Saturday, June 27, 2009

Teknisk Ukeblad - 7 Stories

1) Niagra (By Atle Abelsen) 16 August 2006
http://www.tu.no/nyheter/energi/article56831.ece
In this article the Norwegian journalist for some reason decides to add in "Americans" to an all Canadian story about power production in the Canadian city of Niagara Falls located in the Province of Ontario in Canada. He writes about "American" involvement in the project which there is none. He writes that the power will be for the American market which is not the case, and in the Canadian press releases and news stories in there is no mention of the power being used for the American market. Why would a Norwegian journalist take the liberty to add Americans into an all Canadian story? Why would a Norwegian journalist take credit away from what Canadians are doing, and also give credit to another country that is not invloved in the project? Especially when the story is a Canadian story about something taking place in the country of Canada, and when the original story has no mention of the USA? Why the need for some Norwegian journalists to include Americans in with Canadian stories that have NOTHING to do with the United States?? This is like a Canadian journalist deciding to write the Swedes or Germans are helping to build some project in Norway, when they in reality not part of the project at all. It took several e-mails to convince this journalist to correct all three mistakes in his story. Is it fact or just guess work that someone just decides to add in another country to story that they are not part of?
2) Langturene blir billigere (By Dag Yngve Dahle) 14 April 2007
This story is an excellent example of how Norwegians just assume or guess or just plain think that Canadians and Canadian uses the currency of the neighbouring country - the USA. No research done, no verifying the facts or the currency used in Canada, just assuming or guessing. In this story the Norwegian journalist writes about a Canadian airline called Zoom airlines and the rates to fly from some Canadian cities to London. In his story he states: "Zoom Airlines flyr for eksempel fra London til flere byer i Canada for vel 2500 kroner." This is wrong. What the journalist has done is take the standard rate of $199 Canadian currency each way ($398 in total in Canadian currency CAD) and converted Canadian currency by the NOK-USD exchange rate to come up with 2500 NOK. To be correct the amount should be converted by the CAD-NOK exchange rate which is 2093NOK. Why would a Norwegian journalist think we use the USA's currency in Canada, when the Canadian airline is 1) based in Canada, 2) Canadian owned, 3) lists their amounts in Canadian currency, 4) reports in the story the flights are from Canada to the UK? Are journalists not expected to verify facts before they are printed? What if a Canadian journalist took Norwegian stories with NOK and reported all of the stories in the Canadian media with the Swedish currency or EURO exchange rate? This would show some real ignorance on the part of Canadian journalists. What is truly amazing about the mistake in this story is the number of times it is clear the amounts on the website are shown in Canadian currency, and the that the airline is Canadian, yet the standard Norwegian problem in the Norwegian press to assume in Canada we use American money, or to think that in North America only one currency must exsist - the USA's currency. Canada and Mexico are the other two countries in North America, and they don't use the USD, and Canada has never used the USD. So why so much ignorance in the Norwegian press? Is it the Norwegian school system? Norwegian journalism schools? Over 15 countries in the world use the Spanish invented "dollar" currency, and it seems the Norwegian press has no trouble to convert and report about Australian dollars or New Zealand dollars properly, but for some reason a country like Canada gets different treatment. Why? It seems odd considering Canada is a G-8 nation, and much larger than New Zealand and Australia with more population. The above listed story is another example, as is this website of assumptions, lazy journalism, lack of professionalism and pure ignorance of the country of Canada, Canadians, and Canadian culture. The reality is that this website is not calling or asking for more coverage of Canada, just to get the basic details correct. The basics seem to be hard for many Norwegian journalists, which makes one wonder what Norwegians learn about Canada in school, or read about Canada in their media.
3) Dyr affære med knust sparepære (Jarle Skoglund) 8 May 2007
In this TU story, the author has quoted a story published in the Canadian Newspaper - The Financial Post from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Canadian newspaper is reporting about a foreign story that took place in the USA, NOT in Canada. A story that mentions an American by the name of "Brandy Bridges" from an American city called Ellsworth in Maine, USA. Somehow from reading the Canadian newspaper reporting a story from a foreign country, reporting about an American story from the USA, the Norwegian TU changed not only the person's identity and name, also the person's sex. First, the person Brandy Bridges in the story is "Brandy" not "Randy" as changed in the Norwegian story. Second, "Brandy Bridges" is an American, not a Canadian as reported in the Norwegian story. The story is quoted from a Canadian newspaper, this doesn't make this American a Canadian. For example, if a Canadian newspaper reports about a Norwegian in Norway, that doens't make the Norwegian a Canadian does it? Third, By changing her name from Brandy (a name for a girl) to Randy (a name for a boy) the Norwegian reporter has identified the wrong name of the person in the original story. It is remarkable that simple errors like these take place, and that they are changed in Norwegian stories. Why does this happen?
4) - Veisalting årsak til brukollaps
5) Porten til USA (By Anders J. Steensen) 6 May 2002
In this story the Norwegian journalist writes: "Delstaten Quebec har fransk som offisielt språk. Her har det vært mye politisk uro, og en del av befolkningen har ivret for å løsrive seg fra Canada. I 1992 sa flertallet av befolkningen i Quebec nei til å danne en egen republikk, men å forbli en del av Canada. Etter folkeavstemningen har separatistene blitt langt roligere, og utenlandske bedrifter har igjen begynt å investere i provinsen." Quebec is a province in Canada, not a state as the Norwegian journalist writes. Canada has been using the Frenchsystem of provinces since 1663, when Canada became a Royal Province of France. The Norwegian word for province is "provins." As well, the journalist writes Canada became an independent country in 1982. He states: "Uavhengig stat i 1982 med dronning Elizabeth som overhode." This is wrong. Canada negotiated independence from Great Britain in 1867.
6) Svensk flopp på ingeniørtabbeliste (By Tore Stensvold) 14 July 2007
"4. Northeastern US kraftnett, 1965 – USA Over 30 millioner hjem ble strømløse i 13 timer da et enslig relé svitet i Ontario. Resultatet ble en voldsom overbelastning med tilhørende svikt i nettet." Ontario is in Canada, not in the USA.
7) Gir tilbake CO2-pengene (By Kjetil Malkenes Hovland) 7 April 2009
http://www.tu.no/nyheter/article206443.ece)
In this story, the Norwegian journalists writes: "CO2-satsingen tilsvarer 600 dollar (over 4000 kroner) per innbygger. Men Greenpeace mener pengene er bortkastet." How is $600 Canadian currency over 4000 NOK? This is wrong. This is an example of how many norwegian journalists writing stories about Canada, think that the currency used in Canada is the USA's currency. This amount of $600 Canadian (as the story is from Canada, not from the USA) is converted $600 CAD x 5.5 NOK = 3,300 NOK. This must think we use the USA's currency in Canada, and converted the $600 CAD, with the USD-NOK exchange rate = $600 USD x 6.7NOK = 4020 NOK. Why do so many Canadian stories with Canadian currency get converted with the USD-NOK exchange rate instead of the correct CAD-NOK rate? This would be like a Canadian journalist converting Norwegian currency with the EURO or Swedish Crown rate. Further into the story the journalists writes: " – I det minste vil en innbygger bli spart for å få 600 dollar av sine penger bortkastet på Stelmachs CCS-plan, sa Mike Hudema i Greenpeace. Ed Stelmach er statsminister i provinsen." This is also wrong. Canadian provinces don't have Prime Ministers, there is only one Prime Minister in Canada, and this is the leader of Canada. Canadian provinces are lead by what are called PREMIERS, and Stelmach is the Premier of Alberta.

No comments: