster.
Oslo, 25 January 2023
Ellen Ophaug,
Stein Bjøntegård, Gunnar Kagge, Tove Lie,
Nina Fjeldheim, Øyvind Kvalnes, Ingrid Rosendorf Joys
