The newspaper Berlingske is in denial

Once again, the spotlight is on work carried out by Aarhus University prior to the Agricultural Package. This time the newspaper Berlingske fell over itself to write about the environmental organisation Danmarks Naturfredningsforening’s criticism of calculations from AU. In the very extensive coverage in the newspaper it is just about taken for granted as a fact that AU’s management during a ”crisis meeting” gave the researchers a gagging order in fear of losing the policy support contract and forced the researchers to make a complete U-turn with regard to their position on the matter. Berlingske is also of the opinion that the Minister has pressured AU to supply a memo that could save him in a political consultation.

Seen from my office chair this is sensational journalism of the worst kind! As someone who is involved in both the criticised memo and in the response memo, and who has participated in the famous ”crisis meeting at AU”, I must ascertain that the newspaper’s portrayal is almost as far from reality as you can get. No one has been given a gagging order (who would even accept that), and none of the authors have changed their minds (even though Berlingske’s journalists go out of their way to make it look that way). 

The Ministry has not pressured AU and AU researchers. The memo was completed prior to the consultation because the researchers were inerested in explaining the parts of the criticism that we disagreed with. What would be the point of letting the politicians debate on an incorrect basis? 

I actually believe that AU has acted in a most competent manner in this issue. The criticisms have been taken very seriously on all levels and researchers have carried out a thorough and professional examination of them (read the report ”Redegørelse i forbindelse med notatet  ”Analyse af forudsætninger for Landbrugspakken”  fra Danmarks Naturfredningsforening” (in Danish)), which in every way holds water. The report states that ”All told, DN’s criticism does not give cause to change AU’s conclusions regarding marginal leaching from November 2015”.

After an affair such as this, you are left with a lot of questions. Our memo states clearly that the criticism was unjustified. Why is Berlingske not interested in that? Afterwards, the journalists contacted each and every one of the authors to the memo to get statements about gagging orders, U-turns and pressure. In my case, I could not confirm any of it – on the contrary. I have heard the same story from others. Why are these interviews omitted from the coverage?

The journalists have apparently not had a true desire to find out what’s what in this affair. They have been assisted by researchers with marginal insight in this area of research, researchers with other agendas, and politicians with special interests. This has evolved into an imaginatively concocted conspiration theory that for the most part aims to improve the newspaper’s sales figures and to aspire to Cavling prizes.

Even though it is frustrating to meet the press in this way, we should and must continue to collaborate with the media in order to elucidate facts in a balanced and correct manner. In this connection I would like to refer you to AGRO’s new pamphlet ”When the journalist calls”, that has a series of good tips with regard to dealing with the press.