Right, let's see why Her & Nu retracts the article.
Ugeblad trækker kronprins-historie tilbage – Ekstra Bladet
The magazine front page says that well-known sexologist says Frederik has been unfaithful for years - and that's a liiiitle bit more than just referring to something an author said in a book and in an interview.
Anyway, the online version of the article will now be retracted.
The editor-in-chief, Erling Tind Larsen, says: "When the main source retracts everything, then there sort of isn't any story. And then we can't do anything else than retracting the story".
Q: It's no more than six months ago you last had to retract a story about the DRF (breastgate). When will it happen next?
ETL: "That will hopefully never happen. We are all the time getting smarter at this. It's obvious that we are a tabloid.media, which all the time go to the limit, and we of course try and avoid crossing the boundary. So we are making a lot of effort for that not to happen again".
Q: It's not long ago that Marianne Gram (head of the weeklies and editor-in-chief in Egmont that is the publishing house behind Her & Nu) said that now at least two sources were needed for you to bring a story. And that's not the case here. It that something you will live up to in the future?
ETL: "Well, what we talked about there was the use of anonymous sources. This is a named source and it is really an interview with an author about his book. So in that context we didn't think further sources were needed.
And then you can say that the DRF is some way also was the source of the story, they just don't say that much".
Q: No, they deny it. And your second source is basically an anonymous source? A named source that quotes an anonymous source. That you think is enough for a story?
ETL: "She's anonymous in the magazine, but not to him. So it's just not a -source at the court says-. It's a case of an identifiable woman".
Q: But if it a source at the court, presumably then you know who it is? So will you do something in the future to avoid such a story, where you basically don't know who the source is?
ETL: "We will all the time make an effort. Obviously this give reason to discuss our use of sources and our criticism (source-proofing) - both named and anonymous. So all the time this does give reason for a discussion, also in this case".
Q: Now you are retracting the story, but will there come any form of apology to the court from you, or what are you going to do after this?
ETL: "We will do that that we will stop publishing it digitally (online). And then the spreading of it stops when the magazine is no longer on the street. And then we will in the next issue write an article, where we explain to the readers what is up and down in this case".
Q: But you dare not promise that in six months there will be another sensational front-page about the DRF, that you then have to retract?
ETL: "You should never promise something like that. But we will make a big effort in order for that not to happen".
The article also quotes the conclusion of Vibeke Borberg, who is chief-researcher in media law at the School for Journalism:
"My assessment is that the article is in violation of the law of privacy, the rules for libel and the press-ethical rules. It does not live up to the ethical nor legal standards we normally set up for an exposing story. The article is based on one source, who has his information from another anonymous source".
Those of you who are very fond of Frederik in particular will love this BT article! But I think I will skip it, I have plenty of other articles to look at.
So if someone else will provide a summary?
Ekspert om kongelig fødselar: Derfor bør Frederik snart overtage tronen fra Margrethe
