Aftenposten - 24 Stories

1) Spår større rederier (Grete de Lange) 28 June 2005
http://n24.no/arkiv/article1069088.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/helse/article803893.ece

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 på McDonald's (By Morten Andersen) 2 March 2005
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article984361.ece

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 på 27 kvinner (Trond Eide) 26 May 2005
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1046926.ece

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 på 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 på 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? (JENS ULLTVEIT-MOE)
11 November 2005
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/article1154698.ece

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

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1957022.ece

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
http://forbruker.no/reise/article1247265.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1472352.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1511933.ece

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

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1296790.ece
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

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1695654.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1717263.ece

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

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1209917.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/klima/article2146207.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/reise/article2168457.ece

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

http://www.aftenposten.no/reise/article2309066.ece
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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/sport/article2669950.ece
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
http://forbruker.no/digital/tester/mobil/article1559788.ece

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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/oslo/article2800039.ece
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
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2837777.ece
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
http://www.aftenposten.no/reise/article1854945.ece
23) Milliarder fordunster (BRIT MYHRVOLD) 4 October 2001
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/article206818.ece
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
http://oslopuls.aftenposten.no/film/article196835.ece
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.