Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Aftenposten - 24 Stories

1) Spår større rederier (Grete de Lange) 28 June 2005
In this story about Canadian shipping company, Teekay Shipping, the Norwegian journalist has placed the Canadian city of Vancouver (Teekay Shipping's head office) in the wrong country. She writes: "Vancouver, USA." In the USA?? The Canadian city of Vancouver is the largest city in the province of British Columbia located on the Canadian west coast, and Canada's third largest city after Toronto and Montreal. Vancouver has several million inhabitants, and is also the Canadian host city for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Is it no wonder so many Norwegians think that Canada is somehow a part of the United States when so often Canadian cities aren't even located in correct country - Canada? This is a fairly common problem in the Norwegian media's Canadian coverage. This would be like a Canadian journalist writing that Statoil or Statnett is in "Oslo, Sweden" or "Oslo, Germany." Even worse, after sending Aftenposten and Grete de Lange an e-mail to point out this mistake there has been no correction in Aftenposten. Why not? In a response from Greta de Lange she writes: "Thank you for your mail. We have discussed if we should correct the Vancouver mistake, but we think that our readers will understand that this is a slip of the pen. If you have more comments, please contact the person responsible for the business news, Johnny Gimmestad. Yours sincerely Grete de Lange" The code of ethics of the Norwegian Presseforbund states: "4.13. Incorrect information must be corrected and, when called for, an apology given." If the Norwegian journalist covering the story doesn't know the correct country the Canadian city is located in, then how can she expect most Norwegian readers will know? Even after pointing out the mistake there is no desire to fix the error! It is doubtful if the majority of Norwegian readers will understand the mistake and that it is Vancouver, Canada. If the professional Norwegian journalist writing the story doesn't know where Vancouver, Canada is located, will most Norwegian readers? For the sake of accurate and professional journalism, clarity to readers, and respect of the company being written about, the correct country should be listed, but, it seems Grete de Lange doesn't see it this way? No correction to the mistake has ever been made.
2) Ola og Kari skal lære å drikke smart (By KNUT H. LEKNES) 7 June 2005
In this story the journalist writes about the Canadian province of Quebec in Canada as "delstaten Quebec" (Quebec state). State?? Canada doesn't have states. This is a mistake. The geographic and political divisions internally in Canada are called provinces and have been called provinces in Canada for over 345 years, since 1663 when Canada became a Royal Province of France. Canada, like China, Afghanistan, and many other countries in the world has provinces. There have never been states in Canada and this of course is a term so many Norwegian journalists for some strange reason just blindly apply to Canadian provinces. Why? It's very strange in the Norwegian media that Norwegian journalists never refer to the provinces in China, Sri-Lanka, Afghanistan (and other countries with provinces) as "states," but for some reason this habit seems to happen so often with Canada. Why do so many Norwegian journalists seem think we have states in Canada, when Canadian provinces pre-date USA states in North America? After sending e-mails to the journalist that made the mistake (over a year later) the story has not been corrected.
3) Slanket seg McDonald's
(By Morten Andersen) 2 March 2005
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes about a Canadian teacher that ate at McDonald's restaurants for 30 days and lost weight. In his story he writes "Ifølge CBS News" reports on this story. CBS News?? That's in the USA, not in Canada. This is not correct. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) is a foreign news media agency from the USA; it's not from Canada. The story is actually taken from CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation / Radio-Canada) in Canada. Britain has the BBC, Norway the NRK, Australia the ABC, and Canada has the CBC. The Norwegian journalist reports on the Canadian story from a Canadian news source (CBC) and yet in his story he writes "Ifølge CBS News." How does it happen that a Canadian story from a Canadian news source ends up being quoted from a USA news media source, especially after the story was taken from a Canadian source? After emailing the Norwegian journalist he corrected the mistake in the story and wrote kanadiske CBC News. Why did this Norwegian journalist write Canada's national news media corporation (like Norway's NRK) is CBS News from the USA? Was is a guess or just assumed?
4) Tiltalt for drap 27 kvinner (Trond Eide) 26 May 2005
In this terrible Canadian murder story about Robert Pickton in Canada, the Norwegian journalist writes: "Grisebonden Robert Pickton viste ingen følelser da han fikk høre tiltalen om drap 27 kvinner. Han kan være en av de verste seriemorderne i amerikansk historie." American history?? Wrong nationality, wrong country! This terrible story took place in the province of British Columbia in Canada, so how can it be the worst in American history when it did not take place in the USA? The events of this story took place in Canada, so it is the worst in Canadian history. After e-mailing the Norwegian journalist that wrote the story it was corrected to: "Grisebonden Robert Pickton viste ingen følelser da han fikk høre tiltalen om drap 27 kvinner. Han kan være en av de verste seriemorderne i nord-amerikansk historie." This is better, as Canada is located on the continent of North America, BUT, the worst mass murder in North-American history is from Mexico, not Canada.
5) Fugleinfluensa - verdens mest alvorlige trussel i dag?
11 November 2005
In this story the writer states: "Delstaten Ontario i Canada hadde et sars-utbrudd som kostet 6 milliarder kroner." State?? Canada doesn't have states. This is a mistake. Ontario is a province in Canada over 1 million sq. kilometres in size. Mexico and USA are the only two countries in North America with states. Canada has been using the French system of provinces for over 345 years since 1663 when Canada became a Royal Province if France. In e-mailing Jens Ulltveit-Moe to ask to correct the mistake, his reply was "no." Why is there so little respect by some in the Norway towards Canada, Canadians and Canadian culture that even the most basic of Canadian terms can't be respected, and mistakes about Canada corrected?
6) Luftballong brant opp (EIVIND SØRLIE) 25 August 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "En luftballong tok fyr i luften og brant opp i British Colombia i Canada fredag kveld lokal tid, ifølge nyhetsbyrået AP." The Canadian province of British Columbia is spelt "British Columbia," not "British Colombia" as the journalist has written. Colombia is a country in South America. The AP story this Aftenposten story is based off spells it correctly as "British Columbia."
7) Canadas metropol (Reprinted from Lonely Planet) 13 March 2006
In this story reprinted from the publication Lonely Planet, there is a picture of Toronto, Canada and the world's tallest building and free-standing tower the Canadian "CN Tower" at 553 metres. There is nothing wrong with the story, but it was reprinted by Aftenposten as "Flatation-bygget og skyskrapere. CNN-tårnet synes i bakgrunnen til venstre" CNN Tower? CNN is from the USA, not from Canada. That is a mistake. The correct name of the tower is the CN Tower, not the "CNN tower." The journalist that reprinted the story must have thought there was a mistake in the Lonely Planet publication and that the CN Tower should be called the CNN Tower after CNN News in the USA. The name of the tower is actually the "Canadian National Tower" or the "CN Tower" named after the Canadian National Railway, one of Canada's national railways that built the tower in 1976. Why does Aftenposten think it is named after a foreign news media outlet from the USA, when the tower is located in Canada? After a few e-mails to Aftenposten the mistake was corrected.
8) Vegvesenet får alkolås i alle tjenestebiler (By NTB) 26 September 2006
In this story by NTB and posted by Aftenposten it states: "I dag brukes alkolås i privatbiler i Sverige og i delstater i USA og Canada. I Sverige..." States?? There are no states in Canada. To be correct, the sentence should say: "...delstater i USA og provinsene i Canada." Canada has never had states and has been using provinces since 1663. Why would an NTB journalist write we have states in Canada when we have provinces? A guess or an assumption? NTB, founded in 1867, has been informed of this mistake several times by Norwegian Media Watch that Canada has provinces, yet these mistakes seem to continue in some NTB stories. If NTB, Aftenposten and Norwegian journalists can correctly identify the provinces in China, Afghanistan, and other countries with provinces as "PROVINCES" in their stories, why can they not correctly identify provinces in Canada?
9) Cheney antyder at han kunne støtte tortur (Author unknown) 28 October 2006
In this story Aftenposten writes: "Clarke tok opp temaet under et foredrag i Ottawa i Canada tidligere denne uken, ifølge TV-kanalen CBS." CBS?? CBS is from the USA, not from Canada. This is a mistake. The report comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), not CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System). The story is from a Canadian news media outlet, not from CBS is a foreign news media outlet from the USA, not from Canada. The story was reported from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The following is a link about the story from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from October 27th: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/10/27/clarke-torture.html How does a news story written by a Canadian news agency, get quoted in the Norwegian Press, then referred to as a foreign news agency from the USA - a news agency that's not even from Canada? An e-mail about the mistake has been sent to the newspaper, but to date the story has not been corrected, nor a reply received.
10) Flyktninge-suksessen (LARS NEHRU SAND) 28April 2006
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes, "Canadas ambassade i London." Canada has what is called a High Commission in London. Between British Commonwealth countries (Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) there are High Commissioners and High Commissions. What this journalist writes is not the correct terminology. Two e-mails were sent to notify the journalist of his mistake, but a reply was never received.
11) Forsvunnet kart åpnerfor norsk krav i Canada (MORTEN ANDERSEN)
18 March 2007
This is probably one of the better Canadian stories covered in the Norwegian press about the Canadian Arctic and this Canadian/Norwegian story. Canada inherited much of the Canadian Arctic from Great Britain in the 1880s, and through Canadian explorations of the Canadian arctic. In the 1930s the Canadian Government purchased these three Norwegian charted islands in the Canadian Arctic to ensure Norway would have no claim to these islands inside Canadian territory. There is no doubt this story is not known by most Norwegians. The Canadian story from the Ottawa Citizen from 2003 quoted below tells the story. The only correction to the Norwegian story by Morten Andersen that could be made is to at least identify the Canadian currency of $67,000 as Canadian because most Norwegian readers will think it is USA currency, and not Canadian. See next story below as an example.
"Sverdrup wanted Norway's flag to wave in the [Canadian] North, but he settled for $67,000 [CAN$] Instead (By Randy Boswell - The Ottawa Citizen Saturday, Nov.15, 2003)"The author of a new book about Canada's quest for Arctic sovereignty has unearthed letters from the 1930s that shed new light on how Canada acquired three major islands from the Norwegian explorer who had discovered and claimed them for his own country. Historian Gerry Kenney says the documents make clear for the first time that Canada essentially purchased the islands -- covering a total area larger than Nova Scotia -- for $67,000, in a thinly disguised cash-for-land deal aimed at maintaining the appearance of unchallenged Canadian control over its northern frontier.The islands were discovered during an 1898-1902 Arctic expedition led by the Norwegian explorer Otto Sverdrup. He had dreamed, he once wrote, of journeying to the "many white spaces on the map which I was glad of an opportunity of colouring with the Norwegian colours."To this day they are known as the Sverdrup Islands, and each of them was named after one of the expedition's chief sponsors: the Norwegian consul Axel Heiberg, and two brothers from a wealthy brewing family, Ellef and Amund Ringnes.Last week, Canada Post and its Norwegian counterpart announced an upcoming joint issue of stamps commemorating the 150th anniversary of Sverdrup's birth, his Arctic discoveries and the "common bond" between Canada and Norway that his expedition symbolizes.But when the islands were found more than a century ago, much different feelings were in play. Sverdrup's discoveries shocked the Canadian government, and officials in a host of ministries -- not to mention (Canadian) prime minister Wilfrid Laurier -- became concerned about the strength of our territorial claims in the Arctic. Britain's possessions in the far North had been transferred to this country in 1880, but Canada had done almost nothing to assert its control over the vast region. Having a Norwegian explorer announce the discovery of new lands in Canada's North was an embarrassment and a wake-up call.Several Canadian expeditions were organized in the early 1900s to help cement this country's avowed ownership of hundreds of Arctic islands. Those voyages and their leaders are at the centre of Mr. Kenney's book, Ships of Wood and Men of Iron, which is to be published early next year.Canada even devised what it called "the sector principle" to attempt to justify its supposed sovereignty over all territory between the northern coast of mainland Canada and the North Pole.But apart from the Soviet Union, which had its own expansive northern coastline, no other country accepted the logic of the sector principle. Norway and other nations argued that the discovery, occupation and use of land were more important features of sovereignty than geographical geometry.By the 1920s, a worrisome question mark still hung over the Sverdrup Islands. In Norway, the aging Sverdrup was pushing his government to send police patrols to the islands as a demonstration that they were, in fact, Norwegian possessions.The Canadian government -- like Norway -- was reluctant to spend much money to assert sovereignty over islands with little apparent value. The islands, partly covered by glaciers, were home to no Inuit at that time, no significant numbers of muskox or other Arctic wildlife and no known mineral deposits worth retrieving.But allowing Norway a territorial foothold in North America was viewed as an unwanted political complication for Canada. And acknowledging Norwegian sovereignty over the islands might have undermined other Canadian claims in the Arctic at a time when Americans and Scandinavians were regularly exploring the polar region without seeking permission from Canada.So, in the mid-1920s, Norway and Canada began formal discussions about the sovereignty of the Sverdrup Islands. Unwilling to spend money to assert its control over such remote and barren lands, but under pressure from Sverdrup not to renounce ownership, Norway gradually began pushing for a negotiated settlement.It wanted Canada to pay Sverdrup, the Norwegian government and other sponsors of the 1898-1902 expedition a total of $100,000 in exchange for Norway assenting to Canadian sovereignty. Canada initially offered $25,000 but wanted Norway to accept the validity of the sector principle.In the end, Norway agreed to recognize Canadian sovereignty over the islands but emphasized this was "in no way based on any sanction whatever of what is named 'the sector principle.'"In return, Canada agreed to pay Sverdrup $67,000. Ostensibly, the payment would be made for Sverdrup's original journals and maps. The money would not be publicized as being part of an exchange that gave Canada unchallenged title to the Sverdrup Islands.Now, Mr. Kenney says he's found unassailable proof that Canada basically bought sovereignty of the islands."Although the official record indicates that the grant to Sverdrup was for the delivery of his original maps, records and diaries, several pieces of official correspondence show that Canada was in fact purchasing much more than mere pieces of paper," Mr. Kenney writes. "It was to maintain a continuous, unbroken thread of sovereignty from 1880, when the British Crown ceded the Arctic to Canada, right through to 1930 and hopefully forever after. The continuity of the thread gave it its strength and Canada did everything in its power to demonstrate that the thread had never been broken."The "real motive" behind the $67,000 payment, Mr. Kenney says, is revealed in an Oct. 17, 1930, letter from O.S. Finnie of Canada's department of the interior to O.D. Skelton, the powerful undersecretary of state for external affairs."The main objective of entering into our negotiations with Sverdrup was for the purpose of securing from the Norwegian Government a recognition of the British Sovereignty in that portion of the Arctic north of the North American continent," Mr. Finnie states bluntly.Sverdrup, who reluctantly consented to give up his islands in exchange for Canadian cash, didn't have much time to enjoy his belated windfall.He died on Nov. 26, 1930, barely two weeks after the deal was made."
12) Måtte bindes til flysetet
(KURT HAUGLI) 30 March 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes that this man was find $12,000 (approximately 80,000 NOK) for his disturbance of a flight from Norway to the USA. The flight en route to the USA was forced to land in Canada. He was finded $12,000, but in Canadian currency, not American currency. The Norwegian journalist writes: "Torsdag ble den 47 år gamle mannen idømt en bot på 12.000 dollar (ca 80.000 kroner), melder AP" The Norwegian journalist has taken the $12,000 Canadian currency AP correctly states in their story, and converts the Canadian currency with the exchange rate for the NOK-USD, and not the correct NOK-CAD. The USA is Canada's southern neighbour, and the Canadian legal system does not use the USA's currency any more than Norway uses the EURO or Swedish crowns. Canadians use Canadian currency in Canada. As a result, the Norwegian journalist writes the amount as 80,000 NOK. The correct amount, with the correct Canadian exchange rate is 63,000 NOK, a difference of 17,000 NOK. Why do so many Norwegian journalists think we use USA currency is the national currency of Canada? Is the Swedish Crown the currency of Norway? Do Norwegians think Australia or New Zealand uses USA's currency? The AP story does not state $12,000 USD, yet it is assumed that it is USA currency, despite the fact the story took place in Canada. After e-mailing the journalist about this error the story was corrected. It now states: "12.000 canadiske dollar (drøye 60.000 kroner), melder AP." How many Canadian news stories about Norway use the Swedish Crown as the currency for Norway? How many Canadian tourists arrive in Norway with Swedish Crowns thinking this is the currency used in Norway? Where are Norwegian reporters getting their information from that these types of mistakes happen so often?
13) Gruvearbeidere reddet ut etter ulykke i Canada (NTB/AFP/REUTERS)
30 January 2006
In this NTB story the Canadian province is called "delstaten Saskatchewan." This is not correct. State? Canada does not have states. Saskatchewan is a province in Canada, not a state as NTB writes. Canada does not have and has never had states. The original AFP/Reuters stories do not refer to Saskatchewan as a state, so why is it changed in the Norwegian NTB story? This is another example of how many in the Norwegian press and in this case NTB, seem to just guess or assume information about Canada. An e-mail was sent to NTB to correct this mistake, but a reply was never received.
14) Blackberry kommer til Norge (KLAUS BØRRINGBO) 16 October 2006
This story is an excellent example of how often recognition, credit, or reference to Canada is left out of many Norwegian stories about Canada. This story talks about the Canadian BlackBerry coming to Norway. In the story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Blackberry har lenge ledet an i en rekke av de store internasjonale markedene. Ved å levere sikker e-post-teknologi til mobil har Balckberry sikret seg 5,5 millioner brukere i USA, Sør-Amerika, Asia og Europa. Nå skal suksessen lanseres for første gang i Norge." Not a single word or reference about Canada, Blackberry being a Canadian success story, or any mention of Canada. There are 5.5 millions users in Canada, Asia, Europe, South America, and the USA. Canada is even excluded in his totals when the product was first introduced and invented in Canada. and the totals he uses actually DO INCLUDE Canada! Why is it, even when a product like Blackberry has its origins in Canada, is Canada and Canadian content is a story, so often not worth mentioning by many Norwegian journalists? He further writes: "Den første BlackBerry terminalen ble lansert i USA i 1997." This is also wrong. The product first Balckberry was in Canada in 1997. Considering the product is Canadian, first introduced in Canada, is Canadian technology, and exported to the USA, and now the Canadian company has introduced it into Norway - none of this is mentioned. If this company and product was American, there is no doubt the USA would mentioned throughout Norwegian stories. And, in fact, if one was to read the majority of BlackBerry stories in the Norwegian media, one would find there is little connection to BlackBerry/Research in Motion being Canadian. But, one can very easily get the impression in the Norwegian media that Blackberry is made out to be an American success story. How BlackBerry is represented by many in the Norwegian press is like Canadian journalists writing about some extremely successful Norwegian product sold world-wide, but made only references to its success in the USA or Sweden, referred to the product as from the USA or Sweden, or being American or Swedish, and only talked about famous Americans or Swedes using it, and virtual never made any reference its home country of Norway. The Norwegian press would not portray American success stories as Canadian, so why do Canadian success stories like Blackberry get portrayed as American by so many in the Norwegian press? Is it the Norwegian habit of trying to make Canada and Canadian success look American and from the USA? Is there more prestige in Norway to make Canadians and Canadian success look American, and that is better? Is there a Norwegian media habit of seeing everything from the North America side of the Atlantic Ocean as being from the USA?
15) Garanterer USA-endring senest i 2009 (OLE MATHISMOEN) 11 Dec. 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalists writes: "En rekke stater og to stater i Canada har innført." States?? There are no states in Canada. This is not correct. To be correct it should say "En rekke stater og to provinser i Canada har innført." Canada has been using provinces for 346 years, since 1663, when Canada became a royal province of France. Mexico and the USA are the only two countries in North America with states, Canada does not.
16) Ti romantiske reisemål (FREDRIK LARSEN) 27 December 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "to byene Vancouver og Victoria i delstaten British Columbia." The two Canadian cities of Victoria (provincial capital of British Columbia) and Vancouver are in the province of British Columbia, not the "state" as the journalist writes. Canada has been using the French system of provinces for over 345 years since Canada became a Royal Province of France in 1663. Mexico and the USA are the only two countries in North America with states, Canada does not. The original story from Frommer's website this story is taken from does not refer to the Canadian province of British Columbia as a "state," this has been added in by the Norwegian journalist either by guessing or not verifing this fact before printing his story.
17) Gutta på tur (PÅL V. HAGESÆTHER) 12 March 2008
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Montreal: Jazz, festivaler, fransk sjarm og delikatesser fra alle verdenshjørner. Den nest største byen i Canada er en miks av Frankrike og USA, og har en stor homobydel som er en turistattraksjon for folk i alle filer." France and USA?? Is Norway a mix of German and Swedish? Or Danish and Swedish?? This is another example of how many Norwegian journalists don't give Canada proper credit. Montreal is a great Canadian city, the largest French speaking city in Canada, the second largest French speaking city in the world after Paris, and the second largest Canadian city. It lies in Canada, has French colonial roots, with Canadian, British, and influences and style. The city is a mix of French-Canadian, European and Canadian style for the most part, not American. Many cities in Mexico, Canada, and the USA have similar style, but this is a North American style, not just American. Montreal was founded in 1632. This would be like a Canadian journalist writing Norway is a mix of Danish and Swedish style, and not bothering to recognise Norwegians for it for being Norwegian.
18) Sport på amerikansk (By KURT HAUGLI ) 23 September 2008
In this story there are photos available under the heading "Sport på amerikansk," but the last two pictures are of a Canadian sport, not American sport, with three Canadian teams and Canadian players, not American. The game of hockey is a Canadian invented game frm 1800s, as well as the NHL is a Canadian founded league from 1917, expanded into the USA in 1923. The game of hockey is a Canadian sport, not American as the journalist writes. And posting pictures of this Canadian sport and giving the Americans credit for this sport is wrong. Why do the Americans get credit for a Canadian sport when it's not American? Especially when the two NHL games are from Canadian teams from games played in Canada? The other sports photos you have posted American football, and American baseball are American, but the hockey you posted is a Canadian sport with Canadian teams playing in Canada. not American. The one picture with the Buffalo Sabres is an American team, but in the USA they play Canadian hockey, so can it possibly be called a sport invented in Canada as American? If there was posted a picture of two Norwegian football teams from say Molde and Oslo should the heading above the title saying "Swedish Sports" or "German Sports," especially if the game is played in Norway? If there is posted a picture of two Norwegian XC skiers should it be stated as a Swedish or German sport? Should credit go to the Swedes or Germans for what is a Norwegian sport? The photo of Vancouver and Edmonton playing was not even played in the USA, it was played in Canada! An e-mail was sent several times to the Kurt and Aftenposten, but a reply was never received, and a correction was never made. This is another example of how Canadian content is changed or lumped in with American content to be made to look American to Norwegian readers.
19) Få deg en e-post-dytt (KLAUS BØRRINGBO) 11 December 2006
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "BlackberryDenne store push-mail-suksessen fra Kanada ble lansert i Norge i midten av oktober i år. Blackberry har i dag over 6 millioner brukere, hovedsakelig på de amerikanske kontinenter, Asia og noe i Europa. Suksessen har vært størst i USA, der "alle" forretnigsfolk i flere år allerede har bragt med seg e-posten ut av kontoret i denne typen mobiler." It's not the American continent, the correct term is North America.
20) Brukte klær mer trendy (SOL GABRIELLE LARSEN) 1 December 2008
In this story the journalist writes about a Canadian from Toronto in Canada. She writes: "Jeg har alltid elsket vintage på grunn av moten, ikke på grunn av prisen. Men etter at jeg flyttet til Oslo, har jeg kjøpt brukt på grunn av prisen, sier Kilgour som opprinnelig er fra Toronto i USA, men som nå studerer på Blindern i Oslo." In USA?? Wrong country. The Canadian city of Toronto is located in the country of Canada, not in the USA as the journalist writes. What this journalist has written is like a Canadian journalist interviewing a Norwegian from Oslo and writing Oslo is located in Germany or Russia. Later she also writes: "- Det har den siste tiden blitt mer viktig for folk å kjøpe brukt, spesielt i USA. Folk har ikke råd til å kjøpe dyre klær lengre. Da kan man heller handle på bruktbutikker, kanskje kommer man også over gamle designklær der, sier hun." But is this correct? Is she talking about Canada or the USA? She quotes a Canadian that moved from Toronto in Canada, but she writes USA? Toronto is a Canadian city with a population of 4.5 million people, and is not and has never been located in the USA. Is it not clear in Norway that there are three countries in North America (Canada, Mexico, USA) and not just the USA? After two days and five e-mails to Aftenposten, including three to the author, the story was corrected.
21) Det amerikanske forsvaret følger nissen
(KLAUS BØRRINGBO) 23 Dec. 2008
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Det amerikanske forsvaret følger nissen." This is not correct. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is not just American as the journalist writes in the story title, it is North American. To be specific, it is a defence organisation of two countries in North America - Canada and the USA, that work together for the common air space defence of North America (except Mexico). The title should state: "Det canadisk og amerikanske forsvaret følger nissen." NORAD it is both run by both Canadians and Americans. If Norway and Sweden had a joint programme to protect Norwegian and Swedish airspace this would be like a Canadian journalist headlining "Det svenske forsvaret følger nissen" and not bothering to recognise Norwegian ownership of the programme. Give Canada some credit is due, and stop making what is also Canadian look American. NORAD is called "North American..." for a reason. In addition the journalist writes: "Julenissen følges fra minutt til minutt på radar av amerikansk forsvar på julaften." This should say: "Julenissen følges fra minutt til minutt på radar av amerikansk og kanadisk forsvar på julaften." NORAD's website states: "The fourth system is made up of fighter jets. Canadian NORAD fighter pilots flying the CF-18 intercept and welcome Santa to North America. In the United States, American NORAD fighter pilots in either the F-15 or the F-16 get the thrill of flying alongside Santa and his famous reindeer: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen and, of course, Rudolph." What's wrong with giving Canada some credit where credit is due?
22) Riisnæs svarte leserne (Fredrik Larsen) 25 June 2007
23) Milliarder fordunster (BRIT MYHRVOLD) 4 October 2001
In this story the journalist writes: "Resultatvarsel fra amerikanske Nortel Networksble oppgitt som en av årsakene til at teknologiaksjer falt i Europa." American?? Wrong nationality. Nortel is Canadian, not American, and is from Canada, not from the USA.
24) Hannah Montana på kinotoppen (TONE B. VÆRVÅGEN) 11 May 2009
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes. "I USA har Star Trek dratt inn 76, 5 millioner dollar åpningshelgen." In the USA?? It was a North American release, not just the USA. This is the North America total. It should say: "I Nord-Amerika (ikke Mexico) har Star Trek dratt inn 76, 5 millioner dollar åpningshelgen." The amount is Canadian sales in Canadian Theatres in Canada, and American sales in American theatres in the USA. The amounts do not include Mexico, even though they are in North America. The amount of 76.5 millioner is for two countries - Canada and USA, not just the USA as the journalist states.

Nordens-Nyheter - 1 Story

1) Arbeidsløsheten øker neste år (Nils Petter Tanderø) 22 September 2009
"Amerikansk prestisjetap Styreleder Frank Stronach, som startet Magna, er født i Weiz, i Østerrike og emigrerte til Canada i 1954. "

Puls Music - 1 Story

1) Pagan's Mind til USA (Odd Inge Rand) 4 August 2009
In this entertainment story, the journalist writes: "Skiens progressive sønner Pagan's Mind skal være oppvarmere for finske Stratovarius i USA i september og oktober." There is nothing technically wrong with that, BUT, Canada is NOT IN the USA. Of the 19 dates below, there are 9 dates that in the country of Canada, not in the USA. Amazing that Canadian concert tour dates make up almost 50% of the tour, yet Canada is listed under the USA in the heading, Canada is not mentioned, and Canadian portion of the tour is not mentioned. It seems the USA tour is worth mentioning, but the Canadian portion of the tour, or even going to Canada is not worth mentioning. This is like a Canadian journalist writing about a Canadian band touring Sweden and Norway, but just mentioning the band going to Sweden, listing the Swedish and Norwegian dates, but never actually mentioning Norway. To be at least fair in this story, it should say:
"Pagan's Mind til Nord-Amerika" or "Pagan's Mind til Canada og USA" and"Skiens progressive sønner Pagan's Mind skal være oppvarmere for finske Stratovarius i Nord-Amerika i september og oktober."
Are Norwegians no better at seeing Canada as part of the USA, in the same way Norwegians complain how the world sees them as part of Sweden?
Sep. 12 - Atlanta, GA - Centre Stage (ProgPower USA festival)
Sep. 16 - New York, NY - Nokia Theater
Sep. 18 - Toronto, ON - Opera House - CANADA
Sep. 19 - Quebec City, QC - Imperial de Quebec - CANADA
Sep. 20 - Montreal, QC - Medley - CANADA
Sep. 21 - Boston, MA - Middle East
Sep. 23 - Baltimore, MD - Sonar
Sep. 24 - Cleveland, OH - Peabody's
Sep. 25 - Mokena, IL - Pearl Room
Sep. 26 - St. Paul, MN - Station 4
Sep. 27 - Winnipeg, MB - Garrick Centre - CANADA
Sep. 28 - Regina, SK - The Riddell at University - CANADA
Sep. 29 - Calgary, AB - Warehouse - CANADA
Sep. 30 - Edmonton, AB - Starlite Room - CANADA
Oct. 02 - Vancouver, BC - Plaza Club - CANADA
Oct. 03 - Victoria, BC - Sugar - CANADA
Oct. 04 - Seattle, WA - El Corazon
Oct. 06 - San Francisco, CA - The Grand Ballroom at the Regency
Oct. 07 - Los Angeles, CA - Key Club"

Avisen Agder - 2 Stories

1) Leiv Erikssons tipp-oldefar kom fra Kvinesdal! 1 April 2008
In this story the journalist writes: "Nytt fra januar 2008 er at Troens Bevis nå også har satellittsendinger over hele Nord-Amerika, Canada, og De karibiske øyene." Canada is located in North America. It should say "Nytt fra januar 2008 er at Troens Bevis nå også har satellittsendinger over hele Nord-Amerika, og De karibiske øyene." Under the photo it states: "Leiv Eirikson oppdager Amerika." It should say "Leiv Eirikson oppdager Nord-Amerika." The confirmed viking settlements in North America are in the Canada, in the province of Newfoundland & Labrador."
2) Satyricon i slaget 10 July 2009
In this story the writer states: "Under bandets andre USA-turnè i 2004 ble begge de innleide gitaristene i Satyricon siktet for neddoping og voldtekt av en kvinne i Toronto." How can it be a USA tour, when Toronto is in Canada? To be correct you should be saying: "Under bandets andre Canada-turnè i 2004 ble begge de innleide gitaristene i Satyricon siktet for neddoping og voldtekt av en kvinne i Toronto."

Skepsis.no - 1 Story

1) "Oak Island: Snart er skatten vår en vår" (Bjørn Are Davidsen) 4 June 2009

DagenMagazinet.no - 1 Story

1) Rick Warren støtter anglikanske utbrytere (JOHANNES REINDAL) 26 June 2009
"ACNA står for Anglican Church of North America og omfatter utbrytere fra den episkopale kirken i USA og Canada"

Sunday, June 28, 2009

TV2 (Nettavisen) - 34 Stories

1) «Uno» får amerikansk debut (By Vibeke Johnsen) 23 August 2004
In the title of this story the Norwegian journalist writes the Norwegian film "Uno" will make its "American" debut at Canada's Toronto International Film Festival in Canada. American?? Wrong country, wrong nationality. Canada, Mexico, and the USA are located in North America, and the Toronto International Film Festival is a Canadian film festival located in the Canadian city of Toronto, not in the USA, and is not an American film festival. The Norwegian film is making its "Canadian" debut or "North American" debut because it is happening in Canada; the Americans have nothing to do with its debut. To be correct it should say "Canadian Debut" since it is premiering at a Canadian film festival, and why not give credit to Canada and Canadians? First, Toronto is located in Canada, and Canadians inhabit Canada, not Americans. Second, in order for the film to make an American debut as the journalist has written, it would have to make its debut in the USA. And third, the Toronto International Film Festival is a film festival with films from all around the world. Is writing "Canadian Debut" at a Canadian International Film Festival not enough status to Norwegians? Why would a journalist deliberately change the nationality of a Canadian film festival to American, or try to make it look American? Is Canadian not good enough? It would be like a Canadian journalist changing the origin of the Cannes Film Festival to Germany from France, or the Nobel Peace Prize from Norway to Denmark. It would be like a Canadian journalist writing a Canadian film is debuting at the Bergen International Film Festival making its "Swedish Debut" just because Canadians felt Sweden gave us more "status" than Norway. In an e-mail to Vibeke Johnsen asking her why this mistake happened she writes: "Of course we know that Toronto is not a city in America, but I see that there's a clever soul trying to put as much into the title as possible here :-) The title is wrong and it is now corrected. It's not always easy to check these errors when I am out travelling. However, the festival calls itself the largest North-American festival and it is more of a meeting place for American filmmakers than anywhere else. I guess that's what they were trying to derive in the title from the story, but I absolutely agree that in this case it turned out wrong. Best regards, Vibeke Johnsen Entertainment Editor - Nettavisen." It is good to see the mistake correct, even if sometime later, and to admit the mistake, but the film festival is more than just Americans coming to Canada to promote their films, it is an international festival, with a lot of Canadian film content, and international content. Aren't there enough American film festivals in the USA Norwegian journalists can give "Uno" or other Norwegian films credit for debuting at an American festival? Is Canada seen as so small a country and having no real cultural importance in the Norwegian mind-set that changing the story to look like Norwegians are having American success is better, even when the success or debut is not in the USA? Does that mean that the Toronto International Film Festival is not good enough because it's a Canadian film festival? She states the festival is more a place for American filmmakers than anywhere else. Is this really true? What about Canadian and international filmmakers? What about Cannes in France? How does she know if more American filmmakers come to Cannes, France or Toronto, Canada? What about film festivals in the USA, they surely have more American filmmakers there than an international festival in Canada? The Toronto International Film Festival in 2004 showcased "328 films from 60 countries over its 10-day run." That doesn't seem mostly American as the journalist has written. The story was later changed to "Toronto" (not Canadian debut) after contacting TV2. This story is an excellent example of the problem some Norwegian journalists have in seeing and respecting Canadians (and Canada) for who they really are. And how Norwegians when doing well in Canada, sometimes try to portray they are having success in the USA instead of Canada, or passing off Canadian success as American success, or Canadian nationality as American, with little or no reference to Canada. Many Norwegian readers must be true experts on Canada and Canadian geography when so many Canadian cities are often mentioned in stories, and not the country of Canada itself. It seems like for some reason doing well in Canada, is not seen as having as much status as in the USA, and that may be so for Norwegians, as Canada is not the USA, but if the festival is Canadian, and the film is making a Canadian debut in Canada, it should respectfully recognised as Canadian. For some reason, it is sometimes common for Norwegian journalists to remove and change Canadian details (or at least include as little as possible) to give the impression Norwegians are actually doing well in the USA. Canada is the neighbour to the USA and is not part of the USA anymore than Norway is part of Germany or Sweden. Strange how this does not happen to countries like Great Britain and Australia in the Norwegian press, but it seems "little Canada" is not important enough to Norwegians. This website has many examples of this Norwegian media habit.
2) «Ringenes Herre»-musikal klar (Christian Borge Rief) 27 October 2005
In this story about the Canadian production and world premier of the Lord of the Rings musical taking place in Toronto, Canada. The journalist assumes, for some reason, the ticket cost for the show are $115.00 USD in his story. Why would the tickets be selling in American money in Canada? That's like a Canadian journalist writing the tickets at Oslo's new opera house sell in Swedish Crowns. The story is from Canada, and the currency used in Canada is Canadian dollars, not American money. But, for some strange reason he converts the $115 Canadian ticket price with exchange rate from a different country, in this case the USD-NOK rate, instead of by the correct rate based on the CAD-NOK exchange rate. Canada is not in the USA, so why would Canada use the USA's money? The Norwegian journalist writes $115 and then converts the Canadian amount with the USD-NOK exchange rate to get the wrong amount of 732 Norwegian kroner when it should be 630 Norwegian kroner ($115 Canadian currency x 5.51 NOK-CAD is 632 NOK, not 732 as the Norwegian journalist writes). This story is another example, of how many Norwegian journalists don't even know we use Canadian money in Canada. Why would Canada use a foreign currency? Are EUROs or Swedish Crowns the national currency of Norway? So why would Canadians use American money Canada, when Canada is not located in the USA? And in addition, even stranger, the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4376452.stm) even writes the tickets are $115 Canadian each, yet the Norwegian journalists still uses the American currency exchange rate. The worst examples of this is when Canadian business stories are printed where Canadian stocks and shares, and financial transactions are quoted in the Norwegian press with the wrong totals because of this mistake. Very unprofessional. Mexico is also located in North America and no one in Norway assumes the national currency of Mexico is the USA's currency, and not the Mexican peso. Norwegian stories never seem to be converting Australian or New Zealand national currencies with USD-NOK exchange rates, so why does this happen so often to Canadian stories? Australia is a smaller country geographically and population than Canada (Canada 33 million people, Australia 20 million), Canada is a G-8 nation with 8th largest economy and the 7th largest traded currency in the world, and Norway's third largest trading partner after the EU and USA, so why so many mistakes in the Norwegian press? If British, Swedish, French, German and American news journalist can report about Canada and our Canadian currency accurately why can't Norwegian journalists?
3) Generalprøvene før Premier League (By Dag Langeroed) 10 July 2005
In this article the journalist writes about an English football team travelling to Canada and the United States to participate in some pre-season football matches, the Norwegian journalist writes the teams are just going to the USA, and writes the Canadian cities are located in the USA. Wrong country! Here are the "USA" dates he writes:
14. jul: Victoria State - Sunderland (i USA) - [Wrong country]
16. jul: Vancouver Whitecaps - Sunderland (i USA) - [Wrong country]
20.jul: Seattle Sounders - Sunderland (i USA)
23.jul: Portland Timbers - Sunderland (i USA)"
Actually the Canadian cities of Victoria (capital city of the Province of British Columbia) and Vancouver listed above are in the country of Canada, not in the USA. The two cities are located in the province of British Columbia located on the west coast of Canada. Vancouver is the Canadian host city for 2010 Winter Olympics. To be correct it should read:
14. jul: Victoria State - Sunderland (i Canada)
16. jul: Vancouver Whitecaps - Sunderland (i Canada)
20. jul: Seattle Sounders - Sunderland (i USA)
23. jul: Portland Timbers - Sunderland (i USA)"
Even though the list of dates, cities and countries on the English football team's website list the Canadian cities in Canada, the Norwegian journalist has changed them to the USA. Why? E-mails from the author of the story at TV2 didn’t clarify why he changed the country for the Canadian games, and it took a month to have the story corrected. Why would the journalist would change the name of the country and the name of the team they are playing against in Victoria? The team in Victoria, Canada they are playing is not called "Victoria State" as the Norwegian journalist has written. Victoria is a city in Canada, not a state. Why does it take a month to fix a mistake and several e-mails? How does it even happen in the first place when the source of information clearly states Canada?
4) Kandrer bilspill for dødsulykke (By Lars Wærstad) 6 February 2006
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes the Canadian city of Toronto as being in the USA. USA? Wrong country! The truth is that Toronto is actually located in the country of Canada. Toronto is the largest city in Canada with ca. 4.5 million people, and the capital of the province of Ontario in Canada, and yet for some reason this journalist writes it's in the USA. After mentioning to him the mistake, he wrote to say it was changed. And as far as can been seen on TV2 website, the story has just disappeared, not corrected. Why would a journalist write Canada's largest city is in the USA? That's like a Canadian journalist writing Oslo is in Sweden or Germany. Was is a guess or an assumption?
5) Fikk åtte barn med stedøtre (Ole Peder Giæver) 16 February 2002
In this story the Norwegian journalists writes: "I den kanadiske delstaten British Columbia ble han torsdag funnet skyldig i å ha hatt sex med mindreårige, og i seksuelle overgrep." Canadian state?? This is not correct. To be correct it should say: "I den kanadiske delstaten British Columbia ble han torsdag funnet skyldig i å ha hatt sex med mindreårige, og i seksuelle overgrep." British Columbia is a province in Canada, not a state. Canada does not have states, and has been using provinces since 1663, when Canada became a Royal Province of France. Mexico and the USA are the only two countries in North American with states.
6) Dramatisk NHL-start (Stig Nygård) 6 October 2005
In this story the Norwegian journalist refers to the Canadian founded National Hockey League (NHL/LNH) as American. American?? How can that be when it was founded in Canada, and there are teams based in TWO countries, not just the USA? First, the NHL/LNH is a league with teams from two of the three countries in North America, Canada and the USA. Canada founded the league in 1917, gave it it's name, the Stanley Cup trophy, the rules, and much more, so it's fair to say some credit to Canada is deserved. Ignorance of the NHL doesn't make it right to give the Americans credit for what has become a North American league. In the article he writes the Americans are following the European lead; what he should be writing is the "Canadians and Americans" (or the North-Americans) are following the European lead. Why would he write the Americans and forget about the Canadian content of the NHL? The reality is the even though the NHL/LNH has more USA based teams playing in the NHL than Canada does, there are more Canadians watching hockey than all the Americans that watch hockey with all their USA based teams combined. In addition, 55% of all the players playing for all the NHL/LNH teams are still Canadians, and when the league was founded in Canada in 1917, it was closer to 100% of the players were Canadians. In Norwegian: Ligaen er kanadisk fra 1917 og NHL betyr the "National Hockey League" og National betyr Canada, ikke USA. De amerikanske NHL lagene spiller i Canadas nasjonal hockeyliga (the National Hockey League), selv om det er i dag mere amerikanske lag enn kanadiske lag. Amerikanske lag fikk lov til å spille i Canadas NHL i 1920 årene, men ligaen er forstatt kanadisk. The Stanley Cup heter faktisk "Lord Stanley Dominion Challenge Cup." Dominion er "The Dominion of Canada," Canadas navn. After e-mailing the journalist to correct the mistake, a correction has never been made. It seems that it is virtually impossible to convince some Norwegian journalists that not everything in North America is American or from the USA. Mexico and Canada are in North America as well, and have made contributions to North America and the world. Why is it so difficult to convince some Norwegian journalists that not everything in North America is American?
7) Ny utlending til Storhamar (No author listed) 22 June 2006
In this story about a Canadian hockey player TV2 writes that Perry Johnson comes from the "University of Alabama" in the USA. That is not correct. Perry Johnson comes from the University of Alberta in Edmonton, in Alberta, in Canada. How is it that Johnson is reported being from a foreign country and foreign university in the USA, when he is from Canada? The University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada is over 4,000 kilometres north of the US state of Alabama. After sending TV2 an e-mail about the mistake in this story, a correction has never been made and a reply was never received by TV2. The Norsk Pressforbund states: "Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press 4.13. Incorrect information must be corrected and, when called for, an apology given, as soon as possible." The mistake has not been corrected and their is no reference as to the person or source of the story. This is very typical response received (or not received) by many Norwegian news outlets; it seems they don't care to be informed of a mistake, and some care even less to correct their mistakes. Many do, but it seems trying to get many news media outlets to change their mistakes is often difficult. Why do so many Norwegian journalist not care if there are mistakes in their stories? Is it because they are mistakes about Canada and Canadians, and Canada doesn't matter? Is it discrimination? A double standard? Is it arrogance? Or, is it just ignorance? Are so many Norwegian journalists so knowledgeable about Canada, Canadians and Canadian culture they are 100% convinced what they have written is correct?
8) Verdens lengste fyllefest (Anders Røeggen) 18 September 2006
9) Jesus, for en park! (By Anders Røeggen) 15 July 2006
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Mall of America var lenge verdens største kjøpesenter." That is not correct. The Canadian shopping centre - the West Edmonton Mall in Edmonton, Canada, has always been larger than the Mall of America in the USA. The West Edmonton Mall was built in 1981. The American shopping centre was built in 1992. The Wikipedia website states about the Mall of America in the USA: "The mall became the largest shopping mall in total area in the United States when it opened in 1992; however, the mall has never been the largest in the world." Why would a Norwegian journalist write it has long been the world's largest when it has never been? A guess? An assumption? Why are simple facts like these not checked before printed? Of all the coverage in this story about family theme parks the largest in Canada is not even mentioned. Is that complete and accurate journalism? Two days later the story was corrected.
10) Peter Jennings er død (Runa Hestmann Tierno) 8 August 2005
In this story about Canadian news journalist Peter Jennings the Norwegian journalist writes: "Det amerikanske nyhetsankeret Peter Jennings er død, 67 år gammel." This Norwegian story is another excellent example of how often Canadians that have made a success in their careers in foreign countries like the USA, are virtually not recognised nor respected for being Canadian. In this story the journalist refers to Jennings an "amerikanske nyhetsankeret" and little reference to his Canadian nationality. Peter Jennings was born and raised, educated, and started his news journalism career IN CANADA. Born and raised as a Canadian, Peter Jennings has always been a Canadian, and a Canadian citizen. In the 1960s Peter Jennings was offered an opportunity to work for NBC news in the USA. Until the age of 65, Peter Jennings never even had American citizenship, he has always been a Canadian. At 65 he applied and received American citizenship and thus had dual-citizenship. Under Canadian law, a Canadian can also have dual citizenship with a foreign country (e.g. say with Norway, Denmark, Britain, Spain, USA), and still keep his Canadian citizenship. In this story, despite the fact he is a Canadian, raised a Canadian, educated in Canada, has Canadian citizenship, Canadian family, and never applied to receive American citizenship until 65 years of age, there is little credit given to him being a Canadian all his life. Yet, in the Norwegian press if this man was a Norwegian that went to the USA to work, never gave up his Norwegian citizenship, he would still be regarded as a Norwegian. A clear double standard on how many Canadians working in the USA are reported on in the Norwegian press. For some reason in the Norwegian press little credit is given to Canadians that work in a foreign country (like in the USA) for being Canadians. Unlike Brits, Australians, and Norwegians - it seems Canadian nationality and citizenship is less recognised in the Norwegian press when they live and work in the USA. Why are Canadians when working in the USA less recognised for their Canadian nationality, and more likely to be incorrectly identified American nationality than, Australians, Norwegians or British working in the USA? Despite the fact Peter Jennings was a Canadian and had Canadian citizenship all his life, and only had US citizenship the last two years of his life, why can't he be recognised in the Norwegian press for who he is - a Canadian? How is Knut Rockne still considered a Norwegian in Norway when he moved to the USA and raised as a child, when Peter Jennings moved to work in the USA as an adult? Sadly it seems, there is a douuble standard in how some in the Norwegian press see Canada's nationality, nationhood, and citizenship. If a Norwegian moves to Sweden to take a job on a Swedish television news channel and only takes out Swedish citizenship in the last two years of his life, and never giving up his Norwegian citizenship, would the Norwegian press write "Swedish news journalist" in their news stories? The answer is no. Norwegians would be proud of him being a Norwegian and would make reference to his Norwegian heritage. Here's a quote from a local Canadian news article regarding Canadian Peter Jennings: "Jennings was proud of his Canadian citizenship, although it was occasionally a sore point with some (US) critics. When Jennings spoke at the dedication of a museum celebrating the U.S. Constitution in 2003, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told him, 'not bad for a Canadian.' " Just days before his death Peter Jennings recieved the highest civilian award a Canadian can receive from his country - The Order of Canada." Taken from the CBC: "A day after his 67th birthday, and eight days before he died, Peter Jennings found out he would be awarded the Order of Canada, the nation's highest honour. The nomination process began long before Mr. Jennings' dramatic on-air announcement on ABC-TV on April 5 that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. The decision was made on June 29 at the last meeting of the advisory committee to the Order of Canada, chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, which makes recommendations to the Governor General (of Canada). Mr. Jennings was already too ill to respond directly. His sister Sarah, who lives in Ottawa, Canada, communicated with Rideau Hall, and told her brother the news on July 30. He officially accepted the honour only days before his death." After giving the Norwegian journalist more facts to base her story on, she changed it to mention he was "Canadian born." Considering the facts the man was Canadian first, born in Canada, was always a Canadian, only an American two years, worked as a journalist in Canada, at least a mention of him being a Canadian is deserved. Canadians can certainly get the feeling when reading the Norwegian press that being Canadian doesn't count for very much in Norway. One can certainly get the feeling in the Norwegian press that if you're not American, you're not as good.
11) Møt årets heteste spillbabe (Lars Wærstad) 26 September 2006
In this story about Canadian actress Emmanuelle Vaugier the Norwegian journalist writes: "...og i år er det halvt australske, halvt franske Emmanuelle Vaugier som fronter spillet." Australian and French?? wrong countries, wrong nationalities. This is not correct, she is not from France or from Australia. Emmanuelle Vaugier is a Canadian actress born in Vancouver, Canada. More specifically she is part of Canada's French heritage. The two largest ethnic groups in Canada are French-Canada (about 30% of Canada and close to 8 million Canadians) and English-Canada. Canadians of French origin have been in Canada for 400 years and were the original European founders of Canada from as early as 1534. This story is an excellent example of how Canadians are poorly recognised in the Norwegian press. Often there are stories relating to Canada where Canadians are not properly recognised for being Canadians at all. Even though Emmanuelle Vaugier's own website states the following information she gets no credit for being Canadian in this TV2 story: "Emmanuelle Vaugier is considered one of Canada's most promising young * performers"* "As one of Canada’s busiest actors, Emmanuelle can be seen in the upcoming new season"* "The Vancouver native"* "Vaugier was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, and grew up in a French (Canadian)-speaking household." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Emmanuelle Vaugier Born: June 23, 1976 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Occupation: Actress Emmanuelle Vaugier (born June 23, 1976 in Vancouver, British Columbia) is a French Canadian actress." From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): "Along with Alberta's (Canada) Evangeline Lily, Vaugier is considered one of this country's (Canada's) most promising young performers." How does it happen that a Canadian actress get's no recognition for being Canadian, and the country she is from doesn't even get mentioned in the story? Is it ignorance or is there a habit in the Norwegian press to not give Canadians, Canada, or Canadian culture its proper credit? If so, why? The journalist has beeen informed of his mistake, and the next day the story was corrected to state: "...fransk-kanadiske Emmanuelle Vaugier." In asking the journalist the source of his information for his original information about her he states: "I believe it was the australien FHM, but i'm not sure. Sorry..." The original FHM Australian story writes the following about this Canadian actress: "...we love the 29-year-old French-speaking Canadian." In addition to mentioning she is Canadian there are a couple of different mentions of Canada in the story including a mention of a popular Canadian drink: "If a desirable fellow were to approach you at a bar, how should he do it? He can buy me a drink. Do you guys have Caesars? It’s a cocktail with clamato juice (disturbingly, this is a Canadian blend of tomato juice and clam broth. True!) and vodka." It seems the FHM artcile is very clear she is Canadian. How does this journalist think she from Australia and France?
12) Oppskrift på vennskap (Anders Røeggen) 5 October 2006
In the review of this Canadian-UK movie the Norwegian journalist writes: "denne nordamerikanske småbyen." It's a Canadian movie, based in Canada. Why can't he write "small Canadian city"? Why the need to make it sound American in this story? Although there is nothing "technically wrong" with writing "small North-American city" as all cities and towns in Mexico, Canada and the USA are located on the continent of North America, but why not be more specific when the film is about based in Canada? This another example of how some Norwegian journalists often exclude as much possible reference or clarity to Canada and Canadian content and for some strange reason make it sound more "American" or "North-American" as much as possible. If this was a story about a small town in the USA or Mexico, it's likely it would not be refered to as a "small "North-American city" but either as a small "American city" or small "Mexican city." This is a Canadian/UK film, and credit should be given for that. Let's face it, when the majority of Norwegians think about or hear the words "America" they don't think of Mexcio or Canada, they think of the USA. Is being Canadian not as acceptable to Norwegians that the context has to be made as "American" or "North American" as much as possible? Imagine if in Canada, Canadian journalists painted Norwegian stories, culture, language as much as possible with a Swedish perspective - would Norwegians find that acceptable? So why do it with Canada, Canadians, and Canadian culture? Every other review of this movie has been more specific and either stated "small Canadian city" or small "Ontario city" in Canada. Is it so difficult to give credit to this film based in Canada for being Canadian? There are three countries in North America with three distinct cultures and three main languages (French and English in Canada) spoken. What part of North america is this story talking about? If this was a Norwegian film being reviewed in Canada, no one would write "small European city" as this is so vague it could be anywhere in Europe. It is time for Norwegian journalists to give Canada, Canadians, and Canadian culture the same fair treatment it gives Britain, Australia, and USA.
13) Hvorfor jenter gjør det dårlig i matte (By Trude Wermskog) 23 October 2006
In this story the original Norwegian journalist from Forskning writes: "Det antyder i hvert fall en ny amerikansk undersøkelse.- Funnene tyder på at folk har en tendens til å godta genetiske forklaringer, som om de er sterkere og mer uunngåelige, sier Steven Heine fra University of British Columbia i ei pressemelding." This is wrong. The study is a Canadian study done at a Canadian university by Canadian researchers. Despite the fact the researchers, are Canadians, the univeristy is a Canadian univesity, located in Canada, the Norwegian journalist writes "amerikansk undersøkelse." Why does a Canadian study like this gets credited as being an American study? The British, American, and Australian media stories all state Canada, Canadians, and Canadian researchers, yet this journalist gives credit the country located beside Canada, the USA. How does something like this happen? Does the journalist think the University of British Columbia is located in the USA? An e-mail was sent to the journalist, and to date a reply or correction to the mistake has not been received.
14) Gjør plass for Montreal (Vidar Dons Lindrupsen)
In this story the Norwegian journalists uses American references to the Canadian city of Montreal that are perplexing. In the story he writes: "Den beste blandingen av amerikansk og europeisk finner du i Montreal." American?? Wrong country! First, Montreal is not American, nor is it correct to say it is the best mix of American and European. The city is Canada's second largest, it's French speaking, and the second largest French speaking city after Paris in the world. To be give the city proper credit the story should say it is the best blend of "Canadian and European" or "North America and France." First, the city is in Canada, and second, the city is Canadian, the more modern Canadian style in the city is Canadian, not American. Is the style of a Norwegian city like Oslo for example, Swedish? Montreal was founded in 1642, and since has been the financial and economic heart of French Canada, and to call it American, when the city is Canadian is not respectful to Montrealers or Canadians. If the Norwegian journalist means to say it is a blend of North-American and European style then that is fair to say and accurate, as Montreal and Canada are located in North America, but they are Canadian, not American. Should a Canadian reporter comes to Norway and say Oslo is a blend of European and Swedish? Later in the story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Dersom man ser grupper av amerikanske gutter i 18-19 årsalderen, kan man være trygg på at de høyst sannsynlig ikke er på vei til butikkene eller klar for å skrifte." First, Canada is occupied by Canadians and the nationality of the people of Canada is Canadian, not American. If there are a group of boys hanging around a stripe club in Canada, then they would be Canadians, not Americans as this journalist has written. If these are Canadians, why has he called these Canadians Americans? Americans are the name of the people that live in the USA, and not Canadians. If by chance when the journalist saw these boys and they identified themselves as "Americans" then they are American tourists in Canada and not Canadians, and this should be clarrified in his story. If in the story the journalist means the local boys of the city of Montreal then they are Canadians. Canada and Canadians deserve more respect from the Norwegian press for who and what they are. The Canadian press does not treat Norway poorly, so why does the Norwegian press often treat Canada poorly in their media? This website is testament to this Norwegian problem, despite the fact that there are still hundreds of stories have not been listed on here. The above stories above all show an ignorance of Canada, especially because they come from jurnalists that have a responsibility to report accuratley. Had these stories been about the USA, Australia or the UK, the same mistakes would most likely not have happened, or certainly no where near as often as they happen to Canadian stories.
15) Ett usunt måltid skader deg (Jorunn Egeland) 26 April 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes "skal vi tro amerikanske forskere." This is wrong. First, it is a Canadian study, not an American study, and second the University of Calgary is in Canada, not in the USA. This story is another example of how Norwegian journalists read about a Canadian story and often just assume it is American, or change it to be American or look American. The study is from Calgary as the information shows, and there is no media source that states the study is American. In fact, there are several media sources that states the study is Canadian, including this one from Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070424.wxifat24/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/homeWhy
would a Norwegian journalist take a Canadian story and deliberatley change it to call it an American story? Especially when the news source does not state is an American study, but done at a Canadian university. Even the Forskning story made reference of in the Nettavsien story does not stay it is American. Nettavsien has several stories misrepresenting Canada and Canadians, and seems to be a regular occurance with their journalists. Is it not the norm in journalism to verify facts befire printing them? Is is not wrong to change facts or details in stories to make them appear different than what they are, without verifying the facts?
16) Wrestlingstjerne drepte familien (By TV2) 26 June 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Den amerikanske fribryteren Chris Benoit ble mandag funnet død i sitt hjem i delstaten Georgia i USA." American?? Wrong nationality. This is wrong Chris Benoit is not an American; he is a Canadian born and raised in the French part of Canada. Why change his nationality? He speaks French and English, and even though he may have worked and lived in the USA for his career, that doens't change his nationality. If a Norwegian comes to the USA to live and work, does that make him an American? If a Norwegian goes to live and work in Sweden does that make him a Swede? Why is it so often that Canadians living and working in the USA, just as many Brits, Australians or Norwegians do, are suddenly no longer Canadians in the Norwegian press? Why is the Canadian nationality so often incorrectly reported as American, but this doesn't seem to happen with other foreigners in the Norwegian press? Why does the Norwegian press so confidentaly think these Canadians are Americans? And why are these facts not verified in the Norwegian press before the Norwegian stories go to print? Upon, pointing out the mistake to TV2 they corrected the story and properly identified his nationality as Canadian, but no e-mail was received to explain the error. It is safe to say the journalist took a guess or assumed, despite the Canadian speaks French, has a French-Canadian name, and is Canadian, he was guessed or assumed to be an American.
17) Helt matt i shoppe-mekka (Rapport fra Torstein Bae) 18 October 2007
In this report ("Rapport fra Nettavisens sjakkspaltist Torstein Bae") there is a mistake about the Canadian shopping centre - West Edmonton Mall. He writes: "ALBERTA, CANADA (Nettavisen): West Edmonton Mall er Nord-Amerikas største og verdens tredje største kjøpesenter, og kan tilby det aller meste den kjøpeglade kan begjære" The shopping centre is Canada's, North America's and the world's largest shopping centre. Why he writes it is the 3rd largest, who knows, but that is not correct. The following comes from the West Edmonton Mall website: "West Edmonton Mall is waiting for you! It's the world's largest entertainment and shopping centre and Alberta's number one tourist attraction, featuring over 800 stores and services, over 100 eating establishments, plus nine world class attractions. It's the only mall of its kind - both a shopper's dream and a world of excitement and adventure. This amazing structure - often called the "8th Wonder of the World" - spans the equivalent of 48 city blocks in the prestigious west end of the City of Edmonton (metro population over 995,000), in the Province of Alberta."
18) Drept med el-pistol (By David Brændeland ) 15 November 2007
In this very tragic and terrible Canadian story there are a couple of mistakes. The Norwegian reporter writes: "Det mest bekymringsverdige var at én av politimennene brukte kneet ogbeinet til å holde hodet hans på gulvet, sier Pritchard til CNN." This is wrong. In the American CNN story, the Canadian Paul Pritchard said this to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), not CNN. The CNN story the Norwegian reporter quotes this from even states Paul Pritchard said these comments to the CBC. The Norwegian reporter has changed it to make it look like Paul Pritchard made these comments to CNN, not the CBC. It clearly states in the American CNN story - "Probably the most disturbing part is one of the officers uses his leg and his knee to pin his neck and his head to the ground," Pritchard told CBC News." Why is this Canadian fact change by the Norwegian reporter; from a Canadian news agency to an American news agency, even when CNN does not do this? Secondly: "De må gjøre noe, fordi dette dreper mennesker, sier Cisowski til CBS." She did not say this to CBS in the USA, she said this to the CBC in Canada. The CNN story clearly says she states this to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation In both these quotes the Norwegian journalist changes the Canadian news agency to American news agencies. Why change the Canadian news agencies when the USA's CNN story does not say this? From CNN: "The dead man's mother, Zofia Cisowski, told CBC News that Tasers should not be used by police." "They should do something because that is a killer, a people killer."" Does this Norwegian journalist think the Canadian CBC is actually the American CBS and CNN? Even when the Americans use the correct Canadian references, the Norwegian journalist has changed them to American references. After sending two e-mails to the journalist the corrections were made, but the link in the story taking readers back to the CBC in Canada, actually directs them back to the story from CBS in the USA. It is amazing how Canadian facts are changed from a Canadian story to made to look American, and even after pointing out these errors, no reply from the journalist or TV2, and there is still an incorrect link in the story. Why so little respect given top the Canadian references in this story?
19) Nesestyver til Moore (Asle Bentzen) 29 November 2007
In this story about the Canadian film "Maufacturing Dissent" the Norwegian writers states it is from the USA. It is not an American film, it is a Canadian film. In the story the journalist writes the about the two Canadians making the film, andmentions Canada, but itedentifies the film as from the USA. He states: "På sporet av Michael Moore (Manufacturing Dissent) - dokumentar. USA 2007. Regi: Debbie Melnyk og Rick Caine. Med: Michael Moore, Melnyk, Caine, m.fl." How can it be from the USA when it comes from Toronto, Canada and is done by two Canadians Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine and is rcognised world-wide as a Canadian film? Is there a mindset in Noway that assumes everything from this side of the Atlantic Ocean is from the USA? The story was corrected after the mistake was pointed out to TV2. Why are there so many consistent errors about Canada, Canadians, and Canadian culture in the Norwegian press? Do Norwegian journalists not have a responsibility to their readers to verify facts before they publish a story? Why is so much of what is Canadian guessed or assumed to be American; or made to look American? The story was later corrected.
20) Utfor – endelig ukalkulert spenning (Håkon A. Bjercke) 29 November 2007
"I den snørike vestlige delen av verdens største land, Canada, kan været endre seg på minuttet. Det kan gå fra sol til snøstorm på kort tid og omvendt."
21) Hadde sex med død hest (By Farid Ighoubah) 6 January 2008
This story is an example of how many Norwegian journalists can be sloppy in their reporting about Canada, and often don't understand that geographically North America is three countries - Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.A. In this story, the Norwegian journalist writes: "En canadisk mann er dømt til fengsel for å ha sex med en død hest." He further writes: "I Canada ble Bryan James Hataway fredag dømt til ni måneders fengsel for å ha hatt seksuell kontakt med en død hjort, melder Canadian Press." This is all wrong. This man is not a Canadian, not from Canada, this did not take place in Canada, and this is not what the Canadian Press reported. The Norwegian journalist has used the Canadian Press as a source, in which the Canadian Press was reporting about an American in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. The Canadian Press Story states: "SUPERIOR, Wis. - A Wisconsin man convicted of having sexual contact with a dead deer has been sentenced to nine more months in jail." (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZ4j2OOEug3O3W7pEfVHLsp4TyQ). The U.S. state of Wisconsin is located in the U.S.A., not in the country of Canada. This man is an American, not a Canadian. This Norwegian story would be like a Canadian journalist using a Swedish Press story about a Swedish man having sex with a dead horse and writing it was a Norwegian, and took place in Norway. That would be extremely poor, unprofessional, and lazy journalism. It hard to believe that a story cleary marked as taking place in the USA, is reported to have taken place in Canada, by a Canadian, just because a Canadian source was used to report in the Norwegian press. The Canadian Press was created in 1917 to report about Canadian and international news, not just stories in Canada. The Canadian Press site states: "The Canadian Press continues to be an organization driven by a quest for first-rate journalism. We will keep Canadians informed and help them understand and experience their world more fully for many years to come." After sending Nettavisen an e-mail pointing out their errors, they changed fixed part of the story to correctly make reference to that fact it took place in the USA, but still made reference to him being a Canadian man under the photo caption. A second e-mail has to be sent to correct this mistake as well.
22) DRILLOS HELGENØTT: Svar på geografinøtten (Liv Ekeberg)http://pub.tv2.no/dyn-nettavisen/reiseliv/?archiveSection=21&archiveItem=164966
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Victoria er hovedstad på Seychellene, den er provinshovedstad i British Colombia i Canada." The province of British Columbia is spelt "British Columbia" not "British Colombia". Colombia is a country in South America. As well, the story states: "Kanadiske Vicotia ligger på Vancouver Island, i havet utenfor Canadas hovedstad Vancouver." The city of Vancouver is not Canada's capital; the City of Ottawa is Canada's Capital proclaimed by Canada's Queen Victoria in 1857, and is 4611 kilometres east of Vancouver in the province of Ontario.
23) I Canada tar de røykeloven et sted lenger (By Lene Gunvaldsen) 6 March 2008
http://www.side2.no/helse/article1659217.eceIn this story about the Province of Ontario in Canada the Norwegian journalist writes: "statsminister Dalton McGuinty." Prime Minister?? That is wrong, there is only one statsminister in Canada, and he is the Prime Minister of Canada, he represents all Canadians and the Government of Canada. Canada is divided into 10 provinces and three territories, and Ontario is a province in Canada. The leaders of Canadian provinces and territories in Canada are called "Premiers", and they are below the statsminister/Prime Minister of Canada. The correct Norwegian term for a Canadian Premier is "Premierminister."
24) Rømte fra slakterbilen (By Morten Michelsen Berg) 22 March 2003
This story is another excellent example of how many times Norwegian journalists do not list the country of Canada in stories about Canada. This story is not wrong, but often in Norwegian reporting a Canadian city or Canadian province may be mentioned but not the country. If is safe to say the majority of Norwegians do not know where these cities or provinces are in Canada. Would it not better service to the Norwegian to report the event or story comes from Canada? In this story the Norwegian journalist states: "utenfor Toronto" and "i Mississagua, Otario". There is nothing in this story that even helps to inform the Norwegian reader what country this story takes place. If a Norwegian reader is curious enough perhaps they would look up the location of Toronto or Mississauga in an atlas. In addition to the country not listed the name of the Canadian city of Mississauga and the Canadian province of Ontario have also been both spelt wrong by the TV2.
25) Fem omkom i flystyrt (By Thomas Olsen) 29 March 2008
In this story, the Norwegian journalist writes: "Flyet var eid av firmaet A.D. Williams Engineering, og skulle frakte ansatte fra delstatshovedstaden Edmonton til et møte i Winnipeg, opplyser firmaets talskvinne Sue O'Connor." Delstatshovedstaden?? Albert is a province in Canada, not a state, so how can Edmonton be a state capital? Mexico and USA are the only two countries in North America with states, Canada does not. In fact, Canada has been using the French system of provinces for 345 years since 1663, when Canada became a Royal Province of France. Edmonton is the provincial capital of Alberta, and the word in Norwegian is: provinshovedstaden. What is amazing about this story is that the Norwegian journalist has based his story off a story picked up from a South African news source - news24.com, in which the news24.com story writes: "Four men and one woman were confirmed dead in the crash of the PA-46 Piper Malibu, which went down in the morning near Wainwright, 225km southeast of Edmonton, the capital of Alberta province." Despite the fact the South African story clearly states Alberta is a province, the Norwegian journalist incorrectly refers to the provincial capital of Alberta as the state capital. The point here, is the Norwegian media often do not verify facts before they print stories about Canada, Canadians, and Canadian culture. And even when their original news sources uses the correct term, they disregard they still don't get it right, as in the case of this story. Many in the Norwegian media often doesn't care to get the facts correct about Canada, often practises sloppy journalism when reporting about Canada, assumes what they know is correct about Canada, or just takes a guess. In any case, the number of mistakes relating to Canada in the Norwegian press exemplifies that many in the Norwegian press, whether from a local small town newspaper, to the larger national news media organisations, do not know much about Canada when reporting, and guess far too often, or even more bizarrely must think Canada is part of the USA, and not an independent country north of the USA.
26) Drep meg, vær så snill (By Stefan Offergaard) 6 August 2008
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Li er siktet for forsettlig drap og måtte møte i retten i staten Manitoba i Canada." State?? This is wrong. Manitoba is a province in Canada, not a state. There are no states in Canada; and Canada has been using the French system provinces since Canada became a Royal Province of France in 1663. The link in the story from the U.K. paper states: "Vince Weiguang Li made the plea as heappeared before a court in the central Canadian province of Manitoba."The Norwegian word for province is "provins". After e-mailing the Norwegian journalist a correction was made.
27) Fly traff hus - fire omkom (Mathias Rongved) 7 August 2007
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes about the Canadian province of British Columbia in western Canada. British Columbia is a province (provins) in Canada, not a state as the journalist has written. Canada does not have and has never used states. Mexico and the USA are the only two countries in North America that use states, Canada uses the French system of provinces and has been since 1663.
28) Kåt sjåfør fikk ambulanse beslaglagt (Runa Hestmann Tierno) 6 December 2004
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Kanadisk politi har nå beslaglagt ambulansen til mannen, med henvisning til den strenge anti-prostitusjonslovgivningen i delstaten. Episoden utspant seg i Alberta i Canada." This is not correct. Canada does not have states; it is divided by 10 provinces and three territories. Canada has been using provinces for 345 years since 1663 when Canada became a Royal Province of France. The Norwegian word for province is provins. An e-mail was sent to TV2, but a repsonse was not received and the mistake has never been corrected. The (Vær Varsom-plakaten) Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press states: "4.13. Feilaktige opplysninger skal rettes og eventuelt beklages snarest mulig.4.13. Incorrect information must be corrected and, when called for, an apology given, as soon as possible."
29) Oscar-vinner slo seg vrang (Gisle Stokland) 9 April 2009
There is nothing techinically wrong with this story at all. The journalist writes "Q TV-programleder Jian Ghomeshi på CBC kommer ikke til å glemme sitt påskeintervju med Billy Bob Thornton." What is Q-TV? What is CBC? Do most Norwegian readers know Q-TV and CBC? It seems they leave a lot for the Norwegians to guess and try to figure out on their own?
30) Pandemikomiteen fraråder bruk av munnbind (By Olav Haugan) 29 April 2009
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "I Canada er det bekreftet seks tilfeller i to stater. Det er også bekreftet et tilfelle i Costa Rica." Canada does not have states, it is divided internally by provinces, and has been for 346 years when Canada became a Royal Province of France in 1663. Mexico and the USA are the only two countries in North America with states, Canada has does not. The story was corrected the next day.
31) «Star Trek» trekker galaktisk‏ (Gøril Huse) 10 May 2009
In this story the Norwegian journalists makes two mistakes. She writes: "På filmens åpningshelg spilte «Star Trek» inn sanseløse 461 millioner norske kroner i USA. Dermed har «Star Trek» vekket til live science-fiction-fansen for alvor." This is not correct. It should say: "På filmens åpningshelg spilte «Star Trek» inn sanseløse 461 millioner norske kroner i Nord-Amerika. Dermed har «Star Trek» vekket til live science-fiction-fansen for alvor." The total she writes is the total for North America (Canada and the Unites States, except Mexico), not just the USA. Reuters, clearly states the total is for the North American market. Reuters writes: "The new "Star Trek" movie beamed up an estimated $72.5 million in North American ticket sales its first weekend in theaters." Canada is not located in the USA, so how can the totals be for just the USA? What this journalist has written is like a Canadian journalist writing about ticket sales for a movie premiering in Sweden and Norway, or all of Scandinavia, and writing the sales are just for the country of Sweden. She also writes: "I tillegg kommer førpremierevisningene i torsdag og mottakelsen i Canada som gir ytterligere 25 millioner kroner i kassa, opplyser distributøren Viacom Inc's Paramount Pictures studio i følge nyhetsbyrået Reuters." This is not correct either. The 25 millioner kroner she states is Thursday night sales in Canada and in the USA, not just Canada, and listed in U.S. currency. Reuters writes: "Combined with $4 million grossed from Thursday evening's preview screenings, "Star Trek" tallied $76.5 million in U.S. and Canadian receipts through Sunday, according to its distributor, Viacom Inc's Paramount Pictures studio."
32) Kommer snart til en skog nær deg (Ronald Toppe) 14 November 2009
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "– De er et varselsignal, sier Lucas Brotz ved Columbia University til AP. Økningen forteller oss at havet er i ubalanse." This is a mistake. Lucas Brotz is a with the Canadian University of British Columbia, in the Canadian westcoast province of British Columbia in the country of Canada. The Norwegian writes it is the Columbia University, which is an American univesity located in the United States, not in even in the country of Canada, and Lucas Brotz is with the Canadian University of British Columbia, not the American Columbia University.
33) Felles mål (Janne F. Lønne) 7 December, 2009
Int his breif story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Ved første øyekast kan sjansene for å vinne og overleve i det røffe terrenget i British Colombia, være små for utfordrerne. Men det er ikke alltid lurt å dømme noen etter utseende." This is another excellent example Norwegian media coverage. First, where is "British Colombia?" And second, "British Colombia" is spelt British Columbia." The point here is most Norwegian eaders of this story won't know where British Columbia is located, and most won't know it's a province in Canada. Would the Norwegian reader not be better informed if the story said: "Ved første øyekast kan sjansene for å vinne og overleve i det røffe terrenget i British Columbia i Kanada, være små for utfordrerne. Men det er ikke alltid lurt å dømme noen etter utseende." Adding in the country for frame of reference, and also spelling the name correctly. It's no wonder so many Norwegians are not well infomed about Canada, when there are so many errors, or omissions in the Norwegian media. For example, would Canadians reading a Canadian jounalist's media story stating: "Ved første øyekast kan sjansene for å vinne og overleve i det røffe terrenget i Finnmork, være små for utfordrerne. Men det er ikke alltid lurt å dømme noen etter utseende."
34) Mann maltrak av sin egen tiger (Birthe Steen Hansen) 11 January, 2010
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "CBS News" as the source for her story. CBS News?? How can it be CBS News when there is no CBS News in Canada, and the story is from Canada? This is a mistake, as there is no CBS News in Canada; CBS News is from the USA, not from Canada. This is a good example of how sometimes a Norwegian jounalist will use a clearly indicated Canadian media source like CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - which is Canada's version of NRK, Britain's version of BBC), and somehow either guess or assume that since it's on the North America side of the Atlantic, that is must be American, and must be CBS from the USA. It's amazing how reading a Canadian source, from a clearly marked "CBC" news website get's changed to a USA news source, when the story doesn't even come from the USA. After two e-mail to TV2, the story was finally corrected, but nor reply or explaination was received from TV2. This is like a Canadian journalist using the Norwegian news source NRK to report about a Norwegian story from Norway, and renaming the Norwegian NRK after a Swedish or German news source.