The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) has granted exceptional treatment to the PFU complaint lodged by Vårt Land editor Bjørn Kristoffer Bore against Document. This is the first time in history that the exemption clause has been applied, but the PFU has not made this information public.
In his complaint, Bore takes issue with Document’s coverage of the Shada case, including the fact that the publication identified the deceased 16-year-old by her full name and photograph.
He also believes that *Document* has made allegations about Shada Al-Barghouti that are particularly serious given that she is dead and therefore unable to defend herself. She was found dead in unclear circumstances at a child welfare institution in Stavanger in 2019.
Bore sits on the board of the Norwegian Editors’ Association, which is currently considering the question of Document editor Hans Rustad’s continued membership.
He is also married to PFU chair Anne Weider Aasen, who works as head of news at NRK.
Anne Weider Aasen, chair of the PFU, during the committee’s meeting on 23 September. (Photo: Pressens Faglige Utvalg/YouTube)
The PFU has accepted Bore’s complaint for full consideration, even though it does not strictly meet the PFU’s own requirements.
Historic exception
It has now emerged that the PFU secretariat admits to having granted a historic exception to allow Bore’s complaint to pass through the fine-tooth comb.
The main rule in the PFU’s articles of association is that only those directly affected by a publication may lodge a complaint. One of the exceptions applies to cases involving children aged 14 or under. In such cases, anyone may lodge a complaint, but only in accordance with clause 4.8 of the Code of Conduct (VVP).
From the age of 15, minors must either lodge a complaint themselves or consent to someone else doing so on their behalf. This provision was added in an amendment to the statutes in 2020.
Bore is not himself a party to the case and has not produced any power of attorney from Shada’s next of kin.
When Document asked the PFU whether the complaint had been accepted as a result of an oversight, the initial response was that consent could not be obtained because Shada is deceased.
This is VVP 4.8
‘When children are mentioned, it is good press practice to take into account the consequences that media coverage may have for the child. This also applies when guardians have given their consent to the child being featured. As a general rule, a child’s identity must not be disclosed in family disputes, child welfare cases or court proceedings.”
The PFU elaborates on this point by stating that the editorial team must assess whether publication could be a burden for the child. This burden must be weighed against the public interest in the case.
The media must carry out such an assessment even if the child’s guardians wish the case to be reported, writes the PFU.
Shada’s parents have consented to the case being reported and have provided information and powers of attorney to several groups that have worked to bring the case to the public’s attention, including Legal Security for All (RFA).
– Document’s publications are based on Shada’s parents’ understanding that their daughter will be discussed, emphasises Document’s editor Hans Rustad.
The PFU also emphasises that cases involving children can be very important for the media to highlight, and that it can be important to let children’s voices be heard.
– ‘As Shada is no longer with us, it is by examining the case from all angles that we can ensure her voice is heard,’ says Rustad.
PFU adviser Mathias Vedeler writes that the fundamental principle that anyone may lodge a complaint on behalf of a child applies even if the child’s guardian consented to the publication in question, and that this is reflected in the wording of VVP 4.8.
– ‘It is therefore not correct to demand that the complainant should have obtained consent from anyone other than the deceased 16-year-old,’ he writes.
Document points out that the PFU still does not explain why the requirement for consent is waived in Bore’s case.
We request clarification as to which specific provision or established PFU practice means that the requirement in Section 4 [… ] ceases to apply when the child is deceased. If the case has been brought on the basis of the Secretary-General’s right of initiative, we request clarification of this.
Vedeler now acknowledges that an exception has been granted:
The complaint on behalf of Shada is the first complaint case following the amendment to the Articles of Association in 2020 that concerns a child who is no longer alive and was over 15 years of age. The PFU Secretariat carried out a specific assessment of the matter […] and the Secretary-General decided that an exemption from the consent requirement must be granted when the child is no longer alive.
[…] We believe it would be unreasonable if a child were no longer to be afforded protection under press ethics by the PFU simply because they have lost their life.
The Secretary-General of the Norwegian Press Federation is Elin Floberghagen. She has recently made a statement critically about Document’s editorial decisions. She also sits on the PFU as the Press Association’s representative.
The exemption has not been made public
Mathias Vedeler points out that the general requirement for consent in the PFU’s statutes states that ‘as a general rule, consent [must] be obtained’. This therefore gives the PFU secretariat the option to grant exemptions from the consent requirement even in ordinary cases involving adults.
Vedeler refutes the claim that Bore’s exemption is based on the Secretary-General’s right of initiative.
As far as Document understands, the PFU has not publicly announced that the complaint has been granted exceptional treatment, even though this is the first time since the amendment to the Articles of Association that the general rule has been deviated from in this way.
Bjørn Kristoffer Bore has also lodged a complaint against Document regarding two alleged breaches of Chapter 2 of the VVP. These are points that anyone can complain about.
Document Media AS has informed the PFU that the complaint may be dealt with without attempting an amicable settlement. The company now has one week to submit a response.
Note: The journalist has written two of the seven articles on the Shada case that Bore has lodged a complaint against.
