This is a commentary and reflects the author’s own views.
Political editor of Nettavisen, Erik Stephansen, launches a fierce attack on Document in the commentary “Threats to democracy should have consequences”. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
The claim that we at Document are a threat to democracy is a serious accusation.
But what does it really say about Nettavisen when Stephansen himself commits several breaches of the Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press (Vær Varsom-plakaten) in the opening paragraphs of that same commentary?
Already in the introduction, Erik Stephansen breaches Clause 3.2. Not just once, but several times. It is the same clause for which Document was found in breach, but only once. He also breaches Clause 4.1.
Code of Ethics 3.2. Be critical in the choice of sources, and verify that information provided is correct. Good press practice requires striving for breadth and relevance in the selection of sources.
Code of Ethics 4.1. Emphasise factuality and consideration in content and presentation.
I am looking only at the first part of Erik Stephansen’s commentary, in which he describes the Press Complaints Commission (PFU) ruling against Document as a “dressing-down”.
In this introduction, I have identified several breaches of the Code of Ethics, as I see it as an ordinary reader and on the basis of available sources:
Here, Document and Espen Teigen were found in breach of three clauses of the Code of Ethics for their coverage of the website Filter Nyheter and its editor Harald Klungtveit.
The background was the disturbances surrounding the extremist activist Jake Lang, who attempted to organise a demonstration in support of the controversial ICE police (who deport immigrants) in Minneapolis in January.
Lang is one of the far-right extremists behind the storming of Congress in 2021, in which five people died.
Before he was pardoned by Trump, he was imprisoned for four years for, among other things, attacking police officers with a baseball bat.
Five people died during the storming of Congress
Here Stephansen breaches Clause 3.2 of the Code of Ethics because he has not verified the information, nor is it correct.
The claim that “five people died during the storming” is a well-known, politicised falsehood. The facts are that four people died on 6 January itself. All were Trump supporters:
Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd while unarmed and without directly attacking anyone. Byrd was cleared both by an internal investigation and by the Department of Justice.
Rosanne Boyland’s official cause of death was medical, but The Epoch Times and others have published body-camera footage showing a police officer striking the unconscious woman with a large wooden stick on her body and head while she lay motionless on the ground.
Kevin Greeson (55) and Benjamin Philips (50) both suffered from high blood pressure and died of heart failure amid the chaos on 6 January. Greeson was a former Obama supporter but had become an ardent Trump supporter and was convinced that the election had been stolen.
Police officer Brian Sicknick died the following day from two strokes caused by a blood clot in a brain artery. The D.C. medical examiner found no external or internal injuries. He had been exposed to pepper spray, but his death was officially classified as resulting from natural causes.
Lang is one of the far-right extremists behind …
“Lang is one of the far-right extremists behind the storming of Congress in 2021 …”, Stephansen writes. This can easily be interpreted as meaning that Jake Lang was one of the planners or one of the central actors. That is not true. Lang participated in the storming of Congress, but was not involved in planning it.
Stephansen uses the term “far-right extremist” about Jake Lang. This is a stronger and more stigmatising term than that normally used in American liberal media (most often “far-right activist”). This may also be interpreted as a breach of Clause 4.1 concerning factuality and consideration.
Lang was imprisoned for four years …
Stephansen writes that before Lang was pardoned by Trump, he was imprisoned for four years for, among other things, attacking police officers with a baseball bat. The wording “was imprisoned … for” gives the impression that he served a sentence after being found guilty of attacking police officers with a baseball bat.
This is not correct, and here Stephansen breaches both Clause 3.2 and Clause 4.5 of the Code of Ethics. He has not verified that the information is correct, nor does he make it clear that the question of guilt for a suspect, reported, charged or indicted person is only settled by a final court judgment, as required by Clause 4.5.
Jake Lang was held in pre-trial detention for four years without being convicted. He was never brought to trial and was never convicted on any of the charges. The case ended when Trump pardoned him in 2025, together with most of the other 6 January defendants.
Pedantry cuts both ways
If we continue engaging in pedantry, as the PFU often does in its pursuit of finding Document in breach of press ethics, Stephansen also breaches other provisions of the Code of Ethics in the text under discussion. He writes:
The background was the disturbances surrounding the extremist activist Jake Lang, who attempted to organise a demonstration in support of the controversial ICE police (who deport immigrants) in Minneapolis in January.
This is a clear breach of Clause 4.1, one of the publication rules requiring factuality and consideration in content and presentation. Describing ICE as “controversial because it deports immigrants” is purely an editorial opinion presented as fact.
Moreover, ICE does not deport immigrants who are lawfully present in the country. Norway has an identical type of agency in the form of the Police Immigration Service (Politiets utlendingsenhet – PU), which carries out forced returns and deportations every year. Indeed, the laws are stricter in Norway, where illegal migrants may receive both prison sentences and fines. Is the PU also controversial? Or does the double standard apply only to the United States?
Understatement of the year: Lang was escorted away
Regarding the PFU ruling against Document, Stephansen writes that one of the clauses under which we were found in breach was 3.2 concerning verification of information:
The alleged stabbing remains nothing more than an undocumented claim on Lang’s part. The image merely shows Lang being escorted away.
“Escorted away” must surely be the understatement of the year. Video from CNN and several other media outlets clearly shows Lang being chased, surrounded, punched and kicked by a mob of counter-demonstrators. The stabbing has not been confirmed, but it has been reported that Lang did not report the matter to the police. He was, after all, in Minneapolis. But the violence against him is documented by video evidence, and he emerged from the chaos bleeding from the head.
Document was therefore found in breach for inadequate verification of information connected to a misleading still image of Lang. In reality, it is the PFU and Stephansen who have failed to verify what actually happened that day in Minneapolis.
To claim that Lang was merely “escorted away” is a clear breach of the Code of Ethics because readers are given a highly misleading and sanitised picture of what actually occurred. Since Document was held accountable by the PFU for this matter, we take a closer look at some of the video footage from the incident. This clip is from CNN.
In this video from local news, we see Lang being chased, pushed to the ground, and repeatedly kicked by several individuals while sitting inside a car attempting to escape. It was counter-demonstrators who saved him, one of whom was a transgender woman.
Here, the transgender woman explains how Lang ran towards them at a traffic light, bleeding and pleading for help. She describes a chaotic situation in which the crowd attempted to drag him from the vehicle. They did not know who he was but later told other media outlets that they would do it again.
A brown-stained far-right rag
Once again, I must emphasise that my text is a personal commentary and reflects my own views. One can never be entirely certain what the PFU and Norway’s large, powerful media organisations will come up with next in order to find Document in breach.
Stephansen speaks of a threat to democracy, Hans Rustad’s membership of the Norwegian Editors’ Association, and the millions that Document has received. The accusations are serious and the insinuations numerous.
Stephansen writes:
I understand that Document regards Harald Klungtveit as a political opponent. But I react strongly when people use their own freedom of the press to attack the freedom of others with the aim of forcing them into silence. It is a direct attack on the institution of the editor. And an attack on democracy.
And I understand that Stephansen and the rest of Norway’s media establishment regard Document as a brown-stained far-right rag. I also understand that many of them would prefer to see us deprived of press support and Hans Rustad expelled from the Norwegian Editors’ Association.
But I react strongly when those same people use their considerable power and their own freedom of the press to attack Document following a questionable PFU ruling, with the aim of forcing us into silence. And when they do so while themselves breaching press ethics, they undermine trust in the entire press and expose a profound injustice within the Norwegian media landscape.
Ultimately, however, it is a democratic attack on our readers who support us and who have had enough of editor-controlled media that violate the Code of Ethics every single day. Because they can.
Enquiry to Nettavisen
I have sent an email to Erik Stephansen and the management of Nettavisen in which I list the breaches of the Code of Ethics that I believe are present in his text and ask for their comment. I also ask specifically about one of Stephansen’s statements:
Therefore, Document editor Hans Rustad and journalist Espen Teigen should not be surprised if some people once again begin talking about expelling the website from the Norwegian Editors’ Association.
My question to Stephansen and the management of Nettavisen is: What consequences do you believe there should be for Nettavisen when a criticism of Document and press ethics itself contains several breaches of the Code of Ethics?
I had not received a response at the time of publication. Should a response arrive later, I will follow up.