Exciting field which is the evolving media landscape. And in the media landscape which is being dominated by new channels, by new ways of expression, citizen journalism, WikiLeaks, a lot of things are happening at the same time. There are journalists that every day need to decide whether something is news, or if it’s entertainment, or maybe it’s just bullshit. And somebody’s got to do that in real time, and all the time, it’s after what’s created, Come up here on stage. Welcome to the stage. I had such an interesting interview with you when I realized that you everyday are looking at everything that happens in the world and then try to make sense and pick out the things that are most relevant. And I got very impressed. So I’ve asked you to come here and share a little bit on how that actually is done in real time and everyday. Okay, great. I’m very grateful for the opportunity the opportunity and I’m glad the earlier speakers talked about failure. So I’ll try that. Okay, so I was given this headline, “News, Entertainment or Bullshit?” I could start off with an academic explanation of what that headline stands for. I will not do that. I will instead start here. This is Caroline from Hanover, arguably one of the most glamorous people in Europe. Her mother is the legendary Grace Kelly, and her father is First Reiner of Monaco. She resides most of the time in a secluded estate outside Paris with her family. Now, be honest with yourselves. Already this piece of information gets you a bit curious, doesn’t it? How does a person like this live her life? Caroline doesn’t have a job. She doesn’t hold any public office, not in the administration of Monaco or anywhere else. Apart from some charity work and appearance on high society parties around Europe, it’s hard to formally claim that she’s a public figure. She certainly lives an interesting life despite this, and she is, of course, the Princess of Monaco. The princess of course has days when she looks like this, and her daughter looks like a normal teenager on her way to a not-so-normal school. Do we have a right to know? Is this entertainment? Or am I leading you into bullshit? Or is it news? Caroline is one of the most photographed women in the world, especially in situations where she does not know she’s being photographed. Is this picture acceptable, you think? Or is it over the line? It’s probably not acceptable, right? Well, there are far more intrusive pictures of Caroline that I will spare you. I will instead show you this. This is one of nine pictures that is not bad of Caroline as a result of the verdict in the European Council. Isn’t it strange? A picture of her looking like a young version of her legendary mother on a horse? What can she possibly have against this picture compared to some of the others? Well, here is the most common misunderstanding of the case of Caroline versus the State of Germany, which was decided in the European Council. This is not about the pictures. The case, the very well-known Caroline case, is about the taking of the pictures. It is the photographer’s existence and the behavior, the behavior of the photographer, that violates her right to private life according to this. Article 8, which is the Convention of Human Rights in the European Council. Now that messy text there, I won’t bother you with it, I will instead explain what it is. The article says that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence. That’s the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, the interesting thing about this verdict is that it finds that, since the photographs of Caroline were not used generally to inform people, but merely to entertain them, the right to control the use of one’s image in respect of seats from private life prevailed over the right to the freedom of the press. Now, if you’re in the publishing industry, this is a sensation. It’s the first time in modern history that any verdict goes against the freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy. With the Karelia case as a cornerstone, a lot of new laws are now being made. This is one example in Sweden. Unlawful photography. It’s a new crime and a criminalization of a very common journalistic method. Let me give you an example of this. This picture would probably be illegal to take next year if this law comes into reality in Sweden. By the time we took this picture, it’s from my newspaper Aftonbladet, we didn’t have any clue of what was going on. So we didn’t know if this was a defendable picture to take. That’s what the lawmakers, it’s their little security for freedom of the press. If it’s defendable to take this picture, you can take it. The problem is that you never know if it’s defendable or not, once you’re there, and you should take the picture. So we didn’t know, we just took this picture. Later on, it shows that this is the prime minister of Sweden. It’s his right hand, Ulrika Bjelström, making out with one of the top political reporters on Channel 4. Now, that’s interesting in itself. What’s even more interesting, that she was drunk on belief this night. She was also responsible for the national security of Sweden that night. Now, is this news or is it entertainment or am I bullshitting you? The lawmakers want to decide what’s important journalism and what is not. That’s one of the key findings in the Caroline case. You should not decide, the lawmakers should decide. Should we let the law makers decide if this picture is news, bullshit or entertainment? I do not think that is a good idea. Ethics is a good idea of deciding what should be published and not. And I will now tell you three short stories about ethics. And a good place to start a discussion of press ethics is of course the UK. Historically the tabloid press in the UK is by some regarded as the enfant terrible of media of media and by others as the most entertaining journalism on earth. Most would agree, though, that the tabloids in London is not the most tasteful of the bunch, but they are important because they can really move an opinion. Papers like Upwork at the Times doesn’t move anything. They basically land on the doorstep of their agreeing audience every morning telling them The world is quite the same today as yesterday. No need to bother. The tablets of London bother about a lot of things. Ethics, unfortunately, is not one of them. This led to a straight-up thunderstorm this summer, with the Rupert Murdoch’s closing on news of the world. It’s a completely another story, I won’t tell you that this time. But let’s take a closer look instead on the anatomy between law, social media and ethics in a quite recent case. This is the British footballer Ryan Giggs of Manchester United, captured in three different modes. He could be described as a family man from Wales with two kids and a wife, according to the press a couple of weeks ago. Mr Giggs himself is not much for talking, he plays football. This is the British glamour model Imogen Thomas, also captured in three different modes. She could be described as a go-getting girl from the suburbs of London. She’s a lot for talking, she makes a living and a career by exposing herself in media. The Sun got the tip. Family guy and one-star footballer Giggs has an affair with immigrant Thomas. So they call up, and you know what we reporters do, they call up the more talkative of the two, immigrant Thomas, and we have a classic kiss and tell situation, but they underestimated Miss Thomas' integrity. She did not tell. She hung up and she called Mr. Giggs. And she told them they are after us. They know about us, they are after us. Now Mr. Giggs did what 14 celebrities have done up to this point this year. He called the Royal Court in London demanding an injunction to ban the press from writing this story. That’s true censorship. The state decides what is entertainment, news and bullshit. And he gets it. He gets a super injunction. The press is not allowed to report on this story. A super injunction is a legal gagging warning that forbids media to report. It has traditionally been used in the UK to stop the press from writing insensitive criminal cases before charges have been made from the Attorney’s Office to protect the investigation. After charges have been made, the injunction is lifted and the reporting is free. But now, this year, there’s been a dramatic rise in injunctions regarding celebrities. Over 40 injunctions, super injunctions, since January this year. Now, the injunction in the Giggs case reached a quite entertaining solution. See, injunctions does not regulate social media. So this started on Twitter. Over 70,000 tweets were posted saying that the talk about sex scandal in London was about Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas. Thomas. Giggs then reported Twitter to the court, demanding all 73,000 to be charged for breaking the injunction. Twitter said they were ready to release the identity of everyone mentioning Ryan Giggs. That’s not publishing, by the way. You do not do that. An MP in a debate in the House of Parliament mentioned the case, saying this is ridiculous. You can go like this. Everyone knows it’s Ryan Geeks. And boom. This happened. Now we have an MP talking about in Parliament, the story in Parliament, and of course the injunction is lifted. Stop just for a minute and admire the Daily Mirror’s newspaper maybe. Naming Private Ryan is a brilliant headline. In three words. And of course, suddenly now, this is an open source in the Parliament talking about this. And in comes the up-markets, now giving enormous attention to a story which is now a matter of freedom of speech in England. But of course, in its nature, it’s just about a footballer having sex outside his marriage with a glamour model. But the Parliament, the judges, the BBC, the Times, the whole of England is now engaged in reporting of a very private matter. Everyone valued this story as important news, not bullshit, not entertainment. You can say what you want about England, but it’s a very entertaining country. My point also is that it’s also a country with very hard laws on publishing, very soft ethics, and a complete ruthless press. So, if you want to make laws against me, that might not be a good idea. Okay, second story. The story of Thai books and healing was a game-changer in many ways, at least in Sweden. It moved through Sweden with tremendous speed, the ethical limits of what could be published and what could not. The story broke in National Enquirer, but was mostly told in blogs, such as TNC and Radar Online. Most other media got the facts from those sources. My own paper published only 50 pages, almost everything from TNC and Radar Online. These media represent in itself a new trend in reporting on people’s private life. Inquire used to be a paper telling its readers that Elvis Presley is alive and kicking and hiding in the East Wing of the White House together with two aliens who have been captured there since 1952. They do not tell that kind of stories anymore. They are almost always correct. Ruthless still, but absolutely correct. TMZ was started by a gossip blogger, by a bunch of lawyers in Los Angeles wanted to challenge traditional publishing and is today owned by the very progressive media owner AOL. The impact of sources like TMZ in combination with social media today creates a whole new public arena. The story gets a certain specific weight by the sheer amount of publicity on this new arena. Traditional media have a hard time applying their traditional set of press ethics simply because it’s obvious that all of our readers talk about this, so we need to write about it. It becomes sort of a self-playing piano, the blocks, the tabloids, and then the ad markets. The later of the bunch very often focuses on the phenomena of the story, trying to say of course we wouldn’t report such a sleazy story, but since it becomes a phenomena, we will tell you about the phenomena. This is not only a ridiculous way of going about publishing, it’s also a dangerous way. I’ll show you why in a minute. First, let me explain the traditional publisher’s view on the context of Tiger and Ellie’s story. Why is this a story in the first place? Well, on one hand, of course, it’s a story about very private sexual relations. You might put your own urge to know about these things about Mr. Woods and to take a propulsion. I would say, though, that that is news. Yes, news. And this is the reason. Tye Woods has built one of the largest private fortunes on earth by making himself a brand. The brand promises that this guy is a family man and a good guy with an extraordinary talent to focus. Well, there was obviously another side of that good guy image that Nike, Accenture, Rolex and some of the most reckoned brands in the world tried to get associated with. Now, I do understand that my readers don’t run off to buy the paper to find out what type of boots is not ruining his brand. I do understand that. Nevertheless, that context is the frame that you need to be able to explain why you are hurting his family with publishing this story. You can’t make a fortune by building a public image that mixes your private and professional person and then claim that your private life is strictly private. Now the example of how terribly wrong it can go if you are not clear about this ethical framework. A few weeks into this story, Eli’s mother is visiting her in Florida. The family is obviously in a crisis and mom comes in to help. Now that’s a quite normal and sound situation. But large parts of the press now doesn’t bother answering the question, “Why are we publishing this?” We are in a situation now where anything about Tiger and Alien becomes news. I’m arguing every night with my news desk to stick to the story. We can publish stories that hurts Tiger, but we can’t publish intrusive stories on alien and kids. That is not okay. TMC of course couldn’t care less. So when aliens mother collapses in the bathroom in the home of Eleanor Ligere and she calls an ambulance, they publish this. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] - OK, where are we now? In Ellie’s bathroom with her mother collapsed and her frantic call for help. Can we go into her bathroom and publish her call for help? I don’t think so. It is intruding in her private sector in a way that can’t be motivated by the fact that her husband has slept around with other women in conflict with his billion dollar image. That’s the reason. It’s out of the context of this story and therefore bullshit. Unless thought otherwise, several Swedish media published an Ironman article, and a couple of weeks down the road with the Zagreli story, everyone from up-close-duck-morning papers to public service radio reported this story. From an ethical point of view, though, absolutely nothing has changed. This was still a story about the world’s most famous golfer having sexual relations outside his marriage. But that’s how the piano works. Let me finish with a reflection around a very well-known Swedish case, the Swedish princess Madelene and her fiancé by the time Jonas Bergström. Stories first broke in Norway by the Norwegian gossip paper, Sigurd Høy. Jonas has had an affair with a Norwegian woman while being engaged with the princess. It’s rarely a good idea for any engagement to have affairs outside the engagement, but if you’re engaged with a woman who is third in line for the Swedish throne, it’s a disaster. For those of you who believe in countries without a monarchy, this might seem a bit odd. Who sleeps with who is of the essence for how Sweden is run. And you know, to inherit the post as chief of state might not be the newest and probably not the best way to govern a country. I wouldn’t dare to call it a bullshit way. But if you’re in the tabloid market, we can conclude that it’s a very entertaining governance. So let me finish by some personal reflections on reporting on news, entertainment or bullshit. I like to do that by showing my favorite paparazzi picture of Madeleine. This is the end of story. Her engagement with Jonas is finally broken up. We see her entering a flight to New York. Hold it there for just a second. If you ever were in a relation crisis, isn’t this the picture of your dreams? in your new spring coat, you pack your Louis Vuitton bag, you put your face behind a big pair of shades, and you march into a first class cabin to New York City. A glass of champagne and adios amigos, I’m out of here, to the city of the world, my new life starts here. Okay, I’m doing it the way I am. But isn’t it really what this picture tells us? Is it important information? Or is this entertainment? Or is it bullshit? You decide. I can say yes, it’s a bit of both, because this lady lives out of my tax money and is a part of the Swedish monarchy. But the real answer is, of course, would I like to live in a world with media that doesn’t have this kind of information? My answer is no. Your answer should be your answer. That’s my point. That’s my whole point with this. You should decide whether this is news, entertainment, or bullshit. Thank you. [applause] Great. Thank you very much. So, we’re soon going to look at extreme makeover, and a lot of people are looking at what can we do with our digital…