The Silent Whistleblower

Yesterday was a special day. In good company. It was also the day when I had nothing left to keep at my first love. I have stuck with it for years now. And still a friend told me to go on. Anyway.

Today's paradox takes the form of a quiz. The quiz imitates the form of nestled chinese boxes: I have two loves - one above the other. The first love has three pathways to be ultimately realized. The second love could have more, but most likely is one. The first love further leads to five fields of passion.

Guided by the advice, because I have found no other love, I will stick with my loves - but whoever in my network solves the quiz and finds a way to let me know will help to re-open the full potential. Anyway.

The Paradox of Wonders

Thank you, Jørn Utzon, for a life time of creating architectonic wonders. Isn't it a paradox that your most admired work of all time also stirred up the most debate, and caused the most pain. Thank you for believing in your dream.

The Growth of Media in China

Friday The Growth of Media in China conference was held at Copenhagen Business School/CBS, jointly arranged by CBS, UNESCO, and International Media Support/IMS. A panel debate with international media scholars and the vice-president from the national Chinese television channel of CCTV, according to the conference programme.

The conference was moderated by Martin Breum, known as a tv presenter for the news shows of Deadline and DR2 Udland at The Danish Broadcasting Company/DR. The audience primarily consisted of scholars, Asia students, journalists, and media people. About 125 people according to the list of participants. Questions from this audience were sent as text messages and answered by the panel.

Some of the points made were that investigative journalism is back, in particular on satellite channels in tabloid formats (Mr. Hugo de Burgh, Professor of journalism, London). And that investigative journalism is important, because it sells (Ms. Yuezhin Zhao Ph.d in Canada). A paradox: the authorities need it for their own purposes - on the other hand critical journalism may expose them (Ms. Tong Jingrong, lecturer in Journalism and Media, Liverpool). And again that journalists shouldn't play the role of legal judges, just report (Mr. Sun Yusheng, VP for CCTV). The Chinese media role had gone from propaganda, before 1978, to propaganda and business after 1978, to propaganda, and business, and public service, since 2003 (Mr. Hu Zhengrong, Professor in communication, Beijing).

I was encouraged to go by an acquaintance, with no prior knowledge, so for further information, see:
http://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelse/Tvaergaaende%20omraader/Internationalt/Internationalt/Int/2008/Nov/081102_Conference_on_growth_media_China.aspx

http://www.i-m-s.dk/

http://www.dr.dk/DR2/Nyheder+og+aktualitet/20060406104557.htm

Stirring Up the Debate

If Mr. Sun Yusheng from the Chinese television station of CCTV was moderate in his talk about censorship in Chinese media, Ms. Yuezhi Zhao had none of these qualms in her talk on today's conference on Chinese media in Copenhagen. But as a Ph.d in communications at the Simon Fraser University, she lives and workes in Canada.

According to Ms. Yuezhi Zhao the tendencies in Chinese media is - quote - 'a rise in the dictatorship of economics', and a 'neo-liberal ideology and Social Darwinism in street tabloids has become dominant' - unquote. In her analysis, this is caused by a huge growth in the middle class Chinese, who enjoy all the benefits of the Chinese economic wonder. That leaves the farmers and workers to be a problem for society. A fifty percent burden. The logic being, quote - 'either you die or I die' - unquote. The viewpoint in Chinese media is always the middle class. As an example she gave: in the coverage of China's WTO entry, out of 500 news stories not one story covered an interview with an ordinary farmer or worker.

Another tendency in Chinese media, according to Ms. Zhao, is a lot of 'happy talk' (e.g. Hunan satellite TV) and consumer angled stories - to the neglect of worker's conditions.

Altogether, in her view, the media market is based on a logic of 'one dollar, one vote' as opposed to 'one person, one vote'. The media is undergoing a social power re-structuring, where the middle class is empowered, and the commercialization of the media gives rise to new media suppliers and urban newspapers. For instance from the real estate industry, government officials, state enterprise managers, private business men, and journalists.

According to Ms. Zhao, the market driven media should pursue these goals:
* Stirring up debates
* Exposing government corruption
* Opening for sympathy with the lower classes

One question for Ms. Zhao from interviewer Mette Holm (former Beijing correspondent) was about the future for press freedom. And Ms. Zhao saw the market driven media as a vehicle for more press freedom. Eventually to create public service channels free of government censorship. Paradoxically, the market should lead the way to 'public service'.
'China's problem is no longer just China's problem - it's a global problem,' she stated in her finishing remarks.

For further information, see:
http://www.cmns.sfu.ca/people/faculty/zhao_y/

Promoting Chinese Culture - Not Politics

1.2 billion viewers, 294 TV stations, 1.283 channels, and 400 million TV sets. Danish media people can only dream of such market conditions. But we're in China with these figures, the situation is a conference jointly arranged by UNESCO, Copenhagen Business School/CBS, and International Media Support/IMS - and the guest of honour today is Mr. Sun Yusheng, Vice-President of China Central Television/CCTV, Beijing. He gave a talk about the reform of Chinese television and the rise of new media. He was asked by one of the interviewers, Mette Thunøe a pro-dean for Copenhagen University, about the use of these new media. And his answer might not be so jaw dropping: he focused on the possibility of downloading programmes from the website. But where was the promise of true interactivity, debates, blogs, etc?

Not surprisingly Mr. Sun Yusheng was also asked about censorship in Chinese television, in particular by interviewer Mette Holm, former correspondent in Beijing. And from text message questions from the audience, consisting primarily of scholars, Asia students, journalists, and media people. About 125 people according to the list of participants. He confirmed the censorship in Chinese media, and said:
'In the first line we have a responsibility as a gate keeper. We are consistently in search of objective and correct reporting to ensure fairness. The media should be the guardian for the society.'

If this guardian for the society also involves being a guardian for its people - or just for 'the society' was not quite clear. But he did stress that if any wrong doing was done by for instance local government, they would have to report it. And he did stress that there is a great difference in the Western and the Chinese perception of freedom of speech. His mission, however, was not to promote Chinese politics - only Chinese culture. Judging from the many text message questions, the paradox was that most people came to ask questions about the first.

89 percent of the chinese population followed the Olympics on CCTV, according to Mr. Sun Yusheng. He saw the future of growth for CCTV as being a part of an international news network, and as a vehicle to promote - Chinese culture.

For further information, see:
http://www.cctv.com/english/index.shtml
http://chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/28/content_369576.htm
http://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelse/Tvaergaaende%20omraader/Internationalt/Internationalt/Int/2008/Nov/081102_Conference_on_growth_media_China.aspx

Think Manager - Think Female!

'TMTM - Think Manager, Think Male' is the title of the report I'm holding in my hand. It's from the CORE faculty (Centre for Organizational Renewal and Evolution) at Aarhus University in Denmark. Hmmm, very evolutionary! You'd think it was from the beginning of the last century, but it is actually from December 2007. The title refers to the stereotypes of managers - and it sets out to test whether they still exist today. Alas, they do!

Last night I attended a meeting in the K2 network for female managers in the media industry. It was a lecture by the editor of the managerial magazine of ledelseidag.dk, Lene Bechsgaard, who is a journalist and teacher at one of the Danish schools of journalism. And she referred to the above report. Her lecture was mostly about making 'the narrative' of your own curriculum to boost your career. How to make your résumé come to life, as it were. Very inspiring story and two by two coaching, by the way.

But the real 'narrative' here lies not in the coaching sessions. The real narrative lies in this paradox: How can it be that the report - from 2007! - still claims that male managers are considered to be most successful? Haven't we moved past that? You see, as the report goes, values such as persistance, impact, determination, competence, energy, and ambition are considered by both male and female managers to be the mark of successful managers. According to the questionnaires 229 of them answered in a survey. Whereas values such as kindness, safety, indecision, and anxiousness are considered to be the mark of unsuccessful managers. And, hey, those last values are considered to be female by nature! You see where this is going...? Presto - successful managers are of course male! And reversely, unsuccessful managers are female.

What could be the explanation for this rigid perception of female managers, one wonders. The report tries to explain it this way: managers with values such as patience and consensus thinking are often female. And they are often used in companies in crisis. For that reason a crisis manager is often a woman, shows another survey from 2003 (A.H. Eagly & L.L. Carli, The Female Leadership Advantage) - therefore they will often be associated with 'unsuccessful' companies. Whether they are put there because of these force values or simply because they are there to take the heat, instead of men, if it all goes really bad, there is no sure way of saying. But the conclusion of the 2007 report remains the same: Think Manager, Think Male! Isn't that a paradox in the 21st century? How about changing that way of thinking: Think Manager - Think Female!

Whoops! I just read the small print in the beginning of the report: the survey is based on a respondent group of 83 percent male managers - and 17 percent female managers...

For more information about the K2 network, please see:

http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/surrounded-by-women.html
For more information about ledelseidag.dk, please see:

http://www.lederne.dk/ledelseidag/

For the Record

For journalistic and paradoxical reasons I did actually forward the below article Democratic Flicker - Part Three to The Danish People's Party (O) for a response to Villy Søvndal's (F) critique of the party. As yet I haven't received a response.

Democratic Flicker - Part Three

The baton has been passed. Today Villy Søvndal, chair person of The Socialist People's Party (F) responds to the remarks made by first Margrethe Vestager from The Danish Social Liberal Party (R), and later Naser Khader from Liberal Alliance (Y) on the issue of 'democratic flicker' in the Danish parliament. Referring to a worsened democratic and collaboratory climate. This time around, no fuzzy nature. Just statements. And only limited tongue-in-cheek. See the two blog segments below:

Part One: http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/democratic-flicker.html
According to Margrethe Vestager the democratic climate has worsened since 2001, since the current government came into office, blaming the coalition parties of The Liberals (V) and The Conservatives (C) for only co-operating with The Danish People's Party (O) on the ultimate Right.

Part Two: http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/democratic-flicker-part-two.html
Naser Khader agrees, but primarily blames The Danish People's Party for this 'democratic flicker'.

Villy Søvndal (F) agrees with both, and elaborates:
'After 2001 the majority has decided to conduct block policy to an extent we have never seen before. For instance in connection with the solutions to resolve the financial crisis. It was block policy to go to war in Iraq. And there is a block policy in connection with the passing of the financial bill every year. This is a new pattern that replaces the co-operative pattern in the parliament, that we had up until 2001. So there is a de facto majority of V, K, and O, and they make it a virtue to exclude other parties.'

Who in the government have you met obligence from?
'It is difficult to make a graduation. But if you had asked the reverse question, who hinders co-operation the most, I think it is The Danish People's Party.'

What are the worst examples of a co-operation not working with The Danish People's Party?
'The financial bill for one. We wanted to be part of a deal, but where not allowed by The Danish People's Party. And two years ago, we made an environmental deal in connection with the financial bill, where the deal had been negociated to pass, where The Danish People's Party made the statement of not wanting to include other parties.'

Are there any areas where you find it possible to keep in step with The Danish People's Party?
'No, not in important areas. Whenever The Danish People's Party must choose to either carry something of what they want through - or to be a supporting party to the government, they always choose the role of supporting party. For instance in connection with the conflict about the salaries of the public employees this spring. The Danish People's Party were in on a majority vote to assure higher salaries to nurses, teachers, pedagogues, and policemen. But when they were faced with the choice between that and the current government, they chose to support the government.'

But how do you consider the co-operation with other parties in the parliament to be?
'We have tremendous co-operation with The Social Democrats, with whom we make a row of joint plans, and at the moment we are working together on all the central policies. We have made joint policies on integration and on municipal economy. And also on traffic issues, but this is not quite coordinated yet. There will be more joint policies in the time ahead. We want the Social Liberals to join.'

But when does the co-operation work? Have you experienced areas where you have met an obliging reception, where you had success in negociations with the blue block?
'It has been details. We have made an energy agreement - not a good energy agreement, but this was what we could pull out of it.'

Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen lately announced that he had gone green. In that connection you did make positive statements. Do you think that he encroaches on your party issues?
'Yes, definitely. It is very clear where he got his inspiration from, namely The Socialist People's Party. But he is welcome. The important thing is not what he says. The important thing is what he is willing to carry through. And we are excited to follow the precedings. We want to participate in further negociations for better solutions on climate and the environment. So we will have to see if are aloud in. If he has the courage.'

So overall, how do you judge the democratic climate?
'It is bad in the parliament. It is bad policy to govern a country the size of Denmark on 50,1 percent of the votes. It helps to create completely unnecessary confrontations and conflicts. And it goes against the parliamentary tradition in Denmark of working together if you disagree.'

So far at least three of the eight parties currently in the Danish parliament criticize the democratic climate. In this 50-50 governance, paradoxically the critique comes from both sides of the parliament. Wonder if the sitting government senses the 'democratic flicker' at all?

For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html
Photo provided by:

http://flickr.com/photos/sfpolitik/sets/72157601525022771/

Electoral Fun & Games in Nicaragua

'Let the games begin!' Nothing new since I last visited Nicaragua in 2006. In the aftermath of the 2008 municipal elections in Nicaragua on November 9th, the electoral process is no different from usual: the oposition demanding recounts and annulments, with Daniel Ortega and his party Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional/FSLN overruling every claim. FSLN controls the supreme electorate council, Consejo Supremo Electoral/CSE by three quarters of the members, so they are not really stopping anything.

One to make a claim for a recount is Eduardo Montealegre from Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense/ALN in union with Partido Liberal Constitucionalista/PLC, because polls held him a winner of the election. At the 2006 Presidential Election in Nicaragua Montealegre had started his own party of Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense/ALN, and gained 29 percent of the votes, compared to Daniel Ortega/FSLN's 38 percent. Even flying by the traditional Liberal party of PLC. Not bad for a newcomer. Especially not when at the same time there were widespread rumours everywhere in the streets of Nicaragua of FSLN party members bribing 14 year-olds to receive registration forms to vote (the electoral age in Nicaragua is 16). You see, 14 year-olds haven't experienced the 80'ies when Daniel Ortega and FSLN ruled the first time around, so they make a perfect electorate!

This time Eduardo Montealegre allied himself with PLC, but according to the published end result he was beaten in his quest to become mayor of Managua. By around five percent to Alexis Argüello/FSLN, with 46 to a little over 51 percent. Most Nicaraguan presidents started out as mayors in the capital of Managua, so it is not entirely unimportant who wins there. An angry debate is currently running in the once in the 80'ies censored newspaper La Prensa's blog about this 'Alexis' from FSLN. Montealegre was claiming a recount or an annulment through the electoral laws. But as of yesterday, Daniel Ortega wanted to legitimize the electorate result by Presidential decree. Now the debate goes on. Today's paradox is, that there are two conflicting statements at play here: on one hand Daniel Ortega claims that a law cannot annul an election, but on the other he also claims legitimization of it through a law - or decree.

At the presidential election in 2006 Daniel Ortega and FSLN was announced winners after they had stopped counting at 91-92 percent reviewed votes. I was there in the weeks after that election, and the local news - La Prensa for one - announced that fraud had been discovered. Nobody really did too much about it, but a few posts in the parliament were swapped. Through the effort of the internationally funded Ética y Transparencia (the Transparency International partner in Nicaragua) - but no big fuss was made about it internationally. In Nicaragua - the logic seems to be - things are good if the election happens at all, without too much difficulty. And with an electoral turn out close to 70 percent, everybody is happy.

This time around Etica y Transparencia is more quiet. I just talked to Roberto A. Courtney, Executive Director of Etica Y Transparencia, and he explained:
'According to our count, Montealegre won by five percent in Managua. It's the least transparent election anywhere in fifty years. There have been frauds in 30-50 of the municipalities.'

There are 153 municipalities in Nicaragua. But according to Courtney a recount would be impossible or pointless, since CSE is controlled by FSLN. He even claims to have been threatened by government officials himself. Hmmm. It doesn't seem to be that difficult to run a democracy - just make a decree!

For further information, see:

http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2008/noviembre/22/noticias/politica/296399.shtml

http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2008/noviembre/13/elecciones/portada/

http://www.eyt.org.ni/
http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2006/11/daniel_ortega2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/n86574.html&usg=__zjN3SdnKLwYvI7peZ2cJQxLlnxE=&h=265&w=300&sz=14&hl=da&start=2&um=1&tbnid=EHdr_bK4l1ZfZM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsite:www.aporrea.org%2Bdaniel%2Bortega%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dda%26sa%3DN

Democratic Balancing Pole

We have a democratic and political waste basket in the Danish parliamentary system. It is called 'paragraph 20 questions' to the cabinet ministers. It is an open Q&A session in the parliament that goes on record, in accordance with a paragraph in the Standing Orders of The Folketing (parliament). And a democratic safety valve in case the sitting government misuses power - or simply makes what can be considered to be political mistakes.

These §20 questions have grown since the introduction: from 3.811 questions in 2001–02 to 7.125 in 2005–06 at their peak (in particular on issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Danish cartoon crisis). From 2007-08 the questions have again reduced to the 2001 level. In particular the opposition parties of The Red-Green Alliance (Ø), The Social Democrats (S) and The Socialist People's Party (F) are heavy §20 question users - with The Red-Green Alliance as the top scorer. This party’s watch dog members will contest any sitting government, on any issue, any time. And probably the most important party to listen to for the sitting prime minister and the sitting government. To take the questions from. If they realize this or not is uncertain. The party is in effect the democratic balancing pole in Denmark. Not because the party itself is balanced (far from it), but because it ensures balance.

Time and again the current prime minister and the sitting government have complained about the growth of these questions, because it takes important time from the ministers and the ministries to answer them all. This creates an undesirable administrative bureaucray is the protest. Here comes the paradoxical question (if not a §20 one): Isn't there just one way to ensure a reduction of these questions?

For further information about the system of §20 questions:
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%A7_20-sp%C3%B8rgsm%C3%A5l
For further information about the Danish parliamentary system:
http://www.ft.dk/pdf/parliamentary_system.pdf
For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html

Political Barometers

As mentioned earlier we are fortunate to have a couple of handfuls of political parties in the Danish parliament. Why? Because they cover all bases. Because they balance each other. And in particular because the parties in either end of the political scale serve as barometers.

Take Pia Kjærsgaard from the Right, The Danish People's Party (O), who will speak up for anything Danish, the welfare state - and against immigration, terror, and crime. In this party, they have dealt with extremists in their own midst on a party basis in the 90'ies, and with elected individuals continuously. But they are very important to have in the Danish parliament. You see, they absorb and represent the very dissatisfied people on the Right. So if this party grows (and it has done continuously in the past ten years or more, from five-ten percent to the current 14-15 percent of the votes) - there must be an imbalance in the political system. They are a political barometer. This way we can always see which way the wind blows in the Danish population, and - in particular - how hard it blows.

Or take the fuzzy political personality of Villy Søvndal from The Socialist People's Party (F). He will match Pia Kjærsgaard on welfare issues and terror any day. But reversely he will speak up for immigrants, refugees and the socially deprived to contest her rhetorique. Apart from shooting from his hip in all possible political directions. His method on the other hand is through irony and tongue-in-cheek remarks. This is to satisfy the dissatisfied on the Left. His party has also grown from a measly 10-12 percent of the votes to around 17-19 percent in more recent polls. So there must be an imbalance on the Left as well. Since the wind is also blowing strongly in this end of the scale according to the political barometer.

Both of the above parties are so-called 'value' parties - with none or very small chances of participating in an actual coalition government. But they are indispensable when it comes to checking the political weather conditions. So being in government shouldn't be that hard: just knock on the barometer! Paradox: Perhaps this is why prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen from The Liberals (V), alongside continuous co-operation with the ultra Right, signals having gone green all of a sudden?

See blog-article:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/stealing-bases.html

For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics

Environ-Mental Paradox

Hardly had the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen from The Liberals (V) announced his being as green as grass, and that he had possibly made a mistake in the previous years of government on the environmental issues - and received his applauses from his own supporters at the annual congress in Herning last Sunday - before the opposition held him responsible to his exclamations and acclamations. See blog-article
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/stealing-bases.html

Soon after even members of his coalition party of The Conservatives (C) tried to win back some of their actual political work this past year, particularly comments in the press by Connie Hedegaard, Minister for Climate and Energy, whose ministerial responsibility and effort has laid the ground for Anders Fogh Rasmussen's bold statements on energy and the environment.

And now the paradox in this sudden change in environmental concern is that the very same government of The Liberals and The Conservatives has granted the economically thinking head of Copenhagen Consensus, Bjørn Lomborg, an additional 5 million DKK, i.e. 7,5 million DKK next year through the just finished budget negociations for 2009. This is the man who is globally known for being in environmental denial and suggests that it won't really pay to solve the environmental issues now - better wait until science (maybe) comes up with better ideas. Some time in the future. And then solve some other issues now instead. Hmmm....so much for progressive green thinking.

For further information, see
http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20081116/politik/811160333/
http://www.information.dk/172307

Yo-Yo Legislation and Blind Justice

We have a rare system of yo-yo legislation in Denmark. Mostly when it comes to the anti-terror laws. Nobody will disagree when speaking of terror on a civilized society: It is horrible. Unbelievable. Sad. But what's equally horrible, unbelievable, and sad is when a civilization that swaggers about its democratic values and the principle of working within the rule of law - commits an offence against those very values and principles. There have been a few cases brought to trial by now, and some of them have led to 'administrative' expulsion orders on the (non-Danish citizenship) people brought to trial, because the national security and intelligence service would or could not produce the evidence. Or reveal their methods. Because, well, that's a secret.

Then it turned out that the expulsed people could not be expulsed because of the Human Rights getting in the way: they would be at risk of persecution and torture in their countries of origin. These trials have been up and down - and up again to the Supreme Court - in the Danish yo-yo court system, because of lacking evidence. You see, having a fair trial is also part of the Human Rights. As it is with the current anti-terror law, a person can actually be tried and found guilty without ever having a chance to defend himself against the evidence. So we have a paradox on our hands: We can never find out if these people 'done it', because evidence and method of action are secrets. And also because they obviously haven't 'done it' yet, this is the whole point of the anti-terror law. At the same time we are uncertain about having them walking around on sufferance. But we can't kick them out.

The head of the Supreme Court originally dismissed two cases, and has now made a final ruling in one of the current cases for being unlawful detainment. And yesterday the Danish Minister of Justice, Brian Mikkelsen from The Conservatives (C), announced that he will take measures to revise the anti-terror laws. So that the trial system will demand more openness than currently. To ensure that people are not accused and found guilty without proper judicial testing. Now, according to the news, follow a string of other files, where detainees will object to their imprisonment on unlawful ground.

Some just might find it tempting to construe information or to frame people - simply because it is possible. Because it's free of charge and responsibility. And because they forget the simplest rule of living: Never do to others what you would not accept having done to yourself. So maybe I'm partial when it comes to rule of law and basic Human Rights. Even when it comes to anti-terror laws. Simply because miscarriage of justice is possible. And how is a person ever cleansed from such serious accusations? Justice may be blindfolded, but hopefully not totally blind.

In this 'civilized' world, here's my paradoxical question: wouldn't it be easier to work with the Human Rights and the civil rights to begin with?

Stealing Bases

Paradox: Yesterday at the annual national congress of The Liberal Party of Denmark (V), prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that he had gone green. Presenting a strategic programme for green economy, through environmental, energy, and climate policies. In other words he is stealing the base of the opposition parties of The Socialist People's Party (SF), The Red-Green Alliance (Ø), The Social Democrats (S), and partly The Danish Social Liberal Party (R) on the tax financing issue - and yet presenting the idea as his own. Just like that. Even boldly admitting to his own and the party's fighting almost every proposed environmental effort in the past seven years of government. Today, the opposition is fighting back. The energy spokes person of The Social Democrats (S), Mette Gjerskov, now raises the stakes: Why only set aside 25 million DKK for solar and wave energy - if The Liberals mean anything by it? Inviting to further negociations on the issue. Stealing bases right back.

For further information: http://www.information.dk/172210

For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html

Behind the Mask

'Oy, I'm harbouring a murderer,' the film director Avi Mograbi sings in his 2008-film Z32, a portrait of a young Israeli soldier who participated in the killing of Palestinian policemen. The film was presented at CPH:DOX, the Danish documentary festival yesterday. The festival ends tomorrow, Sunday.
Z32 refers to the actual file number of the Israeli soldier in the archives about the massacre on the Palestinians. The film is a quiet and unasuming documentary about the reflections of this young soldier, and we follow his story alongside a debate with his girl friend, where guilt and atonement is in focus. Acceptance and forgiveness. The two are digitally masked during the scenes, gradually revealing more and more of their faces as the film progresses. Avi Mograbi uses both Greek tragedy and Verfremdung effects, acting as a sort of Greek choir himself in selected scenes - as seen in for instance the opening of this blog segment. The end should not be revealed, but what can be said is that Z32 leaves the audience with food for thought.

For further information see:
http://www.cphdox.dk/d1/ft.lasso?e=1&al=Z

Crystal Ball Research Debate

Lars Goldschmidt, Deputy Director General of DI, and Helge Sander, Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation

'The universities should deliver candidates who research in areas that are important to uphold the Danish cultural welfare society. So the universities must deliver candidates who kick ass,' Lars Goldschmidt from The Confederation of Danish Industry/DI boldly opened the debate on Danish academic research yesterday, hosted by political editor Peter Mogensen, and arranged by the Danish newspaper of Politiken.

Both he and Helge Sander, the Danish Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation, The Liberals (V), agreed that there where abundant means for Danish research institutions. And acted on advice from the Danish Globalisation Council's report from 2006. Helge Sander particularly stressed the importance of research in areas like energy, public health, and the environment.

They where opposed by Marianne Jelved, The Danish Social Liberal Party's (R) spokes person on research. And by Ralf Hemmingsen, headmaster of The University of Copenhagen. They both criticised the government for meddling with the concept of free research, and for diminishing the public funding of basic means for this free research. The debate is old, but was reinforced because of this years budget negociations for 2009, where means for strategic research once again were in focus - at the cost of for instance unbound Ph.D. researchers. Ralf Hemmingsen called for both wide and narrow elite research.

A graphic display showed that the share of the basic means compared to total means in the public Globalisation Fund had diminished by approximately five percent over the past five years - in the current government period of The Liberals and The Conservatives. With a projection of a rise from 2009 onwards to 2012. Faced with this Helge Sander (V) referred to a general rise in the means from 2006 to 2009. Paradoxically, it seems that ministers will rather sell what's in prospect than what is currently on the shelves. So we will probably have to look in the crystal ball for more 'kick ass' researchers and candidates.

A Man of Secrets

'How good are you at keeping a secret?,' Kurt Strand of DR2's news show Deadline initiated his interview with guest Jakob Scharf, Director General of PET, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, during the Danish Media Festival 2008. Kurt Strand is the 'Tim Sebastian' of The Danish Broadcasting Company/DR.

'I must be good at keeping secrets. So I am,' was his response. What else could he really answer?

Jakob Scharf went on to reveal what could be revealed, that the three priorities of the service was to be responsible to the public, to create trust with the population, and to ensure open doors and co-operation from other public services and authorities. Most of it was a show case, but he did explain about the security levels on PET's homepage and answer questions about civil rights in connection with terror files.

He explained to the present journalists in the audience that whenever he reads expressions in the papers like 'sources within PET state that...' - it just serves to create confusion. Whenever he expresses anything himself, or anyone else from PET for that matter, it has already been cleared. No mystique. No paradoxes. Just secrets.

For further information, see: http://www.pet.dk/

Deadline: http://www.dr.dk/dr2/deadline2230

The Journalist Other Journalists Fear

Peter McEvoy, executive producer at Media Watch, ABC

Beware of this man! He is Peter McEvoy from the Australian channel Australian Broadcasting Corporation/ABC's Media Watch, famous for exposing bad journalism on tv. According to the festival programme going on its 13th year. The show won the 2004 George Munster Award for independent journalism. He also supervises the science show Catalyst, for further information see

http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?sort=&amp=&amp=&amp=&amp=&collection=abcall&form=simple&start_rank=1&query_prox=peter%20mcevoy%20executive%23%20producer%23&cluster0=peter%20mcevoy

During the Danish Media Festival 2008 on Monday, Peter McEvoy was presented by Lasse Jensen, host of DR's weekly radio programme Mennesker og Medier - People and Media. McEvoy then guided us through a visual presentation of a line of exposures of bad tv-journalism.

'Everyone loves it until they're on it' is the catch phrase of Media Watch. According to Peter McEvoy the most effective way of improving journalism is through exposure. Then showed a graphic display of being rated above The Ethics Committee in Australia, The Press Council, and ABA - The Australian Broadcasting Authority in the minds of journalists themselves, when it comes to effectiveness. He was asked by journalists in the audience if his own show ever makes mistakes, and admitted to being caught - then having to correct own mistakes.

Here it comes, here comes the paradox: If the show is both successful and effective, there seems to be a logical incongruence between the graphic rating and the fact that the show continuously dig up stories about bad journalism. So I asked him. He smiled and responded.

'We can't eradicate the journalistic mistakes, but like we keep reminding politicians to do their jobs, we continue to remind journalists to do their jobs properly,' Peter McEvoy said and referred to his 'Miracle of Sunshine' phrase - that everything looks clearer when the light shines on it.

DR's media programme Mennesker og Medier:

http://www.dr.dk/P1/menneskerogmedier/20050831131219.htm

Mixed Events

The Danish Media Festival 2008 Sunday brought many more events. Like the latest news and commentaries from correspondent Martin Krasnik, from the newspaper of Weekendavisen, and researchers from CBS regarding the US Presidential Election. And an evening with the ATS madmen from the newspaper of Politiken, Ole Rasmussen and Gorm Vølver, entertaining with a stand-up show of their paradoxical observations. ATS/At Tænke Sig roughly translates into 'Imagine' or 'Think about it', and is the daily satirical dose at the back side of Politiken - where politicians can read all about their mishaps.

The Future of The Newspaper

'Do what you are good at.' That simple. A group of media researchers got together at the Danish Media Festival on Sunday to project the future of the newspaper and the media - Anker Brink Lund from Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Ida Schultz and Mark Ørsten, both from Roskilde University Centre (RUC). The event was hosted by editor-in-chief at the Danish newspaper of Politiken, Stig Ørskov.

Although the researchers disagreed as to which direction to follow for the major omnibus newspapers, they did agree on one thing: the future media market would be very segmented, so no media could or should be everything to everyone. Internet or not, the researchers didn't cut a clear line. Some newspapers and internet media would choose to cover widely, in particular the free newspapers. Whereas the old newspapers might choose to uphold the traditional publicist tradition - and to segment even further. To become niche publications. Hence the statement cornered by Anker Brink Lund from CBS: 'Do what you are good at.'

As Ida Schultz laid out: the evolution of the media had over the century gone from directly politically influenced, over aimed objectivity, to focused stories. And we, the readers, have evolved from electorate, over participating citizens, to consumers. Therefore the changes into 'news you can use'. But enough about us.

If the media want a future for themselves, according to Mark Ørsten, they should choose the fusion model of mixing the so-called Democratic Model and the Mediterranian Model. The Democratic Model refers to the publicly supported media in the Nordic countries with a - relatively! - low degree of commercialisation. And the Mediterranian Model is characterized by relatively small circulation, but with politicized commentary journalism - as known in France, Spain, and Italy. To me that sounds like a publicist revival mixed with a turn-of-the-prior-century political press. The paradox being that the future is moving backwards. Back to basics.

A Socialist Meets the Press

Niels Krause-Kjær, author and journalist, interviewed Villy Søvndal (SF)

Now is the time to kick back and put your tongue in your cheek. During the Danish Media Festival on Sunday Niels Krause-Kjær - an author and journalist with a background from two of the Danish schools of journalism, political advisor for The Conservatives among other things - interviewed Villy Søvndal, leader of The Socialist People's Party. This was not so much an interview as it was an ironic event, stressed by the fact that the interviewer initiated the session by sitting back in a lounge chair and removing his leather shoes - in change for some footwear of a very fuzzy nature.

Speaking of fuzzy nature, Mr. Søvndal (SF) did what he does best: delivered his tongue-in-cheek remarks about everything and everyone in Danish politics. Shooting in all directions from the hip he criticized everybody from Naser Khader, leader of Liberal Alliance (Y), being an example of a political figure not working. To Lene Espersen, leader of The Conservatives (C) for her responsibility for the much talked about police reform. To The Danish Social Liberal Party (R) for not wanting to play with them, having difficulty in finding their direction.

And finally to the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V) for being polemic. Further to what Villy Søvndal calls his team of Greenland sledge dogs - referring to uncritical political journalists:
'They all run in the same direction. Some of them are so wise that they don't even have to talk to you to know what you're thinking.'

On a more serious note, like Helle Thorning-Schmidt (S) he did point to a growing mismatch between the media and the power of the state.
'The mismatch in the press, where there is no longer time to dig and to investigate the power of the state, has grown. It deserves a major study at some point in time,' Mr. Søvndal elaborated.

As for the political agenda of The Socialists, he wanted to settle with the central myths that they are not economically responsible and don't want to co-operate. They are preparing the political agenda for the upcoming elections for the European Parliament next summer and for the November 2009 municipal election - and another EU election whenever that might be.
'We advanced at the last election, and we intend to do that again. We have no interest in culminating now,' Villy Søvndal projected. Fuzzy and progressive at the same time.

For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html

A Social Democrat Meets the Press

Helle Thorning-Schmidt (S) interviewed by Troels Mylenberg, political reporter for Berlingske

On Sunday political reporter for the newspaper of Berlingske, Troels Mylenberg, interviewed the leader of The Social Democrats - Helle Thornings-Scmidt during the Danish Media Festival 2008. Not surprisingly he focused some of his questions on the potential position of Ms. Thorning-Schmidt as prime minister - thereby also being a minister for the press. She critisized a current massive use of spin doctors and information staff in the ministries.

'It is difficult to be in opposition, because we are about one in thousand compared to the employees in the ministries,' she said.

Then referring to the current prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's (V) tradition of weekly US-inspired press meetings, by some seen as a form of information control. In her opinion the press should be left to do its job, and she would stay away from meddling.
'I will do it differently. I will make myself available and be accountable,' Helle Thorning-Schmidt promised the present journalists.

She even encouraged journalists to be more critical in general when it comes to political issues. And asked them to show,
’A little more memory and a little more accountability. To ask more critical questions, and to go one step deeper than today.’

Ms. Thorning-Schmidt stressed the importance of cross-parliamentary co-operation, and couldn't see the problem of working with The Socialist People's Party - among others. And as for the democratic climate:
'In particular the minister of finance has not been very good at including all sides in the parliament,' she noted in the aftermath of the current budget negociations for 2009, 'But I can't take the old battle of sixty-eight anymore. I prefer talking about the things that unite us than those that split us up,' she stressed. Not that easy being in opposition at all.

For a more elaborate overview of the political scene in Denmark, please see:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html

Investigative Journalism

Seymour Hersh interviewed by Jørgen Flindt Pedersen, former CEO of TV2, at the Danish Media Festival 2008

'I think all journalism should be investigative journalism,' Seymour Hersh stated after an hour long talk on Sunday. Apart from the festival programme I came fully unprepared, so I will do just that and get back to you when I have dug up more than google, you tube, wikipedia, and blog articles about his life and work.

Crystal Ball Media Debates

Crystal Ball debates between political media spokes persons

When 1.500 journalists and media people get together and look into a crystal ball - what do they see? I'm still wondering, and I spent two days in Odense for the Danish Media Festival 2008. I will fill you in about events in the days to come. For now it's just the headlines.

It wasn't for lack of programme options to choose from, with media professors giving lectures, journalists giving talks, and politicians giving debates. Should the Danish television channel of TV2 continue to be fully privatized, or partly subsidized by license fees? The political media spokes persons mostly looked at each other for answers, if not looking down and away. Is the future of the omnibus newspaper desolate, or will the niche publications save the day? The media researchers agreed to disagree. And finally journalists had the chance to do what they do best: interview each other. Yes, I enjoyed every moment of it. But paradoxically I was none the wiser afterwards. A bit like reading the daily newspaper...

Democratic Flicker - Part Two

Naser Khader of Liberal Alliance responds to Margrethe Vestager's democratic flicker remark

About a week ago my blog reported the views of the leader of The Danish Social Liberal Party (R), Ms. Margrethe Vestager. One of her critique points was that the climate in the parliamentary co-operation had worsened during the so-called blue block government period of the past seven years. In Denmark blue means Right. At the same time invalidating the possibility of a split in the Social Liberals as caused by the succes of the blue block. Read the blog segment here:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/democratic-flicker.html

Today, Mr. Naser Khader of Liberal Alliance (Y) responds. He contacted me to give his view, and according to him the 'democratic flicker' has indeed worsened during the past seven years. But he also points to the former coalition of The Social Democrats (S) and The Danish Social Liberal Party (R), claiming they didn't always assure cross-parliamentary co-operation. He should know. Being a member of The Social Liberals at the time. He also points to the domination of The Danish People's Party (O) as the cause of the growing 'democratic flicker':

"Compared to earlier I would say yes, there is more of it. The Danish People’s Party often makes it a condition that no other party can participate. They want The Liberals and The Conservatives to themselves," Mr. Khader notes with a mild political jealousy.

He further criticises what he calls Social-Democratism - a sort of growing 'muddle in the middle'. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it, trying to force themselves towards the centre of Danish politics. He criticises both sides for waivering.

"We can’t see the big difference between the blue and the red block. Everything is Social-Democratism. Fogh has turned Social Democratic, and The Social Democrats always try to say the same as him," according to Mr. Khader.

As far as the question of a possible split within The Danish Social Liberal Party, Mr. Naser Khader disagrees with Ms. Margrethe Vestager. I asked him,

Could you see first New Alliance and later Liberal Alliance as a political split in the original Social Liberal group?

"Yes, I would say about two thirds belonged to the red block and one third to the blue. Samuelsen, myself and a couple of others belonged to the wing of the party, who wanted co-operation with The Liberals and The Conservatives. We agree more with them on issues like reforms and in tax questions – more so, than we agree with The Socialists, The Red-Green Alliance and The Social Democrats. This is the wing we like to call The Realists – meaning, ‘let’s get influence where we can’," Mr. Khader responds.

Paradoxical, since he used to be a part of the very center himself. Before turning more Liberal than The Liberals. In particular, Mr. Khader criticises The Social Democrats for defection during this year's current budget negociations for 2009 - first eagerly wanting to assure higher maintenance allowance during the early period of unemployment (later falling), then jumping ship once the financial crisis was known.

You pointed to Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen for prime minister, do you still do that?

"Yes of course. We do that unambiguously. We can’t see any alternative. We do disagree with much of his politics, but we would rather have Lars Løkke for minister of finance than Ole Sohn,” he stresses referring to Mr. Ole Sohn from The Socialist People's Party.

Stressing his position of being a non-Socialist, Liberal belonging to the blue block, he would continue to point to the next Liberal prime minister, possibly the current minister of finance (UK Exchequer, US Treasure), Mr. Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

In case of The Conservatives growing further, could you imagine pointing to a Conservative prime minister?

"Danish politics is in constant change, and then we would have to relate to that. But for now, The Liberals is the major party and will continue to be so for some time ahead, so we will point to the major party on the Right wing," Mr. Naser Khader declines defining their political line any further. Well, perhaps being a Realist should be taken literally.

For a more elaborate introduction to Danish politics, please read:
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/cliff-notes-to-danish-politics.html

Photo provided by: http://liberalalliance.dk/galleri/1

My Choice

Sorry about that, Jon. You know my choice - but a majority of people wanted it differently.
http://paradoxicalnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/daily-dose.html

And the Winner Is...

According to popular opinion, Barack Obama has already won the American Presidential Election. Varying in different US and international polls by between 5 and 13 percent of the votes. This morning in his home town of Chicago he cast his own vote.

I just spoke with a friend who lives in the Obama-friendly state of Virginia - a swing state. She told me about the chaos that rose during the day, because so many people wanted to be absolutely sure to vote this time. There have been as yet unsustained reports that the Republicans are now so desperate about the outlook of this election that the computerized voting machines have been manipulated.

The American election works by a system where the voter gets a list with choices of either a Democrat or Republican Presidential candidate and a long list of either Democrats or Republicans for Senate. The voter then has to choose the number of Senators, according to the respective number of Senators from each state - and the Presidential candidate of choice - using a touch screen computer in a small voting booth. The unsustained reports from her home state of Virginia suggest that the computers may have been tampered with. Shouldn't the provided huge numbers of election officials, observers, and lawyers be able to detect any foul play? Paradoxically, if there is not too much drama about the outcome of the Presidential election itself - we can always enjoy a little drama about the voting technicalities.

Photo provided by: http://www.barackobama.com/photos/
Barack Obama votes: http://video.msn.com/?mkt=da-dk&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:e5bc58d3-8071-470c-98f9-0d17fb717c8c&showPlaylist=true&from=IV2_da-dk_nyheder&fg=gtlv2
BBC Various polls: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm
Danish poll with US map and clickable graphics: http://politiken.dk/udland/valgiusa/valgfakta/

The Daily Dose

If there is one news show I rarely miss, it is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and his non compos mentis crew. The show - sort of - keeps me updated on US politics, news, and the media. With a crew of correspondents who deliver paradoxical analyses of world affairs. Take John Oliver as Senior Plaything Analyst or Aasif Mandvi as Senior Armeniologist. Or Kristen Schaal and Samantha Bee in their feminist hostile take over of the show. There are more and they are all mad. What can I say about the host himself? Jon for President?

In Denmark, The Daily Show can be found on these channels:

http://www.dr.dk/dr2/the+daily+show

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=the+daily+show&type=video&sortBy=date&intl=true

Picture provided by: http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Show, Don't Tell

I have been fortunate to have been surrounded by very good teachers and professors during my education. So my shortcomings can't be nailed to them in any way. Having been given all sorts of help along the way, I then had the audacity to ask one associate professor to help me with a very specific thing. Paradoxically he declined to help me with the thing I asked of him. I was perplexed. He forced open my eyes to the bridges instead. Sometimes help comes in the strangest disguises. And is seldom what you ask for.

Meta-Comment No. 2 - Both & All

Today's paradoxical has nothing to do with anything. And everything to do with all. Some years ago a friend visited me in Paris. Yes, we did what we were supposed to do: shopped till we dropped. But she was flabbergasted about my style of shopping. Navigating through oceans of choices.

'If you have a choice between the blue and the white pieces of clothes, you can't make a choice. You persistently choose both,' she waved her arms and lifted her eyebrows playing the part of my banker.

I hadn't really given that much thought, right up until then. But she hit the nail on its head. That's how I live my life: I don't really like to make one choice over another. If I can have both. And all. Navigation is not about choice - it's an embrace.