WHERE DID JOURNALISM GO? (1)

Last night, DR2 (Danish national television) broadcasted a TV-programme about a father, who thinks he has been wrongfully accused. The programme was called ”DR2 investigates: Fathers under suspicion” (”DR2 undersøger: Fædre under mistanke”).It is always unfortunate and unreasonable when someone is accused of something they didn’t do. However, the story about 50-60 fathers should be put in perspective with 7.000 children who are handed out to mandatory visitation with a father, who abuses them sexually.

The programme was a biased presentation of the father’s side of the story presented disguised as facts. It was designed to support the upcoming legislation, Divorce Act 2, soon to be presented. Therefore, it is particularly serious that a mandatory national channel did not actually investigate the matter.

The programme presented more faulty information than I can go over here. But just to mention a few examples, I wish someone would inform lawyer Lars Borring about how the Danish custody law works:

– One does not present indictments in a visitation case (the Danish word for accusation is the same as indictment); thereby, it is not possible to present ”false” indictments either.

– A visitation case does not take place in a courtroom, where indictments are normally made. It takes place in an office with a caseworker. The parties do not speak under oath, they are not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses, they cannot require that documentation is gathered and they cannot have a lawyer appointed to them. A caseworker – and not a judge – evaluates the case and decides the visitation schedule. And it CANNOT be taken to court.

– It is NOT easy to terminate visitation. On the contrary, it is almost impossible, even under horrible conditions. And even in cases where the visitation has been temporarily terminated.

– The police rarely investigate cases with sexual abuse of children, when the parents are divorced. Therefore, it is irrelevant to state that there was no indictment or no sentence. It is simply impossible to lift the burden of proof.

– A child expert CANNOT state that sexual abuse did not take place!

Finally, there is the whole matter of the character attack on lawyer Vivian Joergensen, who is one of the few lawyers in Denmark who defends abused women and children. In the programme, it is mentioned very quietly that Vivian Joergensen was FREED by the Board of Lawyers for violating any ethics. How then can her colleagues state that she acts unethically? I mean, did they loose a case against her and are bitter?

Is that how Danish lawyers conduct themselves? That if you cannot have a colleague criticised by the Board of Lawyers then you take matters into your own hands and smear them on national television? Well done, lawyers! Have a nice trip down the drain along with the journalists, because that is where you are going when you take part in dreadful character attacks without any documentation.

It is serious that the lawyer profession doesn’t know that if you want to accuse someone of something, then you should be able to document it. It is just as serious that we have a mandatory national channel, which broadcasts undocumented character attacks and biased presentation of a case from one party without giving the other party the same conditions. And that they don’t mention the large number of children who are forced to become victims of sexual abuse by the Danish legislation. Or the many protective mothers with a ratio of PTSD higher than that of war veterans. (It is called “system violence”.)

Licence paid propaganda is the best way to describe this programme on so-called false accusations!

TV2 didn’t manage to use any journalistic skills either. They must have jumped out of their chairs when they heard about it on Radio24Seven (collaboration with DR2 on the programme) and hurried up to break the story without checking the facts.

For instance, they aired a clip with Christian Noergaard, where his two daughters claimed they were manipulated by a lawyer to say that their father had violated them. This created a storm amongst the Danish people, because when the media do not check their sources, neither does the people…

The Noergaard-case is, however, very complex. And there are two VERY divergent views of what took place in that case. IF you trust the mother’s version most, you’ll be chocked over what took place on Danish television last night.

Did you know that the mother says the children never met that lawyer?
Did you know that the mother says that that particular lawyer was not even on the case at the time?
Do you know how many reports from the emergency room and how much photo documentation there is in the case?
Did you know that Christian Noergaard is business partner with Tanja Graabaek from the consulting company ”Every 3rd Child” (“Hvert 3. Barn”): One of the key sources in the programme on DR2?

Here is the email, which the mother sent to one of the daughters last night – read it!
http://momnetwork.dk/dk/sig_undskyld.pdf


If DR2’s programme and TV2’s news story on the programme had been in the hands of a real journalist, all of these complex facts had been presented. And the Danish people had had a chance to understand how absurd conditions thrive under the Danish custody law.

Protective parents in Denmark, who are forced by the law to live with years of violence, are NOT able to speak freely in the Danish press. Part of the problem for them is that they cannot lift the burden of proof regarding violence and sexual abuse, so if they do speak to the press, they can be charged with defamation. Therefore, the Danish people think that the problem doesn’t exist.

In Denmark, mothers go into hiding and flee the country; some mothers are too frightened to even give out their real name when they go to see a psychologist; some mothers liken the situation with the 1930’s propaganda and seduction of a people to believe in a made-up, ideological universe. And we have a population in total denial – or ignorance – about how serious the actual conditions are in Denmark at the moment. And then we have a journalistic profession who have forgotten journalism.