Norwegian "newspaper turning"

The movement began at the newsstand. A week after the mass murder, two Norwegian tabloid newspapers placed a large portrait of the perpetrator Anders B. Breivik on the front page, whereupon kiosk employees removed the two titles from the range or placed them on the display stand with the backs facing forward. "We no longer want to see this face in our workplace," explained the objectors. "It should be forgotten and not be exposed. " This was reported last week by the Berlin daily newspaper TAZ. In the meantime, the movement had spread, even passers-by were already putting their hands on the kiosk display and "turning over newspapers". And one kiosk manager justified the action with "sympathy for the victim". However, none of the victims' relatives had anything to say. The editor-in-chief of a Norwegian tabloid, on the other hand, claimed that such actions bordered on censorship. Censorship? For once, the daily sales poll at the newsstand was directed against the tabloid makers. And why not! There were no calls to "turn newspapers around" in Switzerland. But you could hear the objection that if you dealt with his writings, Breivik would achieve exactly what he had wanted: Recognition and publicity. Occasionally it was said with the undertone that the media attention could encourage some people to imitate him. So should media professionals analyze the 1500-page document in detail? Or are media professionals making themselves the mouthpiece of a man of conviction? The fact is: firstly, Breivik's mass murder is politically motivated, and the deed and justification are consistent. Secondly, demands for restrictions on reporting fundamentally contradict the enlightened citizen's right to information.

Breivik's act has also changed the perception of criticism of Islam - for a long time - in many Western European countries. However, it is also true that much of what claims to be "criticism of Islam" is rabble-rousing defamation, even incitement, fueled by the motivation to silence Muslims - as well as the defenders of their fundamental rights. Consequently, it was mainly politicians and bloggers - in addition to the tabloid media - who made their political business out of "criticizing Islam" and who called the perpetrator and pamphlet writer Breivik a "madman", a "monster". In the short and long term, keeping quiet serves the interests of the Muslim enemies, in the short term because they do not have to face up to the debate about the widespread hostility towards Muslims, and in the long term because they can fill the gaps created with conspiracy fantasies, including complaints from the controlled media.

Let there be no misunderstanding. What peace researcher Johan Galtung explained is correct. Right-wing populist or radical right-wing parties, which Breivik admired, "cannot be blamed. They are responsible for creating hatred against Muslims. But they are not responsible for Breivik's hatred. His world view, his hatred of the alleged alliance of social democratic multiculturalists and Islamists, is unprecedented." On the other hand, Breivik's act has also made it clear that most European media hardly deal with the Islamophobic activists who let off steam in blogs such as the German-language Politically Incorrect, nor have they noticed how they are insulted and denigrated there on a daily basis.

Above all, however, encouragers need encouragement, i.e. accurate information. The first addressee of media professionals is still the enlightened citizen; the gaps in reporting become the black spots of public discussion. Conclusion: Breivik's face doesn't have to be plastered on the front page and on the newsstand every day, but media professionals must deal with his writing, the more precise and therefore the more detailed, the better.