En journalist på Jyllands-Posten talte med USA om, at avisen overvejede at genoptrykke Muhammed-tegningerne, afslører WikiLeaks. Men diplomaterne overdriver med agent-sprog i lækagen, mener chefredaktør Jørn Mikkelsen. »Vi lever som journalister af at tale med høj og lav,« siger han.
En journalist på Jyllands-Posten fortalte i 2006 de amerikanske myndigheder, at Jyllands-Posten overvejede at genoptrykke Muhammed-tegningerne på tegningernes etårsdag. Han kom også med en vurdering af, hvad avisen ellers kunne finde på.
Det fremgår af en af de utallige afrapporteringer fra amerikanske ambassader, som WikiLeaks har offentliggjort, og som Journalisten.dk er i besiddelse af (se nederst i artiklen). Dokumentet med nummer 1327 er i øvrigt en del af den bunke på 250.000, der blev offentliggjort i slutningen af 2010.
Dokumentet er fra 2006 og er en afrapportering fra den daværende amerikanske ambassadør i Danmark, James P. Cain, til hovedadministrationen i USA. Dokumentet afslører, at Jyllands-Postens ledelse i 2006 drøftede, om de skulle genoptrykke Muhammed-tegningerne på årsdagen for tegningerne i september.
Dokument 1327 har været omtalt i flere medier, fordi det fremgår af dokumentet, at USA via ambassadøren forsøgte at lægge pres på den danske regering for at undgå en genoptrykning af Muhammed-tegningerne. Dokumentet indeholder også detaljer om Jyllands-Postens interne overvejelser. Blandt andet at daværende kulturredaktør Flemming Rose pressede på for at få tegningerne genoptrykt på årsdagen.
Fortrolig kilde på Jyllands-Posten
Men dokument 1327 afslører også, at en journalist på avisen videregav oplysninger om de interne, redaktionelle overvejelser på Jyllands-Posten. Det understreges i parentes, at journalistens identitet er fortrolig.
»Postens (ambassadens, red.) public affairs-rådgiver erfarede fra en journalist på Jyllands-Posten (fortrolig kilde) i sidste uge, at avisen overvejede adskillige måder at mindes tegningernes (Muhammed-tegningerne, red.) første årsdag den 30. september, heriblandt at genoptrykke de oprindelige tegninger eller bringe nogle nye om emnet,« står der i afrapporteringen.
Den norske avis Aftenposten har blandt andet omtalt dokumentet og USA's forsøg på at presse den danske regering. Aftenposten kalder den journalist, der har talt med den amerikanske ambassade, for en 'informant'.
Ansvarshavende chefredaktør på Jyllands-Posten var dengang Carsten Juste, imens Jørn Mikkelsen også sad i chefredaktionen. I 2008 overtog Jørn Mikkelsen posten som den øverste redaktionelle chef på Jyllands-Posten.
Han kan godt huske sagen og mener ikke, journalisten har gjort noget galt ved at komme med »en vurdering«.
»Vi lever som journalister af at tale med høj og lav, herunder også udenlandske diplomater. Det er helt naturligt, at man plejer omgang med ambassadører, at man vender verden – herunder også vurderinger af, hvad ens egen avis mener om dette og hint,« siger Jørn Mikkelsen til Journalisten.dk.
JP: Det var ikke specielt hemmeligt
Han mener heller ikke, at det, journalisten har videregivet, var specielt hemmeligt.
»Vi talte meget om det, for vi endte jo med at trykke en særavis. Den har masser af mennesker på Jyllands-Posten været involverede i i flere uger op til årsdagen, og den var der ikke noget hemmeligt i. Det kunne endda ligne os at indrykke egenannoncer i avisen om det. Det var på ingen måde et hemmeligt projekt.«
Hvor går grænsen for, hvad en journalist på Jyllands-Posten må fortælle for eksempel de amerikanske myndigheder om de redaktionelle overvejelser på avisen?
»I mine øjne må han som udgangspunkt sige hvad som helst. Man giver oplysninger, og man får oplysninger som journalist, og det er helt normalt. Man kan naturligvis finde nogle tilfælde, hvor oplysninger må anses for at være fortrolige – men jeg har aldrig været ude for, at jeg måtte bede en journalist om at holde tæt med noget. Jeg går ind for fri udveksling af oplysninger med kilder.«
Jørn Mikkelsen mener, der er et klart skel mellem journalister og redaktører, hvad angår at dele viden.
»I forhold til redaktører kan der være oplysninger, der er konfidentielle, fordi de i sagens natur er mere indviede som redaktører, end man er som journalist,« siger han.
Chefredaktøren mener, sagen blotter et problem ved at videreformidle dokumenter fra WikiLeaks.
»Problemet med WikiLeaks-dokumenterne er jo, at hverken du eller jeg ved, om det her er blevet sagt på den måde, eller om det er blevet misforstået,« siger han.
Jørn Mikkelsen mener, at den amerikanske ambassade med formuleringerne i det lækkede dokument overdriver sagen og gør den mere suspekt, end den er.
»Det er fuldstændig overdrevet«
»At diplomater ophøjer snak med journalister til noget hemmeligt og ekstraordinært, det udstiller jo bare den pågældende ambassadør.«
Han kritiserer Aftenposten for at bruge ordet 'informant' om journalisten.
»Det er fuldstændig overdrevet. I Aftenposten blev ordet 'informant' brugt – det var Aftenpostens journalists udtryk, men det lyder som Stasi-agtig agentvirksomhed. Det her er bare udveksling af information.«
Hvordan har du det med, at de her oplysninger og interne, redaktionelle overvejelser kommer så bredt ud?
»Det er jeg sådan set ret kold over for. Den pågældende journalist tog jo fuldkommen fejl i sine vurderinger, og det vidner om, at det ikke er en person med adgang til fortrolige oplysninger på Jyllands-Posten.«
Jørn Mikkelsen mener i øvrigt, journalisten demonstrerer sin uvidenhed om de faktiske beslutninger på avisen med sin vurdering, der gengives i ambassade-dokumentet.
»Hvis de havde ringet til dig, så havde du jo sagt præcis det samme, det er jo de tre muligheder, der er. Enten optrykker de tegningerne igen, eller også gør de ikke. Den tredje mulighed er, at de måske trykker nogle nye. Det er ikke raketvidenskab at sige det. Og det er ikke så agent-agtigt,« siger han.
Gælder der særlige forhold for journalister i forhold til andre faggrupper, hvad angår udveksling af information?
»Ja, det vil jeg mene. Vi i denne her branche lever af at forsyne folk med oplysninger. De oplysninger skal hentes ind på en eller anden måde, og det foregår ved at snakke med andre mennesker. Derfor ligger det meget mere lige for med hensyn til journalister, at der bliver givet og taget.«
Journalisten.dk har indsat hele dokument 1327 herunder:
ID 06COPENHAGEN1327
SUBJECT CARTOON ANNIVERSARY: DANISH PAPER DECIDES AGAINST DATE 2006-09-29 08:08:00 CLASSIFICATION SECRET//NOFORN ORIGIN Embassy Copenhagen TEXT S E C R E T COPENHAGEN 001327
SIPDIS
NOFORN
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/27/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM PTER DA
SUBJECT: CARTOON ANNIVERSARY: DANISH PAPER DECIDES AGAINST REPRINTING MOHAMMED DRAWINGS
Classified By: Ambassador James P. Cain, reasons 1.4b,d
¶1. (S/NF) Summary: To mark the one-year anniversary this weekend of its publication of Mohammed cartoons, the DANISH daily "Jyllands-Posten" weighed, but ultimately decided against reprinting the caricatures, at least so soon after the controversy stirred by the Pope's speech. Our discreet discussions with the paper and with senior DANISH government officials underscore both how close we came to another potential crisis and how much the defense of free speech and domestic political calculations remain paramount for the government and for many Danes. End summary.
Another Cartoon Crisis Averted
——————————
¶2. (S/NF) Post's public affairs counselor learned from a "Jyllands-Posten" journalist (strictly protect) last week that the paper was considering several options to commemorate the cartoons' first anniversary September 30, including re-publishing the original cartoons or running new ones on the subject. The paper,s fiery cultural editor, Flemming Rose, had recently resumed his job, after several months in the U.S., and was reportedly pushing for re-publication. The Ambassador called Prime Minister Rasmussen's national security advisor, Bo Lidegaard, to ask if this was true and to find out how the government was going to handle the issue.
If we believed the paper was going to re-publish the cartoons, the Ambassador stressed, we would need to notify our government and help prepare our embassies around the world for possible reaction. Lidegaard was clearly surprised by the question, stunned that the paper would consider such provocation.
¶3. (S/NF) In a subsequent conversation with the Ambassador September 26, Lidegaard confirmed that "Jyllands-Posten" was weighing a second run of the cartoons but indicated that the government did not want to get directly involved in the matter. So sensitive was the issue, Lidegaard told the Ambassador confidentially, that the prime minister's office had made a conscious decision not to alert the foreign ministry or the intelligence services. (RAO's sounding of a senior intelligence official days earlier suggested that the service was not paying any attention to the looming anniversary.) Furthermore, Lidegaard explicitly warned against any attempt by us to openly influence the paper's decision, which, if made public, the prime minister would have to condemn, he said. Lidegaard agreed, however, that no harm would come from a straightforward query from us to "Jyllands-Posten" about their plans.
¶4. (S/NF) With that, the Ambassador telephoned "Jyllands-Posten" editor-in-chief Carsten Juste, and asked straight out about his paper's intentions for commemorating the anniversary. Juste told the Ambassador that he and his team had been considering re-publication, but concluded that such a move would be unwise, especially so soon after the controversy caused by the Pope's Regensburg remarks. The Ambassador welcomed this news, noting that none of us wanted a repeat of the crisis earlier this year. Lidegaard was demonstrably relieved when the Ambassador reported this exchange a short time later.
How Could It Happen Again?
————————–
¶5. (C) For all the shock of the cartoon crisis and Denmark's heightened sensitivity to the Islamic world's concerns and the challenges of better integrating its own 200,000-strong Muslim population, there are still a lot of Danes who welcome confrontation with those they consider extremists and oppose any sign of retreat on core values such as free speech. The anti-immigration DANISH People's Party, which votes with the government coalition, may be the most vocal on the subject (as well as the party that gained the most politically from the crisis). There are also many within the governing Liberal and Conservative parties who remain highly motivated in defense of free speech and Western culture. More broadly, Danes are conflicted, if not divided, recognizing the challenges posed by radical Islam to traditional DANISH values but holding fast to their image of themselves as committed to tolerance and multiculturalism.
¶6. (C) In the wake of the cartoon crisis, free speech has become, more than ever before, a "third rail" issue in DANISH politics. Even the government's principal rivals cannot bring themselves to fault the prime minister for more than tactical missteps in his handling of the crisis, while Rasmussen himself remains convinced that a firm, no-concessions approach in defense of free speech is the winning course. A poll published September 28 shows that a year later, despite the worldwide violence attributed to their publication, 46.7 percent of Danes support the original decision to publish the cartoons. A popular book published earlier this month, "Islamists and Naivists," written by two prominent DANISH commentators, sees the cartoon crisis as part of the overall threat to Western values from Islamic radicalism. PM Rasmussen continues to view the cartoon issue first and foremost as a domestic political issue, certainly more aware of the international implications but no more inclined to put them before the reaction at home.
¶7. (C/NF) When, then, the newspaper that ignited Denmark's worst foreign policy crisis in sixty years essentially threatened to do it all over again, the prime minister apparently concluded that the potential costs of being seen to intervene against free speech outweighed even the risk of another uproar. The DANISH government might not have been able to dissuade the paper's editors in any case; one could also argue that another such provocation is inevitable. It seems clear from this episode, though, that Rasmussen's first priority was to stay on the right side of the free speech issue and avoid any suggestion of concession.
Comment
——-
¶8. (C/NF) Comment: This episode illustrates that the Danes have drawn mixed lessons from their experience in the cartoon crisis. These lessons have positive and negative implications for the U.S. On the good side, the Danes have stepped up engagement in promotion of democracy and reform abroad, especially in the Middle East. They now recognize the need to improve integration and outreach to the country's immigrant communities. Since the cartoon crisis, they have extended troop mandates in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the negative side, though, this popular center-right government has hardened its views on the absolute primacy of free speech. The prime minister appeared willing to let Jyllands-Posten dictate the timing of the next Islam vs. West confrontation without question or open discussion within the government. While this particularly vulnerable moment of the cartoon anniversary may pass without violence, our discussions this past week remind us that the DANISH front in what they see as a clash of civilizations could reopen at any time.
CAIN
HEADER VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHCP #1327/01 2720813
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 290813Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2838
INFO REUHVV/ISLAMIC CONFERENCE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
XTAGS: XTAGPREL, XTAGPHUM, XTAGPTER, XTAGDA 06COPENHAGEN1327 TAGS PREL PHUM PTER DA ADDED 2010-12-27 21:09:00 STAMP 2010-12-29 02:07:30 VOTE_POINTS 18 VOTE_COUNT 2 VOTE_RATING 9000 PRIORITY OO TWEETS 3 MANUAL N ISNEW N
FINGERPRINT1 dfb81ee0860ec03ca63e006d32e172c0
1 Kommentar
Du skal være logget ind med dit DJ-login for at kunne kommentere på artiklen.
Er det ikke bare endnu en Wikileaks"sag", som er blæst ud af proportioner? Indtil videre har vi fundet ud af, at de amerikanske diplomater ikke taler så pænt om deres kontakter rundt omkring i verden, og at den danske regering måske, måske ikke, har undladt at brokke sig over CIA-transporterne i Grønland.
Og nu, at en u- eller fejlinformeret journalist fra JP har diskutteret tegningerne med James P. Cain i 2006. I 2006 var der jo ingen, som talte om andet! Helt ærligt, så virker det ligegyldigt.
M.v.h.
Otto Frederiksen