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.
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?
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:
16. jul: Vancouver Whitecaps - Sunderland (i USA) - [Wrong country]
20.jul: Seattle Sounders - Sunderland (i USA)
23.jul: Portland Timbers - Sunderland (i USA)"
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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."