Nye journalister er mikrofonholdere

Søren Espersen leverer følgende slagside til journalister på Journalisten.dk:

"Jeg har selv oplevet, hvor let det er at få journalisterne til at gå ind på mine betingelser. Hvis der var noget, som Pia Kjærsgaard ikke gad snakke om, for eksempel intern uro i partiet, så kunne man sagtens lave en aftale om, at interviewet bliver uden det og det," siger han til Journalisten.dk. 

"Det er da ulækkert.Som journalist ville jeg da aldrig finde mig i, at jeg på forhånd skulle have at vide, præcis hvilke spørgsmål jeg måtte stille. Der savner jeg en presse, der siger: on your bike!" siger Espersen.

Jeg tror, at Søren Espersen har en pointe i, at der er gået for meget flinkeskole i journalistikken.


Han har også delvis ret i sin anklage mod Journalisthøjskolen:

"Når det gælder unge og nyansatte journalister, så gør de det nærmest af sig selv. De virker næsten hundeangste på forhånd og siger med det samme: du får selvfølgelig artiklen til gennemsyn. Og det overrasker dem altid, når jeg så siger, at jeg ikke gider se det," siger han.

Og det er ikke kun Søren Espersen selv, der har den oplevelse omkring de unge journalister. Han fortæller, at han har spurgt kolleger rundt omkring på Christiansborg om netop dette fænomen, og at mange bekræfter tendensen med, at journalisterne uopfordret tilbyder, at kilden kan godkende citater.

 Ansvaret, mener Espersen, ligger på journalistuddannelserne.

"Nogle gange tager jeg nærmest journalisterne i skole og spørger: hvorfor tilbyder du det her? Og svaret er så, at de har fået at vide på skolen, at det er en god ide for at bløde jorden op i forhold til kilden. Men det er da i hvert fald ikke den måde, jeg blev opdraget på Journalisthøjskolen. Dengang skulle kilderne næsten trække citaterne ud af os for at få lov at se dem. Jeg synes, det er helt galt, når man frivilligt overleverer redigeringsretten til kilden."

Selv mener jeg, at der har været lidt blandede signaler i denne sammenhæng på Journalisthøjskolen. Jeg er dog ret sikker på, at det, vi har lært, er, at hvis kilden ønsker citaterne til gennemsyn, så skal vi indgå på det præmis. Det er god skik at gøre det. Men det er ok helt at undlade, at selv give tilbuddet om citattjek.

Så problemet ligger måske et andet sted - nemlig i, at man som ung eller uerfaren journalist frygter at miste historien, hvis man ikke strækker sig langt i samarbejdet. Det har jeg selv gjort i visse tilfælde, hvor jeg fornemmede, at kilden stillede lidt tøvende op.

Mange er mistroiske over for journalister, selv om flertallet i professionen faktisk gør et hæderligt og ærligt arbejde, og endda også selv tager initiativ til at få det kilden siger til at lyde (endda lyve) bedre og mere sammenhængende.

Omvendt er denne holdningsændring fra rå citater, uanset hvor dumt kilden tager sig ud, til et samarbejde med kilden også opstået på den baggrund, at visse politikere har nægtet at lade sig interviewe, specielt af bestemte journalister. Og alle journalister har oplevet rigtig mange gange, at kilden - ikke kun politikere - trækker stikket undervejs, eller endda når artiklen er skrevet, eller hvis de ikke mener, at interviewet forløb særligt godt.

Og journalisten kan også være ret uhæderlig, hvilket får politikerne til at nægte interviews.

 "DF nægter selv at lade svenske journalister interviewe dem, fortæller Søren Espersen:

"Det er rigtigt, og forklaringen er, at svenske journalister er nogle slyngler, og det må du gerne citere mig for. De har kun en ting for øje, nemlig at manipulere. For at give dig et eksempel, så lavede jeg selv et interview med en avis i Göteborg. Interviewet var gengivet helt korrekt, men illustrationen var Johnni Hansen, der marcherede gennem gaderne. Så kan de rende mig! Derfor har vi sagt til svensk tv, at de gerne må interviewe Pia Kjærsgaard, men det bliver kun live, så de ikke kan manipulere med hende."

Journalisthøjskolen får også mulighed for et modsvar:

"Jeg ved ikke, om Søren Espersen tæskede ethvert citat, da han var journalist. Men jeg ved, at mange politikere og eksperter netop har problemer med, at de føler sig fejlciteret. Og hvis det skal undgås, er det jo ved, at man får lov at tjekke citaterne, siger Henrik W. Jørgensen, uddannelseschef fra Journalisthøjskolen."

Det rigtige ord, her er "føler", fordi kilderne bliver i 99 procent af tilfældene citeret korrekt, men brokker sig egentlig over, at de ikke har formuleret sig ordentligt i forhold til den høje standard, de gerne vil levere, og giver journalisten skylden. Så sidder man som journalist med båndoptagelsen, der viser, at man har ret og en kilde, der bliver sur, hvis man holder fast i, "det var det, du sagde!"

Der findes også en anden forklaring på mere samarbejde med kilden, som Henrik W. Jørgensen, uddannelseschef fra Journalisthøjskolen bringer på banen:

"Jeg kan nikke genkendende til, at der er sket en udvikling, også hos os. Vi går ind for større åbenhed og dialog mellem kilde og journalist. Hvis man kigger på troværdighedsmålinger, så ligger journalister side om side med politikere og roder nede i bunden. Og alt, hvad der kan redde journalistikken ud af den situation, skal være velkomment. Så det, at vi har en ny generation, der er mere åbne og ærlige, og som gerne vil skabe transparens, det kan jeg da kun hylde."

Det er ikke optimalt, men lad os også slå fast, at der er nogle, der vil nægte interviews, hvis de ikke får denne ret.


Jeg er helt enig i, at man som journalist skal være hæderlig, men man skal også stikke nogle spørgsmål, som ikke lige var planlagt og holde på nogle trumfer, specielt hvis man står over for en politiker, der vil vende spørgsmålene med spindoktoren først. Sol og vind skal fordeles ligeligt,


Det er kedeligt, at vi nu har en udvikling, hvor det hele sker på politikernes præmisser, og jeg synes, at der bliver lagt for lidt arbejde i at finde på kritiske spørgsmål, selv når de stilles. Det er nok et større problem.


Interviewet med LA under den sidste valgkamp er et glimrende eksempel, på en kritisk vinkel, man på redaktionen på TV2 burde have undersøgt ordentligt og selv skudt ned, i stedet for at bliver ved med at køre i samme rille under selve live-interviewet.


Mon ikke, det er sådanne situationer, der først og fremmest giver journalister et dårligt rygte - nemlig manglen på viden og manglende evne til at indse, at man har valgt en forkert hest at sætte ens væddemål på.


Ligeledes har journalister mindre tid til at skrive gode artikler nu om dage. Det gælder ikke alle, de gode, der kan lavere kvalitet lidt hurtigere end de andre, får angiveligt og efter sigende lov - på de store aviser, der fortsat har lidt råd.


Men mange artikler bærer i dag præg af, at det er noget lala, der er liret hurtigt af - Hvorfor skulle man egentlig læse det og betale for det? Når man kan få den slags hurtige nyheder gratis på nettet?


Men jeg kan virkelig ikke se, at en tandløs mikronfonholdning skulle gøre rygtet bedre, det tvivler jeg stærkt på, selv om jeg gerne er retfærdig over for og samarbejder med min kilde - den gyldne middelvej - tak!

Radikale: Rygning burde være forbudt - Politiko | www.b.dk

Radikale: Rygning burde være forbudt - Politiko | www.b.dk

Vi er liberale, men den personlige frihed be damned.

Camilla Hersom ville gerne forbyde rygning helt og aldeles.

- Hvis det kunne lade sig gøre, så ville jeg synes, at det var ganske fint. Og jeg er overbevist om, at hvis cigaretten blev opfundet i dag, så ville den være forbudt, siger Camilla Hersom til Radio24syv.

Hvad med at forbyde den biltrafik, der også giver kræft, luftvejssygdomme, blodpropper osv.

Eller hvad med alkohol, der resulterer ikke bare i helbredsskader, men har følgevirkninger i form af vold, både inden og uden for hjemmets vægge? Eller siden, der findes personer, der kan administrere deres forbrug, så kunne man indføre personlig drikketilladelse eller sætte kvoter på forbruget, lige som de har gjort med spilleautomater i Norge.

Hvor langt vil man egentlig bevæge sig i andre menneskers privatliv med forbud, reguleringer, krav og holdningsændrende afgifter?

Royksopp - And the Forest Began to Sing

Nummeret er langt fra Royksopps bedste, men det er en fænomenal video:

Volbeat - still counting

Jeg har været fordomsfuld og overset Volbeat - troede, det var noget med larm og growling.


Men god damn - simpelthen for godt til at være sandt:

Counting all the assholes in the room
Well I'm definitely not alone, well I'm not alone

Mike Stern - Outta Town

En af verdens absolut bedste guitarister. Det er min erfaring at ikke alle er lige så begejstret for dette musiknummer, som jeg er. Fordi han spiller improviseret og med abstrakte toner i forhold til resten af bandet.

Det er nok et spørgsmål om tilvending, for man skal sætte sig ind i musik på en helt ny måde. For mig findes der knap noget bedre og mere opløftende, afslappende, fantastisk, end dette nummer:

Rockens DNA

To gamle ikoner i aktion, Slash (introduktion overflødig) og Michael Monroe, der er glemrockens Ziggy Stardust krydret med Iggy Pops vitalitet. Her er intet behov for playback, og forskellen på en studieindspilning og live optræden er minimal. Tre guitarister, en bassist, en trommeslager, Michael Monroes supervokal, og så kører Rock'n Roll toget. Desværre mangler der halvdelen af sidste nummer, UP around the bend.



Michael Monroe tilbage i 1983, da han var frontfigur i Hanoi Rocks, der desværre besluttede at ende bandet i 1985 efter, at trommeslageren Razzle omkom i trafikulykke. Bandets livekoncert på The Marquee i London blev med god grund kåret som en af 1983s bedste livekoncerter - her i glimrende lydkvalitet.

In memoriam - Ray Honeyford

Ray Honeyford døde forleden 77 år gammel. Han er blevet symbolet på,den problemematik, som Leo Mckinstry beskriver glimrende i Daily Mail:

In the name of promoting tolerance, race-fixated zealots exercise the most extreme intolerance, suppressing free debate and indulging in witch-hunts against anyone who dissents from their creed of multi-cultural diversity. 

Artiklen fra Daily Mail er glimrende, men bedre er den artikel, som Theodore Dalrymple skrev for år tilbage. Der er allerede fuld gang i mytedannelsen omkring Ray Honeyford, for eksempel her på BBC. hvor opfattelsen er - eller mikronfonen holdes for en, der mener - at Honeyford kun var ude i et ærinde for at kritisere religion og kultur og ikke talte for praktiske løsninger, såsom at sprede indvandrerbørnene på flere skoler, så de ikke dannede deres helt egen ghettoskole. Det passer bare ikke, såvel som det heller ikke passer, at Ray Honeyford ønskede at fjerne den oprindelige kultur hos indvandrerne- Han var ovre i at se den melting-pot integration med succes, som de jødiske indvandrere stod for, som det forbillede, de muslimske indvandrere burde følge.

Her er udpluk fra Theodore Dalrymples glimrende artikel om Ray Honeyford:

The informal ghetto that separates the races almost as effectively as South Africa’s formal ones nevertheless makes interracial rioting much easier. And in July last year, only a few weeks before September 11, serious riots (the worst in Britain for 20 years) did in fact break out in Bradford and other similar northern English cities, such as Blackburn and Oldham. White gangs clashed with Pakistani ones, indulging for several days in the pleasures of looting and arson, under the comforting illusion that they were fighting for a cause. The young whites believed themselves to have been dispossessed of something by the young Muslims, without the young Muslims believing that they had inherited anything from the young whites. Both groups were united in—though not, of course, by—their resentment.

One man was not at all surprised at this outbreak of inchoate racial fury. He was Ray Honeyford, the headmaster of a middle school in an immigrant area of Bradford in the early 1980s. He knew that the official multiculturalist educational policies that he was expected to implement would sooner or later lead to social disaster such as these riots: and when he repeatedly exposed the folly of these policies in print, the advocates of “diversity”—who maintain that all cultures are equal but that opinions other than their own are forbidden—mounted a vicious and vituperative campaign against him. For at least two years, the Honeyford Affair, as it was known, was a national preoccupation, calling forth endless newspaper and broadcast commentary, the man himself often branded a near-murderous racist and ultimately drummed out of his job. Hell, it seems, hath no fury like a multiculturalist contradicted.

Honeyford’s fundamental ideas were as logical, sensible, and coherent as they were unfashionable. He argued that the 20 percent of Bradford’s population who were Islamic immigrants were in Britain to stay, with no intention of returning home; and that both for their own sake and for Britain’s, they needed to be integrated fully into British society. The children of immigrants needed to feel that they were truly British, if they were to participate fully in the nation’s life; and they could acquire a British identity only if their education stressed the primacy of the English language, along with British culture, history, and traditions.

Honeyford did not believe that the cultural identity necessary to prevent the balkanization of our cities into warring ethnic and religious factions implied a deadening cultural or religious uniformity. On the contrary, he used the example of the Jews (who emigrated to Britain, including to Bradford and nearby Manchester, in substantial numbers at the end of the nineteenth century) as an example of what he meant. Within a generation of arrival, Jews succeeded, despite the initial prejudice against them, in making a hugely disproportionate contribution to the upper reaches of national life as academics, cabinet ministers, entrepreneurs, doctors and lawyers, writers and artists. The upkeep of their own traditions was entirely their own affair, and they relied not at all on official patronage or the doctrines of multiculturalism. This was Honeyford’s ideal, and he saw no reason why the formula should not work again, given a chance. (...)

  After his departure as headmaster, Drummond Middle School quickly received a new Urdu name and then was burned down beyond repair by an arsonist, as also happened to a similar, neighboring school, now completely boarded up. All children in the area now go to school in the preternaturally hideous buildings of modern British architecture, whose combination of Le Corbusian functionalism, financial stringency, and bad taste are a complete visual education in brutality. (...)

That the article appeared in The Salisbury Review gave almost as much offense as its content: for in the new, officially diverse Britain, the Review’s brand of cultural conservatism is beyond the pale. The Review’s name hardly ever appears without the qualification that it is rabidly right-wing, thereby implying that no intellectual engagement with the ideas expressed in it is ever necessary—only the kind of opposition appropriate to dealing with brown- and blackshirts. All opinion is free, of course, but some opinions are freer than others. (...)

Honeyford’s article also called into question the unwarranted but widespread assumption that differences in educational achievement between groups reflect unfair discrimination and nothing else. In the Times Educational Supplement, Honeyford had already mentioned the great and growing educational success of some subgroups of Indian immigrants, which he linked to their system of values—with the obvious corollary that the educational failure of other groups was not attributable to British racial prejudice. As a result, a black pressure group in London branded him a “blatant racist” and demanded his dismissal if he did not accept “massive in-service training courses to purge [him] of [his] racist ideology and outlook.”


Finally, and even less forgivably, Honeyford made mention of the plight of another ethnic minority in his school: the white children, who, when the article appeared, made up a mere 5 percent of the pupils. Their education suffered in a school dominated by pupils from non-English-speaking homes, he said, and he suggested that officials disregarded their plight because their parents, ill-educated and inarticulate, had formed no pressure group, and no political capital could be made of them. (Once, in the 1960s, the city council had tried to disperse the children of non-English-speaking immigrants to schools throughout the city, precisely to prevent the development of ghetto schools such as Drummond, but race-relations experts and bureaucrats declared this practice to be discriminatory and therefore stopped it—to Honeyford’s regret.)

He received several death threats, which the police took seriously enough to connect his home by alarm directly to the local police station. (I repeat: he had proposed only that Muslim children should be fully integrated into British society—the very opposite of suggesting that they should be discriminated against or in any way maltreated.) For months, he had to enter his own school under police protection from the small but militant group of pickets that formed outside and grew in size and volume whenever a television camera appeared. A few small children, too young to understand what was at issue, learned from their parents to chant “Ray-cist! Ray-cist!” at him and to hold up denunciatory placards, some with a skull and crossbones above his name. The Bradford Education Authority considered the possibility of a court order against the demonstrators, since children who continued to attend the school were likewise insulted as stooges and sell-outs, but it decided that such an order would only inflame passions further. Thus political extremists learned a valuable lesson: intimidation pays.

 No insult was deemed too scurrilous to hurl at Honeyford. A press release issued by an extremist group calling itself the Bradford Drummond Parents’ Support Group is a case in point: “One wonders,” it read, “whether Mr. Honeyford will be the next person to be advocating bird shots [sic] fired at the black children at the school.” Several months into the affair, Honeyford’s employer, the Bradford Education Authority, ordered him to attend a kind of public trial in a local college on the charge of disloyalty. Fortunately, the eminent lawyer representing him argued so vigorously that those intending to convict him had to acquit him.

The campaign against Honeyford disregarded entirely the fact that no complaint had ever been received about his competence as a teacher, or the fact that there were always far more applications to his school (mainly by Muslim parents) than there were places.

 But it is impossible to meet Honeyford for long without realizing that he is a passionate believer in the redemptive power of education and in the duty of schools to give the children of immigrants the same educational opportunities as everyone else. His only regret about the affair was that it drastically shortened his teaching career. It is a tribute to the power of Orwellian language that a man who believes these things should successfully have been labeled a racist.

Satire: 'Dinner for One' Sarkozy & Merkel

Spengler: Iran er ikke kun farlig på grund af islamismen

Iran er et land på randen af et demografisk og økonomisk kollaps, befolkningen aldres og de lette olieindtægter forsvinder snart. Derfor er det nu eller aldrig for Iran, hvis landet skal udleve dets ambitioner om at være en stormagt. Det er også nu eller aldrig for den nuværende ledelse. Sanktionerne kan tilmed i sidste instans ende med at give Iran et kraftigt skub i den forkerte retning.

Spengler trækker en parallel til Hitler, der også følte et behov for at accelerere hans dystre planer af to årsager, der var :

An important insight into the character of the Iranian leadership can be gained from Adolf Hitler’s speech to the German army’s top commanders at Obersalzberg on Aug. 22, 1939, a week before the invasion of Poland. Hitler began by explaining that he initially had wanted to attack the Allies in the West but that circumstances compelled him to take Poland out first. The question, then, was why begin war at that particular moment. And the answer had two parts: economic weakness and the threat of regime change:

"We have nothing to lose, but much indeed to gain. As a result of the constraints forced upon us, our economic position is such that we cannot hold out for more than a few years. [Hermann] Goering can confirm this. We have no other choice, we must act. … At no point in the future will Germany have a man with more authority than I. But I could be replaced at any moment by some idiot or criminal. … The morale of the German people is excellent. It can only worsen from here."

Hitler, by his own account, acted out of fear: fear that the German economy would collapse under the burden of his military expansion, and fear that he “could be replaced at any moment.”  I quoted this speech in a 2005 essay, adding, “Within a generation, both Iran’s oil and demographic resources will be exhausted. Impending demographic collapse, I have argued in the past, impels Iran towards an imperial design (Demographics and Iran’s imperial design, September 13). Iran’s elderly dependent population will soar to nearly 30% from just 7% today by mid-century, the consequence of the country’s collapsing birth rate. The demographic disaster will hit just as oil exports dry up during the 2020s. To break out of the trap, Iran must make an all-or-nothing bet during the present generation.”

Læs det hele på Pajamas Media

Victor Davis Hansons råd til Mitt Romney

Romney skal spare undskyldningerne og skrue op for forklaringerne - Læs det hele på Pajamas Media.:

Cannot Romney explain that, to be blunt, he does not have, and does not need, a regular day job any more? And therefore he does not pay taxes on income? In other words, cannot Mitt say that he once was so skilled or lucky that he made enough to allow him in retirement to either sell assets yearly, or buy and sell from his ample portfolio and therefore be taxed at the capital gains rate? The same unapologetic defiance should apply to Bain. If one devotes his career to winning the good life from taking over, trimming down, and selling companies, and one is not solely interested in cashing in and others be damned, cannot he in one minute, Newt-style, explain why he is a sort of personal trainer that both profits and does good from beating the out-of-shape into shape, and that when he cannot work with the flabby and unresponsive, he moves on?
The alternative is the sort of well-intentioned stumble in which the viewer sighs, “Come on, Mitt, you can do it. Don’t apologize or don’t gloss over, but explain, your success!”

Undersøgelseskommission nu!

Nu har det offentlige efterhånden spildt milliarder i flertal på fejlslagne it-systemer.

I flere tilfælde har selvsamme selskab, CSC været involveret.

Det er dog for simpelt at skyde skylden udelukkende på CSC, men vi har ikke råd til fortsat at spilde milliarder på ingenting, så det skal kulegraves lige som IC4 skandalen, det offentlige skal trods alt oftere købe it-løsninger, end DSB skal købe stort ind af tog.

Følg den gode debat på 180 Grader.

Mere her og en liste over, hvor mange problemer, fejlslagne projekter eller kraftigt forsinkede, CSC har været involveret i.

Lille overset perle: Death In Vegas - Scorpio Rising

Anne Sophie Hermansen om mobberiet i børnehaven på Christiansborg

(Det) interessante er her, hvordan de mennesker, der dagligt lever at kommentere politik, forholder sig til kritikken. For det handler ikke kun om debatkulturen på Christiansborg. Det handler også om, hvordan politikere og journalister i fællesskab er i gang med at kannibalisere den demokratiske samtale og synes at have tabt deres moralske kompas.

Læs det hele på hendes blog på Berlingske: