this is The statement that the Medieombudsmannen (MO) Ola Sigvardsson of concern in the article in DN Debate are raising questions. He sounds the part as if he were one of the most tone-deaf mediechefer as a warning for Hungary, as soon as the question of whether the Swedish public-service mission, are at issue.
Ola Sigvardsson put out about threats against journalists and dismissing the media analysis that is contained in the ”alternative media”, and the discussion that is taking place on the public service broadcasting mandate. He puts an equal sign between the heightened scrutiny by the media and ”government control of the media”.
but in defending the public against the media. Hence the word ”Public”. Or, does it mean the new MO-a role that is not identified in the study?
”us and them” rhetoric, which categorically condemn the ”alternative media” is a blunt simplification, that is, the most seems like a way to try to foul out to new sources of competition and, in some cases, it provides better journalism than what the Sigvardssons that the traditional media does.
this 'us and them' rhetoric, which categorically condemn the ”alternative media” is a blunt simplification, that is, the most seems like a way to try to foul out to new sources of competition and, in some cases, it provides better journalism than what the Sigvardssons that the traditional media does. By no means all, of course.
And, by extension, of the role they play in our democracy. However, if MO would like to contribute to the closing of the discussion on the Swedish public service mission, and he will do it medieetiska the system a disservice. Ola Sigvardsson should not put the credibility of the medieetiska the system first and foremost.
many years Ago, included several of the so called ”alternative media”, such as Ola Sigvardsson is now critical-the medieetiska the system, such as Ola Sigvardsson is in charge. The only thing that is required in order to obtain is a certificate of publication and the publisher.
I cannot, for my own part, to conclude that the MO and in the past the PO is accepted, the publication of which I am in charge of (www.naringslivets-medieinstitut.se) as a full-fledged member of the medieetiska of the system, despite the fact that we have persistently criticised the fact, for example, the Swedish broadcasting corporation (Sveriges Radio, political bias, and the fact that we have welcomed a debate on the public service of the assignment's nature and scope. Among other things, in order to protect the paper. That is not to say that we would like to see a tightening of the medieetiska the rules.
the point is that the media are the incumbents that need to be examined, and to make it better. Good media criticism strengthens democracy.
On MO's website for a list of additional 42 is more-or-less the alternative media such as MO's accepted, some of which are very controversial. MO's judgment should be based on how well they adhere to the MO:s, a set of rules, and how often they are dropped, and nothing more.
still, It is a positive that MO is now in place, in spite of the secrecy of the documents, and, in spite of the unnecessary rhetoric piruett. The PO is dead, long live the MO.<