Author: kullin

Need inspiration for a PR stunt? Check out Josh Kinberg’s Bikes against Bush, a brilliant “one-of-a-kind, interactive protest/performance occurring simultaneously online and on the streets of NYC during the upcoming Republican National Convention. Using a Wireless Internet-enabled bicycle outfitted with a custom-designed printing device, the Bikes Against Bush bicycle can print text messages sent from web users directly onto the streets of Manhattan in water-soluble chalk”

His protest got even more attention when he was arrested and when his equipment was confiscated the whole thing suddenly became a possible violation of the first amendment sending the blogosphere into red alert. Kinberg also appeared on NBC’s Hardball last night.

As I wrote last Wednesday, Sweden’s second daily, Svenska Dagbladet today launched a blog, the first from an established Swedish media. The blog PJ Just nu (PJ Right now) bears the name of the paper’s chief political editor PJ Anders Linder, although it is really a group blog. All the paper’s political editors will contribute to the blog.

In today’s paper, Linder writes:

“At SvD we feel that it is important that also established quality media – “mainstream” media as the bloggers like to put it – accepts the challenge and gets involved. We must find our own way of using the new tools and develop our own tone of voice. It would be devestating to isolate in hope that all this will blow away. We must participate; to learn, to influence, to live in the flow.”

On the blog, Linder links to three other blogs: PR agency JKL and libertarian thinkers Dick Erixon and Johan Norberg. It is quite typical that he links to Erixon and Norberg. For all his claims of an open discussion and that bloggers in general are generous with links to both allies and opponents, it will be interesting to see if “PJ Just nu” will promote an open debate (the blog does not have a comments function) or be a forum for liberal thinking. The thing is that both Erixon and Norberg are part of the liberal think tank Timbro, which by coincidence Linder was head of between 1996 and 2000. Also, Fredrik Erixon, chief economist at Timbro has, “what you might call close ties with a senior editor at JKL Blog” and Anders Kempe of JKL was a member of Timbro’s board (thanks to Per Gudmundsson for the link).

Either way, the fact that SvD launches a blog is another sign that the two leading Swedish dailies approach the blogosphere quite differently. Dagens Nyheter is shying away from it, maybe partly because of the “attacks” by local media watchdogs like Stockholm Spectator. SvD on the other hand seems to embrace the blogosphere. They read blogs, they quote blogs in the paper and now they have their own blog. To me that sounds like a smarter approach if you want to stay tuned to developments in journalism.

Footnote: RSS feed here. No trackback or comments functions yet.

Update: Another thing, if you start fooling around with RSS feeds, change the URL once you go live otherwise everyone will see your old posts. SvD obviously started posting on July 15…

Update 2: “PJ Just nu” is not the first blog from a Swedish editorial writer. Håkan Jacobson, editorial writer at Upsala Nya Tidning has a blog, although it is a personal blog and not connected to the paper.

So the mea culpa from Dagens Nyheter regarding plagiarism finally came this week, although halfheartedly. In summary: It is wrong, but everyone does it and we are not going to take any measures to prevent it from happening again.

DN’s “reader ombudsman” Lilian Öhrström writes that “plagiarism is a serious thing” but on the other hand she downplays its importance by saying that it is a common practice among journalists.

DN’s editor in chief Jan Wifstrand uses the same method: “[plagiarism] is the most common ethical violation in journalism. We don’t want to have that situation at Dagens Nyheter”. On the other hand he says that “there is no need for investigations. You need to have open eyes and ears.”



What strikes me as odd is that Lilian Öhrström is handed the duty to put the records straight. Media always point to the highest possible executive to take responsibility when they examine wrongdoings in companies. As Wifstrand doesn’t step up and take his responsibility, it is clear that he doesn’t take plagiarism accusations seriously. That kind of behaviour would never be tolerated by media.

You value information that is presented to you based on your trust for the sender. There’s a huge difference if an opinion is presented by Greenpeace, or by a lobbying group sponsored by the oil industry.

Today’s media consumer must be more critical to what he reads than any generation before. With so much noise, spin and counterspin, we must always ask ourselves, in whose interest is this information presented.

It cannot have escaped anyone that Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 is anti-Bush. It is also fairly obvious that such a controversial film would be met with some opposing attitudes, especially since Moore is deep into revealing lies of the people he dislikes. That in turn makes him an easy target for opponents who uses Moore’s own tactics to portray him as a fake and a person who himself is very careless with the truth.

Since the film had its Swedish premiere yesterday, several different views about Moore and the film have been presented. Some positive, some negative. Either way, I thought it would be quite interesting to take a closer look at the arguments his opponents use.

Before you spam my mail box with angry comments, this is NOT an exercise to define Michael Moore’s film as the truth or as a lie, I haven’t even seen it. I am merely trying to put a light on hidden agendas and why certain types of information is being brought to your attention, so that you will be able to fully judge its value.

Recently, six individuals, out of at least four are involved in Muf, the youth organization of Swedish moderate party, started a campaign against Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. They have started a network called Pro Veritas and its accompanying website Finn59fel cites 59 possible deceits in the film. They operate under a grassroots image and the notion that they have the truth, Moore is simply a liar. Well, are they just truth seekers or do they have a hidden agenda? Is it an astroturf campaign or is it legit? Maybe they have just been spun themselves by forces that they are unaware of.

The 59 deceits are entirely a translation from an essay by Dave Kopel, a political analyst at the Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute is one of the most influential think tanks in Washington D.C. with influential corporate sponsors like tobacco giants Philip Morris. The institue has close ties with media mogul Rupert Murdoch. It was also partly founded by and have received funding from oil and gas moguls David and Charles Koch, two of the richest individuals in the US. The Koch brothers contribute large sums to conservative and libertarian forces. As an example, President George W. Bush has received $109,000, and 19 out 20 top recipients of Koch campaign cash have been Republicans.

Writes the Center for Public Integrity:

In late 2000—as the Clinton Administration was preparing to leave office—Koch was hit with a 97-count indictment for covering up the discharge of more than 15 times the legal limit of benzene, a carcinogen, from a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The company faced penalties of more than $350 million. Four Koch employees were also charged individually and faced up to 35 years in prison.

Three months after the Bush administration took office—and just before the lawsuit went to trial—the Justice Department abruptly settled the case. Koch agreed to pay $20 million and plead guilty to a single count of concealment of information. In return, the Justice Department dropped all criminal charges against Koch and the four employees.

Writers Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado claim that the Cato Institute “played a key role in forming the ideas and policies of the new Republican majority in Congress.” Clearly the Cato Institue is supported by pro-Bush forces and by supplying arguments why Michael Moore is a potential liar and the anti-Bush movie is full of deceits, Republican-friendly interests can help Bush get re-elected. Now their argumentation have reached all the way to Swedish movie theatres.

Whether you choose to believe in Michael Moore or not, when you meet Pro Veritas campaigners outside movie theatres, now you know who is behind their arguments. Be critical.

Full disclosure: This article was published yesterday by Anton Andreasson and goes pretty much in the same lines as what I have written above. However, I hadn’t read it before I wrote my post, so I have not copied Andreassons work.