September 13th, 2005
DN vs facts?
A couple of days ago, Dagens Nyheter (hereby referred to as “DN”), the biggest Swedish morning-paper, reported of a “racket” in Ronna, a little town in Södertälje. According to an article by Anders Hellberg, journalist at DN, the people who started the racket were “invandrarungdomar”, which is Swedish meaning “immigrant youths”. I will post a link to said article later, and you will see why I’m not posting it right here.
I immediately wrote an e-mail to Mr. Hellberg, asking exactly how he knew that the persons who were responsible for said racket were immigrants. I also wondered why DN had stated said youths were immigrants; what’s important enough about that to write it? The plot thickens. Appx. 17 hours later, Mr. Hellberg had written an e-mail, saying he with it addresses every person who had written him about said article.
He starts his e-mail by stating that “appx. half the people” who had written him regarding said article had stated that they thought DN shouldn’t write that the youths involved were “immigrant youths”; he continues by writing that “the other half” had written him and asked which nationalities were involved in the rackets. I wasn’t part of either halves, mind you! He continues: “One can hardly question the fact that immigrant youths were behind the rackets. I was on-site at Ronna and the situation was obvious to every person. Of course one can try to keep the fact that immigrant youths were involved a secret, but in this case it borders on the ridiculous. Far too much in the text [i.e. the article -Niklas] would still clearly point in that direction: everybody knows that Ronna is a city where many immigrants live, the start of the racket where boys had yelled ‘whore’ at a young girl, the boys who yelled ‘fascists’ at the police. Of course, we can even hide this, but if we did, DN would be on a dangerous path. Attempts to retouch Stalin [out of pictures, during his reign, I guess -Niklas] are usually revealed and the punishment is grim.”
This is a very interesting answer. Mr. Hellberg ends his e-mail by writing the following: “This discussion has now ended, on my behalf.”
Ended, eh? Don’t you think it’s interesting that Mr. Hellberg writes that “immigrant youths” were “behind the rackets”, while stating that “attempts to retouch Stalin are usually revealed and the punishment is grim”, and also not answering my question?
I immediately e-mailed Mr. Hellberg, and sent copies of the e-mail to Jan Wifstrand and the ombudsman at DN. In my e-mail I publicly asked Mr. Hellberg exactly how he found out that all the persons involved in the rackets were immigrants, and also asked how he possibly could know this, unless he had seen their passports and/or asked all persons involved what their nationality (assuming they’ve then told him the truth) was at the time. I added that DN most certainly was on a dangerous path, if what Mr. Hellberg wrote was to be accepted as facts, should he be unable to back them up.
One day later, I have not received a single response from anybody at DN. A very interesting fact: the URL to said article on the site of DN has changed wholly; it no longer points to said article by Anders Hellberg, but to another one by somebody called Ulrika By. I have never before seen an URL at DN get diverted. The contents of the new article notes police-abuse, which is very different from the contents of Mr. Hellberg’s article. The term “invandrarungdomar” is not found in this article. I have tried to find another article by Anders Hellberg about the rackets in Ronna, but haven’t been able to. Here’s the URL to the article I first read.
I have posted the entire e-mail-conversation as a comment to this post. It’s entirely in Swedish. The reason to why Mr. Hellberg’s reply looks distorted, is because he e-mailed his repartee using a most obscure character encoding.
Should I receive any replies from DN regarding this, I will post them in the comments. I really hope they do reply, for their own sake.
You may ask yourself why I’m commenting an article that has now been removed. The reasons are simple:
1. DN allows an article, using a hostile language (which might even be illegal, should DN not be able to provide solid evidence that they’ve acquired this knowledge as fact, but as prejudice) which is directed at a group of people, to be published. Articles like these should not be printed in any paper.
2. The author of said article, Mr. Hellberg, cites Stalin and ends a discussion (on his behalf) by stating that “One can hardly question the fact that immigrant youths were behind the rackets.” when he seems unable to provide evidence to back his “facts” with.
3. Neither whom I have addressed about this problem, i.e. the author of the article, Mr. Wifstrand, and the Ombudsman at DN, have (so far) replied to my e-mail. The original article has now been removed, with the URL pointing at an entirely different one.
Credibility, anybody?
September 13th, 2005 at 16:41
This comment contains the entire e-mail conversation between Mr. Hellberg, Jan Wifstrand, the Ombudsman at DN and myself. The oldest e-mail is at the bottom, and the most recent at the top.
**********
sent by Niklas Pivic to Anders Hellberg, Jan Wifstrand and ombudsman@dn.se, sent at 2005-09-12, 16:40
Hej, Anders (samt Jan och DN:s ombudsman, som jag vänligen refererar till
slutet av detta brev, för att även ni skall få en förståelse om helheten
av innehållet som följer)!
Tack för ditt svar, även om det 1) är närmast otydligt p.g.a. att du har
använt dig av en teckenformatering som är nästintill oläslig och 2) inte
adresserar min fråga, som jag ställt till dig.
Jag tillhör alltså inte någon av de “halvor” som nämns i ditt brev, utan
frågade i går hur du säkert kunde fastställa att de som deltog i bråket
var invandrarungdomar.
Du skriver att det dock “knappast kan ifrågasättas”, vilket jag nu
ifrågasätter, med god orsak: hur skulle du möjligtvis kunna veta om de var
invandrare eller inte, om du inte sett deras pass, alternativt
individuellt frågat dem om deras nationella tillhörighet (och antagit att
de talat sanning)?
DN är nu sannerligen på farlig väg; du skriver om Stalin, och uppger i
närapå samma andetag att din uppgift om invandrarungdomar egentligen inte
kan ifrågasättas. Sedan när bör DN:s läsare inte kräva fakta, samt få veta
hur vissa uppgifter har insamlats?
Jag ser fram emot ditt svar.
Med sanningsfulla hälsningar,
Niklas Pivic
— anders.hellberg@dn.se wrote:
sent by Anders Hellberg to a slew of recipients including myself, at 2005-09-12, 16:17
> Hej,
>
> Jag har fått så många mail om texten om bråken i Ronna, att jag
> tvingas
> svara er alla i grupp. Jag beklagar att jag inte kan svara individuellt,
>
> men därtill är reaktionerna för många.
> Ungefär hälften av er som reagerat anser att DN inte skulle ange att
> det
> var invandrarungdomar som låg bakom bråken. Den andra halvan anser
> att vi
> inte tillräckligt tydligt skriver att det var invandrare och undrar
> varför
> vi inte anger nationalitet. Det brukar vara sådan fördelning när vi
> skriver om etniska frågor.
>
> Att det var invandrarungdomar som låg bakom bråken kan knappast
> ifrågasättas. Jag var på plats i Ronna och situationen var uppenbar
> för
> var och en.
> Viss kan man försöka förtiga att det var invandrarungdomar, men i
> detta
> fall gränsar det till det löjliga. Allt för mycket i texten skulle
> ända
> klart peka i den riktningen: alla vet att Ronna är en oerhört
> invandrartät
> stadsdel, brÃ¥kets inledning där pojkar skrikit â€hora†efter en ung
> flicka,
> ungdomarna som skrek â€fascister†mot poliserna. Vi kan naturligtvis
> dölja
> även detta, men då tror jag att DN är ute på en farlig väg.
> Försök att
> retuschera bort Stalin brukar avslöjas och domen bli hård.
> Min uppgift är att ta reda på sanningen, och skiva om detta i
> tidningen. I
> vissa fall kan det finnas skäl att inte gå in alltför mycket i
> detalj,
> exempelvis att de inblandade till största del var assyrier eller
> syrianer.
> Om vi skriver det torde andra helt oskyldiga assyrier kunna bli lidande.
> Däremot är invandrarbegreppet så vitt i dag att det blir omöjligt
> att i
> längden inte notera det om det har relevans, om inte en stor del av
> läsekretsen ska anse att vi försöker dölja sanningen.
> Vad som är ett uppenbart allmänintresse för DN:s läsare, avgör
> ytterst
> tidningens utgivare Jan Wifstrand. SÃ¥ vitt jag vet var han dock inte
> inblandad i söndagskvällens beslut, nattchefen och jag var överens om
> att
> vi skulle ange att det gällde invandrarungdomar.
> Att detta sedan försvann i en text på DN.se under morgonen har jag
> ingenting med att göra. Det skedde på grund av ett missförstånd på
> Nätredaktionen, som jag givetvis beklagar.
>
> För min del är denna diskussion nu avslutad.
>
> Hälsningar
>
> /Anders Hellberg
> DN, Inrikes
———-
sent by Niklas Pivic to Anders Hellberg at 2005-09-12, 00:11
Hej, Anders!
Jag har just läst din artikel kallad “Upplopp i Södertälje” (
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=460934 ) och har en fråga
till dig, rörande den:
Hur vet du att det var invandrarungdomar som polisen bråkade med? Jag vet
att DN sysslar mycket med integritets- och samhällsfrågor, och undrar
exakt hur du fastställt att samtliga ungdomar som polisen bråkade med, är
invandrade.
Vad sägs?
Med vänlig hälsning,
Niklas
September 13th, 2005 at 16:56
Cheers to you for digging up this fascist act of fake journalism.
Give ‘em hell Polecat!
April 5th, 2006 at 18:33
[...] Do you remember this old post of mine, where I asked DN (or rather, Anders Hellberg, the journalist who wrote the piece) what the hell was going on? I’ve received a reply, more than five (5) months on! [...]