The Se & Hoer Scandal

[fairy tale]

Some of the points of the complaint are dropped as they are obsolete, e.g. the report on the private holiday in Corsica as this complaint case is older than six months.
Slottets PFU-klage blir mindre omfattende - VG Nett om Kongehuset
Google Translation

Slottet får PFU-klage barbert - Side2
Google Translation

[LadyFinn]

Officials at the Royal Palace in Oslo insist neither they nor the royal family themselves are trying to control media coverage, but they’re not backing down on their formal complaint against celebrity magazine “Se og Hør.” The palace has now filed a rebuttal to the magazine’s defense of its own coverage, calling it a “grave over-simplification” of the issues in dispute.
Palace files new call for restraint Views and News from Norway

[fairy tale]

Today, the case will be processed, which can be even followed via live stream now.
Medieblikk: Kongelig teater i PFU - VG Nett om Kongehuset
Google Translation
"Now it remains five specific articles PFU should consider. One of them is the 14-page report on the Crown family Christmas vacation in St. Barts, which the magazine claims cost over half a million dollars."

"Among those who will handle the complaint is Eva Sannum, who was prone to annoying paparazzi when she had a relationship with the Spanish crown prince."


The interest is great, the Press Council had to move to a bigger place for this case. This article has another summary.
Stor interesse for kongefamiliens Se og Hør-klage - VG Nett om Kongehuset
Google Translation
"Also photos taken by Prince Sverre Magnus and Marius Borg in connection with a private birthday party for the royal couple on Bygdøy royal is appealed. "Pictures are taken in secret through a guarded fence into the royal family's private property, and there was not consent to shoot the kids," says the complaint."

[xenobia]

If nothing else, I hope that the magazine gets a slap for taking pictures of the children. I don't like paparazzi pictures in general, but publish pictures of the kids is really out of line.

[fairy tale]

The PFU decision in short:
- it was ok to publish beach pictures of the family taken on a public beach in St. Barthelemy (St. Barts), the Royal Family must expect to be photographed in a public place like St. Barts where every year famous world stars attract media so it must be regarded as a place one can hardly expect to be left alone for paparazzi photographers - the large number of images was critized though
- it was not ok to print false information about the costs of the "luxury holiday"
- it was unacceptable to take pictures through the fence when the royal couple celebrated their 75th birthdays at Bygdøy, even worse to photograph children there
- it was not ok to print interviews without giving the source right in the beginning of the interview (as they were not interviews with Se og Hør)
Kongehuset vant mot Se og Hør på flere punkter | ABC Nyheter
Google Translation

more detailed articles
Se og Hør har brutt god presseskikk - Kultur-og-underholdning - NRK
Google Translation

Se og Hør brøt god presseskikk i kongereportasjer - Aftenposten
Google Translation

[polyesco]

the decisions make sense. thank you fairy tale

I hope the NRF doesn't get in the habit of suing every time.

[NGalitzine]

I hope all of Europe's royal families will make it a practice to sue when they feel the press has stepped over the line. I believe the Dutch, the Swedes, Monaco have also done so. Not suing to protect yourself just tells the press that they can get away with everything and that there are no boundaries.

[polyesco]

Oh yes, definitely when the press crosses the line, like taking pics through the fence of a private property of the kids.
But i dont think it was appropriate to sue when they get photographed on a famous public beach resort where all the stars go.

[Muhler]

Good, a satisfactory verdict.

Will there be further consequences for Se & Hør?

[Larzen]

They are not sueing, the PFU is the press own forum which judges different article against the press own code of ethics
CODE OF ETHICS OF THE NORWEGIAN PRESS / Saker / Norsk Presseforbund - Norsk Presse Forbund

The PFU is not a judical court. Its board that consits of 4 members from the press and 3 representing the public, including Prince Felipes Ex Eva Sannum which has gotten much praise for her conduct and argumentation during the meeting today, and is given much of the credit for the realtivly big loss for Se og Hør.

Originally Posted by Muhler

Good, a satisfactory verdict.

Will there be further consequences for Se & Hør?

They have to print the whole verdict in a prominent place in the magazine. And also preffreble adjust their practice

The editor says she will change the practice. The current editor is not really a pit bull like the formers, she was formerly editor of big a womens magazine and has also been a member of the PFU board, so I guess she will, but Se og Hør will not be Se og Hør if they do not push the limit. Her conduct toay was quite professional, no sulking, though she said she was disappointed that the PFU criticised the amount of photos published, which she thinks is a editorial decision.

[Muhler]

So the cost benefit analazys has turned out in favor of Se & Hør.

The press complainst comittees in many countries have been critizised for being toothless and with good reason.
Printing a "we were wrong - big deal" has undoubtedly been calculated up against the increased sale the magazine has had.

IMO a press watchdog without the power to impose severe sanctions is worthless against tabloids and gossis magazines. - Se & Hør will be back agian soon.