Published: 24 April 2012
Region: Norway & Worldwide
In this special report from Oslo and the trial of racist mass murderer Anders Breivik AIDAN WHITE reflects on a testing time for Norwegian democracy and journalism
The trial of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in an Oslo bombing and massacre of youngsters at a political summer camp a year ago, has focused attention on the fragility of democracy in a country which is a global leader in tolerance, fairness and media pluralism.
Breivik freely admits the killings but he is pleading not guilty, claiming his actions were in self defence and against the march of multiculturalism. However, the case is anything but open and shut.
Within the ranks of journalists covering the trial (1,400 in all and from 22 countries) crowding into the court in central Oslo or watching the trial live on screens erected at local hotels there is a strong sense that it is not only Breivik who is on trial.
Even the most ardent supporters of the country’s culture of openness and democracy have been troubled by the way this 33-year-old smartly-dressed fanatic has used his time in court to promote nutty theories of warfare and race hatred (along with ostentatious fascist salutes).
He has talked in chilling detail about the way he set off the city centre bomb on July 22 and then made his way to the island of Utoya where he shot dead 67 youngsters, many of them pleading for their lives. He expresses dismay that he couldn’t have killed more. Two teenagers drowned trying to swim to safety.
Some observers have been puzzled by the licence granted to Breivik to speak his mind, to wear normal clothes, and to use the public space to portray himself as a legitimate player in the world of politics. Few countries, even those in the democratic world, would permit such a spectacle.
But in Norway, home of the Nobel Prize for Peace, it is to be expected. This country allows anyone – no matter how horrifying their actions – the right to fair trial, the right to speak freely and the right to the best legal defence available. But the terror attacks have shaken the country, provoking uncertainties and debate across politics and media about how democracy functions.
Searching questions are still being asked about exactly what happened that day. In particular, the victims’ families want to know why it took police and security agencies so long to respond.
The justice minister Knut Storberget and the chief of security services Janne Kristiansen, both in charge at the time, were forced to resign and the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg apologised last month for security failures and police mistakes.
There has also been muddle and confusion among medical experts over whether Breivik is certifiably mad. A report by forensic psychiatrists just before the trial opened concluded that he is sane, contradicting an earlier medical report that he is psychotic. Many people across Norwegian society and media are relieved at this conclusion, not least because there is a widespread feeling that Breivik should be accountable for his actions by being sent to jail.
The Media Challenges
The case has also provoked an intense debate within journalism about how media work and their role in covering the issues of racism, intolerance, religious superiority and violence all of which are at the heart of Breivik’s confused and extremist ideology.
In the immediate aftermath of the killings the Internet was alive with experts and others ready to speculate about who was responsible. Some speculation was taken up by major media and focused on so-called Islamist militancy and Muslims. This was profoundly wrong but its impact was immediate.
There were reports of people of Middle Eastern origin and other foreigners being attacked or abused on the streets of Oslo. It is undeniable that the attacks have unleashed latent racist feelings which lurk under the surface of Norwegian society. A journalist friend who works for a major Middle Eastern media outlet told me last week that he has been subject to more acts of discrimination and abuse since the attacks.
The trial comes as Norwegian media continue a process of self-examination that began in the days after the attacks. In almost every media there has been critical analysis of how the event itself was covered and the role that media play in shaping the norms of a society whose complacent belief in democratic values was blown apart by Breivik’s home-grown violence and hatred.
As Harald Stanghelle, an executive with Aftenposten, one of the country’s leading newspapers, told me last year, “people in the better part of Oslo are relieved that the man responsible was blond, blue-eyed and Norwegian. We cannot imagine what might have happened if it had been otherwise.”
Impulsive Journalism and Humanity at Work
There have also been revealing examples how even in the most open society the competition for breaking news in a time-critical media market can lead to unthinking ethical compromises with appalling consequences.
Jan Ove Aarsaether, News Editor at TV2, the country’s major private broadcaster, gives a compelling example.
As Breivik was systematically carrying out his bloody massacre – he gave chilling evidence to the court how he had shot many of them in the head as they begged for mercy — a young reporter from TV2 made a mobile telephone call to a young girl on the island.
She told him she was at that moment hiding from Breivik as he was stalking and murdering terrified teenagers. The reporter, acting on an impulse that will be familiar to anyone working in the live-news culture of modern journalism, told her “Hold on. I’ll transfer you to the studio.”
Minutes later the girl was shot and killed. She was one of the last of the gunman’s 67 victims. Her death was devastating for the reporter says Aarsaether.
When the tape of the conversation was made public it angered the girl’s family who rightly asked if media had lost touch with humanity in their pursuit of the story.
This criticism has stung Norwegian media and prompted fresh debates across the industry about how to keep journalism on an ethical track.
TV2 like all of the country’s major media carried out a detailed review of their editorial performance in covering the attack. They produced an internal film of interviews with staff analysing in detail the actions of the newsroom and readily admitting their mistakes.
There were also stories of humane even inspirational journalism. When another TV2 reporter rushed to the local hotel where shocked survivors and injured youngsters from the bloodshed on Utoya were gathering to wait for their parents she found she was the only reporter on the spot.
She called everyone together and announced she would not talk to anyone unless they were accompanied by an adult, unless they wanted to talk, and unless they felt safe in doing so. She said she would wait outside the hotel for anyone who wanted to speak to approach her and then she left the room.
Over the next few hours youngsters and parents emerged from the hotel. The reporter gently guided them through their testimony, counselling them to avoid reliving the trauma but to focus on how they survived the experience. It was, says Jan Ove Aarsaether an example of journalism at its best.
Another reason why this was such a testing moment for Norwegian media was that the burden of reporting that fateful day fell on young shoulders largely because the bombing and massacre took place at the height of summer and on a weekend, when the newsrooms were bustling with interns and junior staff.
Uncertain but Resilient
The full impact of the hatred, racism and violence revealed in the drama unfolding in the Oslo Town Court is not yet known but media have learned some hard lessons. Not least on the dangers of speculation, and its amplification through social media, and on the need for reporters and editors to beware of jumping to dangerous conclusions about the origins of racism and violent extremism.
Breivik is Norwegian to the core. He is the country’s most notorious villain since Vidkun Quisling, the political usurper who became the puppet leader of the country during the wartime Nazi occupation and whose name is forever cherished in English as a byword for treachery and fascism. We don’t know yet if Breivik will similarly become a historical reference point for hate-filled violence, but he has already left his mark.
It is not apparent yet that the defiant promises of Norway’s leaders in the aftermath of the attacks that this form of terrorism will not undermine Norway’s tolerant way of life will be fulfilled. But there are reasons to be optimistic.
Following the violence there was an outburst of national solidarity, supported across the political spectrum and promoted by leaders of the Christian and Muslim communities. Such enthusiasm has since waned, but overt support for racism in politics is in decline and within media there is a fresh realism at work. In spite of the trauma Norway and its open society show a remarkable resilience. It is a hard lesson in making democracy work.