Swedish Media Censoring Migrant Crime Stories 16 Years

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Swedish Media Censoring Migrant Crime Stories 16 Years Google Translation Swedish to English Reporters angles not to promote SD Published January 16, 2016 at 07:32  |  Sakine Madon Blinds journalists information and news for not favoring SD? The claim is dismissed as tin foil hat theory. But journalists who I am in contact with testifies problems. Jesper Strömbäck, professor of media and communications, said the other day: "The media would cover up any berries in my estimation powerful lure of conspiracy theory." (Summary, 12/1). Sometimes opt out information about news values, he points out. And it is true in general. Meanwhile, for example Skånska Dagbladets then editor Jan A Johansson, the journalist Björn Hagers book "Party Problem", where SD acknowledges that data has been omitted to avoid a "hell damage to society". The other day I asked the question of social media: "You, who worked as / journalists. Have you been part of the editorial staff wanted to downplay or avoid substances because 'can benefit sd'? "Journalists of various ages, men and women, with different backgrounds and from different media, approached him. Those who responded publicly on Twitter gave mostly no answers, they had not encountered it. Those who approached him privately gave a more distressing picture. A journalist who has conveyed the news on integration and immigration for many years expressed that "this subject is super sensitive". There is a younger generation who think black and white, according to the person: "If something the interviewee says complicates the thesis and one's own worldview you cut it out of the story." When the journalist himself has let different voices to be heard, it has led to attacks from other journalists. Nowadays, I am very cautious reports, tell the person. "Can not be bothered to have enemies," is the explanation. Another journalist that contact has been working on a few different media newsrooms. "Before the last election in 2010, when I remember especially a completely bizarre discussion, the reporters at the coffee machine stood talking about 'how should we respond to the Sweden Democrats, we can not take them as an ordinary party" he says. And testifies to the directives from the new boss to "take it easy" when he examines the integration-related topics. The call to be careful recur[s]. One person has been worshiped be there when asked about problems at an accommodation for unaccompanied youths arrived at the speech. Another person reported that a senior colleague with strong political views have stopped reportage about mess at an asylum accommodation. Others describe a caution with the choice of words, of news or signalement [comment:  description] in order not to encourage xenophobia. A journalist who has worked in several major editorial says that in all workplaces has been a spoken or unspoken policy not to promote SD and xenophobia. And remember especially honor the murder of Pela Atroshi: "We did not write a line about it." These journalists are no foil hats. On the contrary, highlights several that most journalists and news executives are honest people. Yet the problem is there. The country's media editorial offices need to consider a lap: we should explicitly be against SD? If not; how do we ensure that journalism was shot? It is easy to shout "conspiracy theory" to any criticism. The harder it is to see their own role in that trust in the media falls, while the SD sites celebrating victory after victory. https://archive.is/agVtX ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What kind of questions is:  should we explicitly be against SD (ie Sweden Democrats), which is a pro-nationalist and anti-immigration party? Who are journalists to decide whether they will 'back' given political parties or not, and how is this remotely considered the right thing to do? Their job is to deliver information to the public so that the public may make informed choices; and not to decide for the public in advance what is 'good' for the public or otherwise. However, the press does the OPPOSITE of its role:  it DENIES the public information.  And when the press does throw a few crumbs of information at the public, it comes along with truckloads of mind-bending propaganda that most people would not recognise for what it is, because most people do not have the time to widely research every detail of what they are being fed (or the ability, therefore, to pick up what they are being denied) by the press. In this warped Swedish politics, press & intelligentsia world, keeping Sweden open to what (in my view) amounts to a genocidal immigration policy, that has already resulted in various negative social impacts, is considered a positive and resistance to genocidal immigration policy is considered undesirable and 'xenophobic'. It appears the problem of censorship or suppression comes from top down as well as sideways, from colleagues who disapprove and attack those that permit other voices to be heard. The problem of censorship or suppression, of information that the public is entitled to, goes well beyond the censoring Swedish press:  'liberal' ideology and propaganda has permeated all Swedish institutions and is espoused by all mainstream political, academic, media and cultural figures, in what is a hysterical, self-sustaining ideological grip. Just as potential press 'dissenters' (ie those that perhaps might stray in some way to challenge accepted 'reality' or  ideology & so forth) are silenced from above and attacked by colleagues, other professionals are no doubt likewise at risk of suppression and attack, and are precluded from voicing alternate views (were they willing to take the risks involved, and were they given a platform to do so) for fear of the social and economic consequences. Another thing that is not mentioned here is the potential for violent consequences: (a) street riots, which Sweden has already seen in its no-go suburbs of immigrants. (b) the potential threat of individual murder (as well as Charlie Hebdo type attack) from minorities with a custom of threatening the lives of those they do not agree with. If point (b) sounds far-fetched, look at the Netherlands politician Geert Wilders (Party for Freedom) who has 24/7 security due to the death threats:  "Death threats regularly arrive at his office ... " [Newsweek]. Pela Atroshi is an Iraqi Kurdistan female honour killing victim (here). As nothing was written of Pela Atroshi's 1999 murder: which was planned in Sweden by 11 members of her  Iraqi Kurdish tribal clan/family and executed in Iraq after she was lured to Iraq on the basis of arranged marriage the Swedish press has been censoring (ie suppressing) immigrant related issues for at least 16 years, if not longer, given this statement: "And remember especially honor the murder of Pela Atroshi: "We did not write a line about it."" Sweden Pela Atroshi Iraqi Kurdistan - Honour Killing 1999 LINK | Post From the Pela Atroshi article, it looks like the Australian and Swedish authorities' collaboration goes back a long way. ꕤ