Journalisten asks why Document chose to publish Anne Kalvig’s opinion piece after RA Stavanger was found in breach by the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) for having published it.
The answer is simple: Because we believe that even texts which the PFU considers to have crossed the line must be capable of being read, discussed and criticised.
The PFU is a press ethics body. It is not a court, and an adverse PFU ruling is not a prohibition on publication. Editorial responsibility still rests with the individual editor-in-chief.
Nor did we conceal the PFU’s decision. On the contrary, even before the opinion piece itself, we stated that RA Stavanger had been found in breach, and we linked directly to the PFU’s full statement. Readers could therefore read both the text to which the PFU objected and the PFU’s reasoning, and form their own opinion.
That is what editor-controlled media are supposed to do.
The PFU itself emphasised the importance of being able to debate gender identity freely and concluded ‘with some doubt’ that the opinion piece should not have been published in the form it had.
Moreover, once a text has become the subject of a principled dispute over press ethics, we believe that the public has a legitimate interest in being able to read what the dispute is actually about. The alternative is a peculiar situation in which everyone can read that a text is so problematic that it should not have been published, while the text itself becomes unavailable.
Elin Floberghagen, Secretary General of the Norwegian Press Association (Norsk Presseforbund), tells Journalisten that she finds it difficult to regard the publication as anything other than a ‘deliberate provocation’.
That is her interpretation.
I see it differently. It would be far more problematic if Norwegian editors began to regard previous adverse PFU rulings as a list of texts and viewpoints that other editors can no longer publish.
The PFU must tolerate criticism. The Norwegian Press Association must tolerate criticism. And editors must be able to reach different judgements on matters of press ethics.
This applies particularly to difficult and highly contentious issues. Freedom of the press does not demonstrate its value primarily when everyone agrees that a text is unproblematic. It demonstrates its value when publishing is uncomfortable.
Document therefore stands by its decision to publish Anne Kalvig’s opinion piece.
At the same time, we published the opinion piece to which she was responding, and the opinion piece that formed the basis of the original debate. Readers were thus given the opportunity to read the arguments from several sides.
That is not an attack on the debate over press ethics.
It is participation in it.
Hans Rustad
editor-in-chief
