DK
Pressenævnets kendelse i sag nr. 13-70-00500
Statutory Text (3 Articles)
Pressenævnets kendelse i sag nr. 13-70-00500
Resumé
New Times havde lovet hovedpersonen, at hun ville få artiklen til gennemsyn, inden den blev bragt.
Imidlertid undlod New Times at sende artiklen til hovedpersonen.
Pressenævnet kritiserer New Times for ikke at overholde sit løfte.
Pressenævnets begrundelse og afgørelse
Parterne har afgivet modstridende forklaringer om, hvorvidt der forinden offentliggørelsen af den påklagede artikel var indgået en aftale om anonymisering af [Klager].
På baggrund af de begrænsede muligheder for at føre bevis for Pressenævnet, kan nævnet ikke tage stilling til, hvilken forklaring, der er den rigtige, og nævnet kan derfor ikke tage stilling til spørgsmålet.
Ud fra det oplyste lægges det derimod til grund, at der blev indgået en aftale mellem New Times og [Klager] om, at artiklen skulle sendes til gennemlæsning hos klager inden offentliggørelsen.
Dette ses ikke at være sket.
Pressenævnet finder det kritisabelt, at New Times ikke overholdt den indgåede aftale med [Klager].
Nævnet udtaler derfor kritik af New Times.
I medfør af medieansvarslovens § 49 pålægger Pressenævnet herefter den ansvarshavende redaktør af New Times at offentliggøre følgende på engelsk, idet Pressenævnet anmoder om at modtage oversættelsen til godkendelse, inden den bringes
”[Rubrik]
Pressenævnet kritiserer New Times
[Brødtekst]
I forbindelse med artiklen Hard Work Pays havde New Times lovet hovedpersonen, at hun ville få artiklen til gennemsyn, inden den blev bragt.
Imidlertid undlod New Times at sende artiklen til hovedpersonen.
Pressenævnet kritiserer New Times for ikke at overholde sit løfte.
Hele sagen kan læses på www.pressenaevnet.dk”
[Klager] har ved fuldmagtshaver [Fuldmægtig] klaget til Pressenævnet over en artikel bragt i det engelsksprogede blad New Times’ juni-nummer den 14. juni 2013, idet hun mener, at god presseskik er tilsidesat.
1 Sagsfremstilling
New Times bragte den 14. juni 2013 artiklen ”HARD WORK PAYS” med underrubrikken ”Meet [Klager] a 32-year-old former asylum seeker from Zimbabwe, a wonderful mother to her children and a very successful woman with a full time job.
She is now very important to the Danish society.
But to achieve this, she had to work hard and keep the coals of her dream burning.” Af artiklen fremgik følgende
“[Klager] was working as a Human Rights defender in Zimbabwe with a organisation for women where she was advocating for the freedom of speech and equal opportunity righs of women.
In December 2007 it was winter time when she went to Sandholm after being persecuted in her country because she publicly demonstrated for human rights.
She was arrested (it was not the first time she was persecuted, that was her 4th time to be in prison) and this time she was pregnant.
Escaping to Denmark
It was very hard for her to leave her country for good because she loves her father so much.
But her husband told her to no cry because if she cries, people will be suspicious that they are running away.
But after suffering all the traumatisation, persecution and stigma, she managed to get herself and her family political asylum within only six months.
She advises that, its very important to present all your documents to the immigration service in order to make the process easier.
That is what she has done and it has worked for her being honest.
Most challenging part
The day she lost her newborn baby while living in an asylum center was the most challenging part in her live in Sandholm.
She became more stressed, depressed and traumatized; by then she was always visiting a psychologist and taking tablets for a living.
Additionally, living in a camp where she had to share a toilet with many different people in the center Avnstrup was new to her.
Asylum life was more to deal with than she was expecting.
She left all that she had in her country, especially her beloved father with whom she was so close.
But in all this she cannot forget the good reception she had in Avnstrup from the Red Cross and nurses who played a very big role to change her mind, even though she was taking trauma medicine to get to sleep.
Work hard
“It’s mainly about working hard, showing people you’re serious about it, stretching yourself and learning.
I am not wearing a label that says “refugee” even though I was recognised as a refugee in Denmark”.
It is very important to see yourself as an important person and not feel uncomfortable because of where you came from or why you left.
And what you need to focus on is to work hard to become more important to you community.
Education
[Klager] has worked and studied very hard.
When you compare [Klager] to those born here in Denmark, they are almost the same.
She speaks fluent Danish and she managed to enter a program for Social and Health Work because her dream is to become a nurse where she helps sick people.
She has become an active and recognised member in her community where she lives and cooperates with Danish people and neighbours.
She advised that keeping yourself closed off doesn’t take you anywhere.
You have to be active, work hard, and take pride in your education.
It is your life.
Act like someone who is important to the nation and you will show your neighbors that you were and still are an important person that where you came from, you were a very important person.
Future dream
She dreams that one day she will go back home to Zimbabwe.
She had intended to do this: to go to the Immigration service, give them back all her paperwork, and to go back to her native country forever.
Once she actually packed her suitcase in order to go back home and took it with her to the psychologist for counseling.
She could not imagine that the rest of her life would be in Denmark.
However she was advised to unpack her suitcase, to accept that here is her country and she has to live a life that moves forward.
She will be finishing her education with Social and Health Work very soon.
Already she is working a full time job with social work and is very happy because she is very respected and feels very important in her community.
[Klager] had a dream of becoming a nurse and finally her dream has become true.
She will be finishing her nursing course any time.
Nursing is a profession within the healthcare of individuals, families and communities so they may attain, maintain, recover optimal health and quality of life.”
2 Parternes synspunkter
2.1 [Klager]s synspunkter
[Klager] har ved fuldmagtshaver [Fuldmægtig] anført, at artiklen er bragt med hendes fulde navn trods en klar aftale om, at [Klager] skulle være anonym.
Under interviewet med journalisten forklarede [Klager] flere gange, at hun ville være anonym og ikke ønskede, at artiklen skulle indeholde et billede af hende.
Senere blev klager overtalt til, at der kunne tages et billede af hende til artiklen, men kun hvis man ikke kunne genkende hende.
Derfor blev det til et billede af hendes øjne.
Artiklen blev, mod [Klager]s ønske, offentliggjort med gengivelse af hendes fulde navn.
Klager havde og har ikke lyst til at optræde med hele sit navn af mange forskellige grunde, som både relaterer sig til hendes liv her i Danmark samt hendes baggrund som flygtning.
Ifølge [Klager] kan der ikke have været nogen som helst tvivl om, at New Times forstod, at hun ville være anonym.
Klager fortalte om sit ønske flere gange, og avisen har også blot valgt at offentliggøre et billede af klagers øjne.
[Klager] har videre anført, at det var blevet aftalt mellem hende og redaktionen på New Times, at hun skulle have artiklen til gennemlæsning før offentliggørelse.
Klager fik imidlertid først artiklen at se, da det allerede offentliggjorte blad blev sendt til hende.
2.2 New Times’ synspunkter
New Times har anført, at bladet aldrig har været af den opfattelse, at [Klager] ønskede at være anonym.
Journalisten bag artiklen har ikke forstået på [Klager], at hun ønskede at være anonym.
Journalisten har tidligere skrevet artikler, hvor de interviewede har været anonyme og ved derfor godt, at anonymisering er en meget anvendt mulighed.
[Klager] har dog ikke tydeliggjort noget ønske om anonymisering overfor journalisten.
Redaktøren for New Times, der har taget billedet, var af den overbevisning, at [Klager] ønskede at være anonymiseret på billedet, fordi hun ikke brød sig om at se sig selv på billeder.
[Klager] nævnte ikke én gang til redaktøren, at hun ønskede at være anonym i artiklen.
Tværtimod virkede hun som en stærk og stolt kvinde, der gerne fortalte om sig selv.
New Times har erkendt, at det var en fejl, at [Klager] ikke fik artiklen til gennemlæsning, og mediet beklager.
Da [Klager] rettede henvendelse til magasinet, blev distributionen af bladet standset med det samme, og online-versionen blev anonymiseret.
Sidstnævnte selvom [Klager] havde tilkendegivet overfor redaktøren på New Times, at dette ikke var nødvendigt.
En Google-søgning på hendes navn giver ingen hits.
3 Pressenævnets begrundelse og afgørelse
I sagens behandling har følgende nævnsmedlemmer deltaget
Jesper Rothe, Dorthe Carlsen, Lene Sarup og Marianne Druedahl.
Parterne har afgivet modstridende forklaringer om, hvorvidt der forinden offentliggørelsen af den påklagede artikel var indgået en aftale om anonymisering af [Klager].
På baggrund af de begrænsede muligheder for at føre bevis for Pressenævnet, kan nævnet ikke tage stilling til, hvilken forklaring, der er den rigtige, og nævnet kan derfor ikke tage stilling til spørgsmålet.
Ud fra det oplyste lægges det derimod til grund, at der blev indgået en aftale mellem New Times og [Klager] om, at artiklen skulle sendes til gennemlæsning hos klager inden offentliggørelsen.
Dette ses ikke at være sket.
Pressenævnet finder det kritisabelt, at New Times ikke overholdt den indgåede aftale med [Klager].
Nævnet udtaler derfor kritik af New Times.
I medfør af medieansvarslovens § 49 pålægger Pressenævnet herefter den ansvarshavende redaktør af New Times at offentliggøre følgende på engelsk, idet Pressenævnet anmoder om at modtage oversættelsen til godkendelse, inden den bringes
”[Rubrik]
Pressenævnet kritiserer New Times
[Brødtekst]
I forbindelse med artiklen Hard Work Pays havde New Times lovet hovedpersonen, at hun ville få artiklen til gennemsyn, inden den blev bragt.
Imidlertid undlod New Times at sende artiklen til hovedpersonen.
Pressenævnet kritiserer New Times for ikke at overholde sit løfte.
Hele sagen kan læses på www.pressenaevnet.dk”
Afgjort den 27. august 2013