Editor of the Christian newspaper Dagen Vebjørn Selbekk criticises ex-Labour Youth leader Gaute Skjervø‘s call for the editors of the Oslo press to throw Document out of the Norwegian Editors’ Association. Selbekk believes this is foolish for several reasons. Firstly, a politician should not interfere in which media outlets are to belong to the category of recognised media. The Norwegian press needs more media diversity, not less. Not least because the population is moving in an immigration-critical direction, and the Norwegian press is not particularly good at explaining why.

But Document is a voice for this section of the population.

First, Gaute Skjervø’s unrestrained attack and call for exclusion:

I myself stood and listened as an agitated Skjervø, entirely without any dissenting voice or any form of rebuttal, was allowed to let loose against the immigration-critical media outlet from NRK’s barge studio at the innermost end of Pollen. (….)

The first (principle) concerns the independence of the press. And especially independence from leading Norwegian politicians.

Fortunately, we do not live in a country where politicians are to have any form of influence whatsoever over who are worthy members of media organisations. Here, the media are free and independent and decide that for themselves.

Politicians should in fact not interfere in such matters at all. Because when they do, they touch upon press freedom itself.

But presenter Lilla Sølhusvik did not in fact ask Gaute Skjervø the following question: Do you have anything to do with deciding who should belong to the Norwegian Editors’ Association? Instead, she gestured towards the audience and said: “Those you are addressing are sitting behind you”: The editors of Dagbladet, VG, Aftenposten and NRK were the addressees.

The second principle is the need for media diversity.

Skjervø’s intervention is also an attack on the principle of diversity of opinion.

Norwegian media are oriented towards the centre. The right flank is sparsely populated. Document fills a need there. Particularly now that IMDi’s latest Integration Barometer shows that the population is moving in an immigration-critical direction.

The figures were shocking, but one does not hear them referred to, and they have not changed the journalism:

Half now believe that immigration threatens cohesion in Norway and constitutes a serious threat to our national character.

Seven out of ten say that increased immigration will lead to more crime in Norway.

Selbekk asks:

But do these highly prevalent attitudes find any resonance in the Norwegian media landscape?

We know the answer. But does it then make sense to exclude the media outlet that has led the way in covering demographic, cultural, political and religious changes/threats and changes/threats relating to crime policy? For there must surely be a reason why the population has changed its view? Should the work of the media actively counteract people finding out what is going on in their own country and elsewhere in the world?

If the editors follow Gaute Skjervø’s call, the population will lose a voice that is more important than ever. The result may be the opposite of what Gaute Skjervø wants: Sympathy for Document will increase, and probably its readership as well.

Is this really what a prominent Labour Party politician does not want us to know? people will ask themselves.

The battle lines will harden.

If they are thrown out at the initiative of the AUF leader, then document.no will of course not become any less critical of immigration or more positive towards Norwegian social democracy. If they no longer need to abide by press ethics, the development may instead move in an even more radicalised direction.

Let us add: It is reality that has been radicalised, not Document.no. We are merely trying to cover it. That is the task of the press.

Selbekk has probably given many editors something to chew on.

Norwegian media do not need Gaute Skjervø as editor-in-chief