Leif Steinholt is a journalist in Helgelands Blad and has been a member of the Press Freedom of choice since 2010. Last week, he chose to resign in protest. He raises critical questions about the committee’s rebuke of “systematic unfair and unfounded delaying tactics and access denial” in Alstahaug municipality in Nordland.
The local controversy involves suspicions of corruption in connection with a disputed hotel project in the municipal center Sandnessjøen where Helgelands Sheet located.
In the neighboring town of Mosjoen published competitor Helgelenders. It was this newspaper, and especially journalist Jill Mari Erichsen , which put a critical spotlight on hotels matter. The concerns that the mayor of Alstadhaug municipality signed an agreement for a new hotel building that should have given one developer major benefits.
Freedom Committee, which is run under the auspices of the Norwegian Press Association, used the case as an example of the government sabotages transparency. You can read more about Hotel matter in the sample collection of examples from last fall (p. 11-13).
Called coverage media scandal
Steinholt’s longstanding leader of Helgeland and Salten Journalists and has also been deputy to the Norwegian Union of Journalist National Board. His own newspaper and Helgelenders went slaughter each other in their coverage of the hotel project.
Helgelands Blad thinks there was evidence of some of the accusations of corruption. Editorialized March 2, 2015 came the newspaper with this power salvo against competitor:
“journalism practiced by Helgelenders in this case represents a low point, as the editors of the newspaper still chooses to remain thick and thin with. Until any new information brought forward in public, we regard the whole affair as a media scandal. “
Erichsen about Steinholt: Went behind my back
the local controversy also led to Helgelands Blad was fouled in the Press Council. In light of the harsh accusations in the same leader believed PFU that the complainant, a real estate investor who is closely related to actors in the hotel case, should have been published a response.
Therefore leaving Steinholt selection
in its decision to withdraw from the Press Freedom selection shows Steinholt why he did not report manufacture of hotel matter to vote with their own knowledge of the case.
“Without going into detail, I believe that the arrived gave reason to question how the report describes several facts. I also questioned the evidence base for the crisp description of Alstahaug municipality management. “
The journalist was given access to Stein Holts resignation last week.
You can read it in its entirety here .
Last December 2015 sent Steinholt a six-page memo to committee chair Siri Gedde-Dahl about what he had found out about the case. He writes that she asked him to prepare a new and shorter note which concentrated on two aspects: Transparency The process and the alleged disclosure of a cooperation agreement between the Scandic Seven Sisters and Alstahaug municipality.
“These would be sent Helgelenders journalist and the county governor of Nordland for contradiction. The process I experienced further was, from my standpoint, a strange affair, “writes Steinholt.
Felt suspicion
Steinholt sent new requests for public disclosure committee in February and March this year. The committee decided to close the case and stated that their report stands up well. In sum believes Steinholt that his questions and objections have not been commented on adequately from the committee leadership and management of the Norwegian Press Association.
“In addition, I felt a general suspicion of my motive. If any of the committee is not sitting on significant information which I have not been informed, it is impossible for me to understand that so categorically rejects nuance anything in the report. “
Steinholt claims that he has received negative reactions that he went into the matter, and that several have questioned what is his real motive. He confirmed that he was critical of parts of the competitor Helgelenders coverage, but that the topic for him is how a case is presented in a report by the Freedom Committee.
With a certain reluctance
He said he was also accused of having gone behind the backs of a colleague and behaved ukollegialt.
“I realize it is special that a journalist verify a case documents that include another journalist transparency complaints. I’ve done that with a certain reluctance, since I have seen for myself that it would be able to get negative reactions. Yet, I am of the opinion that journalists are people with power, partly because we can set the agenda for public debate, and that we therefore have to withstand a scrutinizing eye. “
Steinholt also clarifies that he does not have interest in being the municipality’s lawyer, and that he has never claimed that it has everything its on dry ground.
– Feels impossible
he believes that if this had been about a great and heavy rikssak covered by Aftenposten or VG – and not a cause very few have heard of in the provinces somewhere – would things have been different.
“no matter – as this has evolved, it feels impossible for me to join the Freedom Committee further “, concludes the journalist in Helgeland Sheet.
Only focus on transparency
Geddes-Dahl explains that the Committee perceives that the incident in Helgelenders has great social significance. The Committee obtained the history of Helgelenders journalist, sent her version of the municipality’s administrative management and asked for feedback from those who were criticized.
– This was not the substance of the case, but if it had been difficult to access. We adjusted the text somewhat after input from the Mayor of the municipality, and we restored his views where there was strong disagreement between the journalist and chief administrative officer.
Steinholt was out on maternity leave and was therefore not involved in creating the report, but did it for review before it was published. When he reacted in several formulations. This led the Commission chairman took several new checking phones to people who knew the case and adjusted the text somewhat.
Steinholt was according Gedde-Dahl still not satisfied. A few weeks after the report was released, he gave the new message that he meant the pool was too critical of the municipality’s handling of transparency requirements from Helgelenders.
Geddes-Dahl says she reviewed the case again:
– I went through this point by point and asked Steinholt create a tighter note which could be sent both journalist (Erichsen, editor.) and county, which had handled the complaints. He did. I forwarded and received an answer. This documented not that our formulations was wrong, and then we could not do more.
Steinholt sent ever new inquiries, and finally asked Gedde-Dahl General Kjersti Loken Stavrum in Norwegian Press Association to take the case.
Stavrum said to the journalist that she underwent all the documents.
– There was a lingering mail exchange with Steinholt. Eventually we had to just observe that we had different views.
Thus sent Steinholt resignation letter.
Got offered footnote
– You might municipality has delayed, but from the documentation I have seen, it does not appear that this relationship is as serious as described in report. It is a deliberate misrepresentation to say that the Committee’s description of the case purely on transparency. It contains an unbalanced, twisted and skjeiv presentation of facts, which support the main conclusion, says Steinholt to journalist.
– Could not you just expressed a dissenting opinion and remains in committee?
– I did offer to bring in a footnote. But I do not think that the committee went deep enough into it I made. In addition, it is difficult to continue when I am faced with a high degree of suspicion of my motives. From my side, the focus has been only cases presented in the report.
Steinholt adding that he thinks it’s sad to leave the selection, which he believes makes a very important job.
No comments:
Post a Comment