Illustration photo. Photo, Audun Braastad / NTB scanpix
To begin with, those who read the special chronicle in Dagbladet may think it is sarcasm. Not so; two of the most distinguished NRK journalists, Elin Ruhlin Gjuvland and Arild Opheim, were deadly serious when they wrote an elaborate chronicle in Dagbladet back in 2013. In it, they say that the victims of robbery in Oslo must blame themselves, because the immigration policy led by Norway and Europe is so strict.
The two authors may have received standing ovations both in Dagbladet and NRK, but we witness that the political fossilization that so obviously covers the national broadcast company with thick layers still has an annual budget of over five – 5 – billion Nkr. I suppose that new faces and colleagues are filtered in according to their political view?
The two chronicle-writing celebrity journalists have been duly promoted for a long time by NRK, and the two of them has long since obtained a celebrity status. Of course, NRK needs new profiles to promote itself in a new era. And now two of those have entered the immigration debate. Below are excerpts of the reasoning behind the bombastic conclusion of the NRK journalists,
In the wake of nearly 200 robberies in Oslo the last two months, mostly by foreigners or Norwegians with a minority background, some people try to turn this whole thing into a debate over immigration, with twitter messages like, «Well, I would like some comments from those who want a more liberal immigration. We might well make the wave of robberies into a debate over immigration. Fair enough. Here’s a remark, – We get what we deserve because of the immigration policy led by Norway and Europe; it is too strict.
Political opinion bearer with convulsions?
Still NRK, at the beginning of the year 2019, is the primary opinion influencing organ of this country. That is, no other domestic media are even nearly as able to influence, and impact, regarding political influence in our country. A large percentage of all the domestic journalists are employed with NRK and several who are not, are connected with seemingly independent production companies, but still NRK is the primary employer.
And just because NRK is in such a towering position, financed by the state, and quite frequently is labelled politically one-sighted and uniform, there should perhaps be some precautions present in the further political engagement by the employees? Not so because it is necessarily fruitful to completely prohibit them to participate in the social debate, but because it is only verified that there has to be some kind of political locking and filtering of new employees with NRK; all journalists seem to represent opinions reserved for those far out on the political left wing, regardless of which department the more or less opinion-bursted employees work.
The knights of the multicultural doctrine are for some reason or other placed in important editorial offices throughout the country. It seems the like of the doctrine of climatic crisis and the bothersome doctrine of Palestine fronting Yasser Arafat as its saint?
What exactly is it that we are facing? The chronicle in Dagbladet 1 November may of course be regarded as exaggeration; however, we may also choose to regard it as pure convulsions from a big, fat, bombastic political setting in the mainstream media. Now, it looks like it in NRK material is produced and profiled to appease numerous one-sighted bosses and applauding, politically half-blind colleagues rather than having in mind the public? However, in view of the continued massive support from the state, the public comes second?
The chronicle in Dagbladet, making the victims of a terrible wave of violence in Oslo into scapegoats of an immigration policy that is «too strict»; stand out as yet another cracking good example of how the politically bad culture seems petrified with the mainstream media.
Note: The text of the chronicle was written on the basis that the chronicle in Dagbladet was published on 1 November, 2018. Resett has, however, been notified that it was originally published back in 2013. This fact still does not alter the main points; consequently we leave Roy Vega’s text untouched, with minor corrections along with this clarifying.
Translated to English by Lars Hoem