PANELDEBAT: FAKE NEWS, LÜGENPRESSE, LØGN!

I am very happy to be talking to this fantastic panel and with you. What we are going to do today is to focus on how journalism is in a digital media landscape. I will briefly tell you about how we have thought about doing it. It is like presenting our participants. And when we have done that, we will talk a little bit about what challenges we face when working with journalism or participants, as Anders does, and we will get back to that. But also about how we can solve it. We have asked some people if they have confidence in the media, and we are also trying to discuss that. And there is a small article by Poul Madsen from Ekstrabladet, and we are also trying to discuss that. And then we will try to focus on something about social media. So that is the basics we want to get into. If I can otherwise control. But I don't think I can. But thank you very much for watching me, and thank you very much for coming. We have Lars Werwe, who is the chairman of Danish Journalist Federation. You have been a speaker for a close collaboration with the Federation for Communication and Language, which I was inspired by. Because there is something about communication all the way through here. So we could also talk about that. You were a former journalist for various media, including sports journalism at Ekstrabladet. I think I have checked all of you out on Twitter as well. I can see that you follow 696 on Twitter and are followed by 9031, actually. And you also have an official Facebook profile. Then we know that. Lea Korsborg, you are a BA in journalism and a master in media sociology. You are the chief editor and co-founder of Z-Land, which is a digital magazine that publishes deep-rooting journalism. And you have been, I think, along with some others, invented something called live events, where you make journalism on a stage. You have also been a feature writer and published various types of biographies. You follow 209 on Twitter and are followed by 4920. So that's the status. I also have an open Facebook profile. And you also have a Facebook profile. It's not public. And you are a bigger media person. No, when we are going to talk about how social media affects us, then it would be nice to know where we are in the landscape. Anders Colin Jørgensen, you are a behavioural psychologist and then you are what is called an internet psychologist. I simply didn't know what that was. But it could be that we can get into that. And you are a lecturer at IT University. And you know something about how our brains react to being online constantly. And you can perhaps give some advice on how journalism challenges our way of browsing news. You also sell blogs and you follow 1609 on Twitter and are followed by 1955. No, not one thousand. No. 1955. No. So just 3000 on top of it. No. That's fake news then. Jacob Nybro. Check it. Anders Colin on Twitter. Check it. Fact check. Right? Yes. But it's the same. You are right. Fake news. You have also had a brief вход in the communications industry as my former colleague. And you deal with PR and crisis communication. And that can also be useful to know in this debate. You are not so… You are at least as active on Twitter as I am. And it's a few hundred, and it's also for me. Fine. Yes. We know that. And on that basis, we are then starting. Now we know a little about who we have here. who we have here to discuss journalism, democracy and digital media. And one can say that the interaction between citizens, politicians and journalism is simply an important foundation. And it is important that these three sizes have trust in each other. And it is the interaction that is under development, not least due to the digital and media technology development. But trust is an important factor. And then it will of course be about how we work with it. But today we will first focus on what the problems journalism may have and how we can strengthen journalism in democracy. So that is why we would like to start by having our panel participate and reflect a little on which problems or challenges in journalism that you see from where you see journalism, i.e. in your everyday life and your work. And I would really like to end with Anders. So if we start with Lars Værø. Yes. Can I do that? Yes. Thank you. That was the question. Thank you for having me. Interesting debate that is being held in many places. I have the very basic attitude that journalism is not something you can demand from people, but it is something you can show people. So somewhere there is both in the media and the relationship between the media and the citizens, the sources and so on, and there are some connections there that are under discussion. There is no doubt about that. But it is also in the whole society as such. We have never seen so many different authorities fall as within the last 10-20 years. Do we believe in the politicians? Do we have confidence that the teacher is the authority in the classroom? Do we have confidence that the doctor actually has the right when he or she recommends that children should have a vaccine? And so on and so on. There are many examples. And I think that this is a good example of how this is a matter of authority as a figure. And there is no reason to be afraid that the media has had a role in many, many years as the local society's authority, the news stream's authority, and so on. That is also under discussion. That we all can today give out, and many of us give out, small and big news between each other. The most small, the most local, the most new. The more recent, the more recent. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and what the modern media is called, like mine children, and so on, the users that I no longer connect them with. There are many places where we can and where we can. It's also part of including some huge challenges to the classical media. Both in relation to where they should come out, and how they should come out, and how often they should come out, but also in relation to the content of the media. And I think that this is an interesting discussion, because there are probably no one who has worked in the media industry I think that the media is being held up on the fact that the media is being held up on what they cite sources for, how they present history. The media must be able to hold on to that test. But it is definitely also a challenge in a branch that in general, and now the specialist is coming over, that in general has it difficult at the moment. Not only because of the trust, but when the trust is challenged, then there is really reason to make your work even more thorough and even more secure. And it is challenged to say that, that the media is as pressed on the economy as they are. It means that they all have the right to less journalists than they might have wanted to employ, but they do not have the right to it. But in general, the journalists run, the photographers run, the ones who make content in the media run faster now than they have ever done. And it is all part of making this membrane, which the media is on, very, very thin. And sometimes you can have the feeling that it is just about to break. And where it ends, I do not have any advice for you right now, but it was just like that. I would like to hear your thoughts on how the media is doing today. Yes, thank you. Lea, would you like to continue? I would like to. I think that if you understand what news is affecting us, what news is popping up in our feed or on our smart app, or what is it, smartwatch, or in our television, then you should understand what journalists think. It is more important than ever. And I can help on the way, because I am one of the kind, and tell you that journalists are still today very affected by the ideal of journalism that is moving in the 20th century. And at best, I think, in that context, I am incarnated in the book called The Nine Journalist, which was written by the legendary journalist and editor Niels Ufer in the 80s. And in The Nine Journalists, there are encapsulations, and Niels Ufer is the ideal of what the ideal, typical journalist thinks. The ideal, typical journalist, according to Niels Ufer, is a non-referent. That is, someone who does not have any meaning about his history, who does not pretend to be someone else, who does not dress up with fine titles, and who alone just non-referes what is happening. He does not mean anything, he does not have any sympathy or antipathy, he just stenographs, more or less, the reality. That is his work. In that lies his power, Niels Ufer. And in many ways, this ideal of media journalism is very well incarnated, which in Denmark goes back to the time of the Middle Ages. Before then, journalism was completely different. You sometimes forget that, but it was actually. And that is to say that journalists were ready to describe the reality, when technology completely changed our access to information, and when lies, misinformation, propaganda, half-truths, got easier to get around on earth than ever before, it was the non-referent journalist who had to cope with the task. In my opinion, the non-referent journalist was not able to do that, because the non-referent journalist was a non-referent. Simply. And not able to stand up and say, he lies, but she speaks the truth. Or, this researcher is right, but this case is not. In the traditional of non-referent journalism, it is one's prayer as a journalist to say, here is one point of view, here is another, and then it is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Roughly speaking. So that journalist, that journalist, I think that in the future, if we are to deal with this big issue we are discussing today, the widespread, the disdain for the media is imploded globally. It is not just in the west, it is global. I think there is a need for a completely different journalist, journalist-ideal. The crisis we see in our approach to information is not just a crisis that has to do with the media's business, it is not just a crisis in financial models, it is a crisis in how we tell stories. And I think that the journalist that can best help us on the way in this new lie-time age, as Justin McKell called it, is the journalist who is completely dressed up. The opposite of the lie-time journalist. The journalist who is dressed up with knowledge, with Fossevita's opinion, with an idea of what has happened, and what the journalist wants to contribute to the world. A very clear message to stand up for the truth in this discussion. Because in the aftermath of Trump's victory, we have seen a press, at least some parts of the press, who have said that we must not be a part of a case about the truth. We must remain in the eyes of the journalist tradition on a neutral basis. I do not believe that. You cannot remain neutral in a fight for the truth. You have to choose a side. And you have to do it in a different language, and in a completely different way, than the journalist in the eyes of the truth is able to do. So I will make a sound for the accused journalist. That is what I would like to say. Oh, I am sweating. I have put on a wool sweater. What is it called? Very illustrative. I have a skirt on. I am not wearing a skirt anymore. Jacob Nybrod, you are taking over from Sweater and the journalist. If this is to make sense, I have to take hold of some of the halls. Because I am extremely disagree with the teacher here. I am really, really, really very disagreeing that you, as a journalist, should move into the role of the judge. And that is what you are talking about. It is to say, be good, be shit. And that is to say, I call it chicken food. It means that the media comes out with, selectively, the right information that should define the taste of the food or the correct attitude. And I am simply completely disagreeing with that. I actually think that our biggest challenge is going the other way. If we are talking about digital journalism, then the biggest challenge right now is to differentiate our content, which is actually credible. We can discuss that later. But we are not lying. Danish established media, including Læres, we are not lying. We sometimes say something that is wrong. It is wrong. But it is not the same as lying. And that is what other media do. There are media that manipulates so roughly with their information that you can only get to one result. I could mention some. I would like to say the Korte Avis here. They are media that picks up so much of their information that you come up with a conclusion that is too much for me. That is definitely not the way I think we should go. I think our biggest challenge is that we as users, when we go online or in any other digital context, should be able to differentiate us from what I call Facebook-slum. And I think that is one of the biggest challenges. The second thing I agree with Lars, I am sorry to say this, but content costs money. It will be a song you will hear to an extreme degree in the next many years. Because it is very close to all established media that if we are to have expertise, excellence, that works every day to bring out proper information, then it also has to cost something. And I can say right now, it is like on JP, half of our readers are newspaper readers and the other half are digital readers. And they give almost nothing for it. And we will simply have to make up for that. Or else we will all be dead. On a societal level, I can have a concern, which is that we as media something in the big, common conversation that should take up our country. Which makes us have a political discussion with each other and put our cross where we sometimes put it, and so on and so forth. It is the big, common conversation. And I think that we should combine that with what is the solution of the times, namely to be something for the individual. That is, the personalized, personified, I will just say, content that you click out. I would like to follow MERS and child care, and then I would like to have a larger package on the development of newness. But that script is, in my view, an enormous challenge and at the same time an enormous necessity. Because otherwise, there is not really much that binds us together any longer. I still think that media is an extremely important tool in a social cohesion. Sorry, that sounds like I am being a coward all the time. I am not. I just cut it. I have been told that I am not allowed to do this. I will get rid of this. I think there is hope. I think Trump has done us a favor. I think that when the world's most powerful man completely providentially, has made America great again, but when he stands in front of a place where you can see that there is a little less evidence than there was in Obama's administration and says that there are more to mine, and it is a lie. Then he does a service. Because at some point, you will have to look at information that you can rely on. And I think that established media as my own, and also LEAS, I think that we will be sought. I can see that we will. In the USA, both the New York Times and the Washington Post and a third of the big ones have gone far ahead since Trump because people are seeking valid information. So I think there is hope. Also for the digital journalism. And we are returning to that. It was not because you did not have to say anything. No, it was not. It was not. I do not know when I will say anything again. I have to get the station out of the way. I will make sure that you get a single reply later, Jacob. Anders, we have been a little around what can we say more about how journalism can be challenging. We think that you can certainly contribute. It is about what happens and what are the challenges from a receptionist perspective. I do not know how the conversation was made. I want to start by asking a question. How many of you here produce false news? Okay. How many of you here share false news? A little doubtful wave and a single hand with a little smirk down there. But otherwise it is really embarrassing that this problem seems to be something that other people as well are involved in. It makes me start that everyone knows what the term confirmation bias means. Okay. I will start by using some of my time to explain. Confirmation bias is a term from psychology that covers the phenomenon that we as humans have a tendency to think that people who come from our own own tribe or in general say something we think is more credible. When I hold a lecture, I can hold a little plank up. I do not do that. It is a slide. Then I can say that we have a controversial but controversial view. I can ask people, what do you think? And it is a lot of, now I am a little bit of a caricature, but it is a lot of if you have a tendency to ignore the truth but go completely amok over the controversial, then you are left-oriented. And if you have a tendency to deny that it should be particularly controversial and hold on to it, then you are completely factual truth, then you are right-oriented. There is this bias. And let me just point out, this is not a little splinter in your eye. And I can just try to look out at it. This is a 200 kilo motherfucking diving hat that you have been running around with your whole life and never ever get out of. And then there is this little hole with a fat glass in it that you have to try to see the world through. Okay, it is you and it is us. And we can never ever get out of it. Try to look after it, then you will discover that it is not a small thing that we are talking about. That is one thing I know about us. Another thing I know about us is that we are absent-minded. If we can get some thick food that is framed, where we get to know who has the scourge and what we should be worried about, then we take it and we spend a lot more time on it, or where we ourselves go in and do the work. And then we can find something in the mother of truth. And then the third thing is that we are mega delusional. We are more interested in funny news about the world than in boring subjects, for example. And I could be really happy about that, if not because far behind in the world of social media and Facebook is actually you who sort the world for me. It is you who have a huge responsibility for how my world view looks like with all the things you choose to share. And because you are biased, because you are doping and because you are delusional, well, let me put it this way, journalists and the press know that well. They know that when you are on the front line of politics, you can make a joke about Trump who has done one thing or another, and then people go in like apes who click it, because that is what the politicians can read and like. I ask myself, and that is why Trump can leave when Jeff Sessions comes just as much in the press as he does for his Russian relations, then he writes Obama has destroyed my apartment! Try to go back and look! Sessions is gone! And everyone throws themselves, almost neurotic journalists throw themselves at this, because they know that it is delicious, and admit it now, is there anything more delicious, delusional, sinful, than to take one or the other of Trump's lies and read them? where it is taken from each other. It is something of the coolest! But as long as it is like that, we just have to have one assumption completely clear for this conversation, that we who are sitting here and standing here, we are not the cure, we are the disease. And should we get started? Yes. Yes. Are we ready to get started? Yes, we are. We have at least been able to sketch some clump of challenges, which are about there is something about some resources, there is something about how we have organized ourselves, there is something about some journalistic ideals, and how we practice journalism, in relation to how the history should be and how it should be now, and then there is something about this individualization. And then there is this thing about how journalism is completely dependent on what people in general do. So that is at least some big dilemmas and challenges, one might say. But if we start where you started, Jacob, or ended, where you said there is hope, because that would be my next question, and we don't have to take it as a round-table, you can try to invite me in. What are the opportunities we have to give the democratic conversation and the people's opinion, and journalism as something that can really change and can be a part of strengthening the common conversation? What are the opportunities we have now? And you do that in a different way. So I would like to think that you try to invite me in. Lea, you would like to start? Well, I am really in many ways sad at this time, because the challenge is huge, but the turning point is really Jacob's hope in the sense that the development we have seen in recent years has led to the most important question of all in journalism, namely why we have come to the journalists' daily routine. It is the best that could happen for journalism. And even now in reality, with this huge historical situation we are in, are we about to introduce the realization that journalism no longer has a monopoly on information. That was the case once. And that we perhaps in the last 10-15 years after the monopoly was broken have come to make it seem like we still had it. In the sense that what made journalism valuable once was that it was there. That is how you got information about the world. So therefore it had to emerge quickly and it had to, maybe in reality, just tell what happened. And that means that in a technological context it has made the pace really, really, really high. And that we are starting to spend more and more time in reality we are now competing to get ahead of the news. Let's just guess what happens in the evening when the election is announced. And it is just not more relevant for me and I think it is the journalism It is no longer relevant to get information. There is information everywhere. There is information in Trump's feed. We are standing on the world's largest mountain of information. It is not the journalism's existence to just give information. What the journalism is existence to is to give insight. To show ways to understand the information that the modern media is being bombarded with. And there is a huge gap because it simply makes the journalism better because it can become a tool to clean up the mess. And that is a little in line with the quality that you were also a little bit into. You have the word now, Lars. Thank you for that. As one of the infectious diseases or the disease-causing, Anders, I would say that it is not the right thing to point out the cure. We also have to look at how journalism is perceived. We have a tendency to I will go into your field a little bit, Anders. We have a tendency to speak from the balcony and out on the ground. Up and down. The other day I visited my stepmother who lives in Snækkersten. She is 78 years old. She is relatively ill. She is in good shape, but not so mobile. She does not have that much money. She gets her information from old days. She has a common antenna TV, a Danish radio, maybe DR2, TV2, and then the newspaper in Helsingør. And then she will hear otherwise. She is not on Twitter and Facebook. Last Sunday there was an article in DR Nyhederne, where some rural towns in Jyväsland were gathering in some kind of cloisters to strengthen rural communities. One of the things I noticed in that connection was a researcher in rural towns, we have that too, in this country, he says that a fifth of the Danish population lives in smaller rural areas. I don't think that reflects much in the way we talk about the media and the media users of the media network. And then we are probably in to something that Anders is a bit too much, I think, but that I also think that Jacob was very much into, namely this that you no longer have the old days omnibus services. We no longer have the situation where the couple takes an advertisement on an newspaper and keeps it in the and the newspaper brings the local and the national and the regional news, and sometimes also if Apollo has come to the moon, then it will also be told with a few days delay. We are in a completely different place where the distribution of news, both the distribution of completely light-headed and false news, but also the distribution of journalistically processed news that really both delivers information and truths and insight. It is a huge and I think it is just getting harder and harder to find a way in this. It is one of the things that for many years has given me hope for journalism, because if there is something journalists can do, then it is. What we are being educated in journalism is to separate the clitoris from the know-how, to sort shit from the canal. Curators, one could call it. I think it was Riffjær who called it this with the spitting in the day travel-stall or something like that. It is a question that one as a journalist can find a way. In that way one can be very optimistic in the way of journalism where one has reason for pessimism. It is in the We have a situation where Jacob and the newspaper that Jacob represents namely up at Politiskenshuset, the biggest newspaper in Denmark, is under a hard pressure. The next biggest newspaper, the Jysk-Fyn media that is not in the newspaper in this town, not in H.P., but the other newspaper in the town, that they are extremely under pressure and fire and are cutting down all the time. The media, the private media in Denmark, is really under pressure. The Danish radio, the politicians are talking about answering 25%. It is not in any way about that, but something is going to happen in that field. It is guaranteed. That is to say, those who are born in journalism, it is the institutions, and it has been for many years, I think they will undergo major changes, and it is really, really sad to say, also because they deliver jobs to my members. But what is the situation? Journalism can be optimistic about, but it is not about delivering, what was it you called it, the packages, in relation to journalism, the packaging, I think you used the expression. And it is simply a dilemma that I do not think will necessarily be solved by, either by setting the pace up within online journalism, or by, as he said, just handing it all over to the market. I think that the state also must take a responsibility in relation to how the journalism in Denmark should be, how the media in Denmark should be. Otherwise, we will not hold for a long time in the structure we have now. No, that is what you mean. Oh, I am simply also going to have to break in. Yes, and that, we must not. But it is actually like that, Anders, you have words, and then you could get words, because I can feel that you need them. I would like to take a break for a moment. You were talking about hope. Then I think I was really glad when you say that it is about, and Thore, to say that something is true. I do not understand why we are talking about I mean, I am turning 50 this year, I have never lived in a factual society, where you just put news together. There are all kinds of things that are going on, and all kinds of daily orders. One of the things we can do, is that we can stop using the familiar expression that is information bubbles. Because we do not pay attention to it. But what is in it is to say, well, every news stream is about equal. You have your information bubble, I have mine. Well, it is just your information bubble that speaks. And when you say that, when you use this expression that is used by all of us who try to be analyzed, and try to understand problems, then we throw gasoline on it. Because what we really say is that one can be as good as the other. It is still just bubbles. And then it is clearly a market for, I think, that, at least for me, in my heart, that someone says, this is true. God damn it, this bubble of its own. It may well be that it does not manage the task of being true to perfection. You cannot do that in the world. You cannot say anything without being biased. But there is something that is true. And there is something that is less true. So maybe in reality, just to disrupt it, those who know me know that I am a little mixed up with that expression, but now I think I can use it here. The conversation could be to say, I really think the conversation about false news, has not been fixed. And it is a little difficult, because we always end up sitting and starting to point at ourselves, and we have already painted ourselves in the corner. But now if we turn it around and introduce something completely new, we could start to construct something we call true news. I could think of being at a panel debate about true news, where we try to do it and find out what the hell it is. It could probably be that it was a party, it was a little easier for all of us Internet users to be a part of. You are at a party like that. I am talking about true news. I am just talking about it in a different way than a doctor does, because she put something in it. She said good and shit. True is good. False is shit. True is good and shit is false. But the doctor also talked about a moral approach, that is to say, to recognize the color, if I may say so. No, not in relation to that. No, not in relation to that. For and against. For and against, and then the users themselves. Now we have two discussion points. Maybe we should take Jacob there, where you were just about to have something on your mind in relation to Lars' question. I am completely fundamental, of course. I come from a private media house called Jolby Politikken, and am a big player in Denmark. And we have a lot with state-funded media. We are also partly state-funded. We get in two digits a million in support. We do that all together, I think you do too, right? No, it is not two digits. But yes, I understand. We all get some money from the state, but with the intention that politicians who say fake news, and history is against them, and so on, we should not have more state money that owns independent journalism in Denmark. But would you rather have fund money? Yes, I would love that. I would rather have people paying for journalism. Yes, because we have to ask ourselves the question, why is it that people are paying for journalism? No, they are not. We are not living in a world where it is no longer possible to get a journalist to take taxes on the workers' budget. And we do that for a reason. I would just like to say, I am completely sharing your analysis, Lars. Journalism is really facing a huge challenge. But if we think that the answer is business as usual, then we are missing learning something from the crisis. And understanding that the reason that people have lost trust in them, or that they do not use them, is not because they are stupid, or because they do not want quality, and do not want to be clever, but because it is no longer relevant for them in the way it is. Why pay for news that you can just get for free somewhere else on the internet? Why do I do that? And what I mean by that, is that people are paying for it because it is the insight, the clever men and clever women, and it is just a good news. So we must not... It is simply too much to stand there, where they just say, the government must fix this. That is roughly... I am a bit too much of a character. I was in doubt about where it comes in, that if you do not pay for news, then you are stupid, or not clever. I was in doubt about that. It is not me who brought it in. I do not know why you have that analysis. previously represented in the lives of ordinary people, expressed through this advertisement on a local, regional or national television, through decades, that institution is gone. And then it is just to say, the institutions have just taken the journalism and taken the information stream out to the ordinary citizen. Today, there are some holes. That was the example I gave in relation to my mother-in-law, in relation to the country population, But there are just some of them, where we can say, they are somewhere else in life. This country is breaking through in relation to the information stream. And if we finally talk about intelligence, then I would rather have that it is partly state-funded media, via tax bills, via all kinds of things, that are there to transport good, good news to the people, than that it is transferred to various TV stations, I just want to, we are definitely going to get out to these people, but you sound, sorry, a bit like a unionist. Because these big old institutions, the press, the unions, the church, the political parties, all these huge institutions that have lived in this modern society, there is a porosity to them that has been there for a long time. And I think that we, or I have been convinced that we as journalists should not make the same mistake as the people of the church, who just say, then we must pray for the empty benches. Instead of using the opportunity to say, how do we make the file relevant, where is it, we make a difference out there, and we are inspired by that task. And that is exactly what we will not be finished with but that is exactly why we would like to have you to reflect on this, that we have some problems with business models, but that it gives us the opportunity to rethink some of the ways we have done journalism before. But I would like to think and get even more involved in the fact that the state should pay. I am just saying that the state's media business that is, the Danish Radio and TV2, 7 if you take Radio 24-7 with you. It is about 7 billion kroner that the state is transferring to the media. That would be enough to run 10 newspapers of the size of the Jyllandspost. So it is not like state-funded media that is missing. I would be well thought through about that. I would also be thought through about who told the story about the horse and that it was the state that owned all the media. The degree of arm length is simply deeply problematic. Or the degree of arm length would be deeply problematic. I am a little disagreeable, or actually very disagreeable in relation to that, because the discussion about arm length is incomprehensible. There are no people in the media industry, and so I do not see it on Christian's track, but you could do that. Yes, we would like to if all our competitors did. Then it is not a fair question. We would like to if all our competitors did. I think we need to leave the business models alone. No, this is not a business model. This is a state apparatus that we are also in the world for to check and control in all ways we can. So Lars will go further into the trap and become completely incompatible with a journalistic DNA, It is very difficult to see that media support has prevented that there has been very critical journalism lately. You are talking about screwing it up, right? What are you saying? You are talking about screwing media support up or making it more state-focused. I am saying at least to preserve it at the level it has today. I do not agree. I think we will take Anders and Lea and then we will try to go further from here. I have a question and a little doubt I do not know if I understand what you mean but it responds to a tradition we saw a lot recently in the US where you say you just take one of each and then you take a climate advocate who is a million people and then you take the only climate advocate that exists and then you let them speak and then you let people decide. And if you do not do that then it is a cycle of events compared to you, Jacob. Is it not something we should get away from that we just give both facts and then you just make food and then you just let the children find out what is true? Because that is what I am curious about. Should we not say that and then it is true. But more true or just cut people off. And then you have to be careful and by the way, surprise we have found out that what he says is wrong. But you think that it is only in situations where it is more dirty where you should not somewhere you have to stop. There is something that is not clearly true. There is also something about the attitude Lera introduced in her point of view with the term there is also something good and something that is wrong. And that is where my chain is running. Let me just say something concrete. In the past we had a story we discussed it internally in the editorial office it came out that immigration to Denmark costs 28.5 billion kroner per year. Is it a lot of money? Yes. How do you calculate the numbers? I do not think there is any disagreement about the numbers. But is it a lot of money? We put it on the front page so we have to somehow think that it is a lot of money. In that way the objectivity does not exist. I think it was you who was in on that Lars. We have to somehow think that it is subject to debate that 28.5 billion kroner per year is the price for immigration in Denmark. Okay, then you are also in agreement. If someone says something else you should go out and say try to listen. But there is just a difference in what is in fact and it costs 28.5 billion. The finance minister has calculated it. The political parties are in agreement in the calculation and so on. There is no discussion about that. But there is of course a discussion about whether it is a lot or a little. And that depends on whether it gets a journalistic priority or not. But the very consideration is to put it forward so that people can decide whether it is a lot or a little. That is a central part of journalistic DNA that we have to hold on to. Otherwise we will become a newspaper. I am not even agitating to be a newspaper but I am talking about being the service that can help the readers to understand the large amount of information out there. That is to put things into context to put them in their right context to separate what is not important shut up, there are so many stories about things that are not important to get yourself involved in Do you think so? That is what I mean. I would like to be allowed to say I know that. It is my conviction that we use our time on many equal stories That is a business production. I know that because I know how it is to sit at a news station where you in the morning I have tried it where you in the morning get a story and then in the afternoon where I was in the paper industry it is guaranteed that a few hours later something else will come out. You can simply not unless you are really aware what many journalists are not to that task I think to say something meaningful. when you are dealing with history. These stories are de facto issued and I think that is meaningless. It is wasting our time it is wasting our resources. So buying on I45 is not a story for the internet? Yes, it can be said but if it is the information you want to have but the information that I feel convinced about that people want to pay money for then it is the one that is put into context. I think people want both I am asking out here we do not want to know that you buy on I45 we do not want to be on your phone and in the morning we do not want to have the story that it is because I45 is not big enough. Does everyone need to go to the newspaper? No, it is something that comes to the newspaper It is a digital media we are discussing. There is without doubt a traffic app that can handle it. That is what I mean. What we need to spend our time on is to tell a story. That is what you mean when you say traffic on the home page. Yes, it helps a lot. I have a time on TV2 News and TV2 is great and we are really good at weather and I just say still that if you count the top 10 of the best days on TV2 News ever, then there is weather on the first place, there is weather on the second place, there is weather on the third place, and there is weather on the fourth place. Then there is a terrorist attack, then there is weather on the sixth place, and then there is weather on the seventh place and then there is a tsunami in Japan. That is the top 10 on TV2 News. I could make it higher. But Jacob, you are talking as if a major news is a natural size. It just does not buy. A major news is a natural size? Yes, for example in the journalism industry, we have decided that a conflict is a good story. That is also in the news criteria. Yes, it is in the news criteria, but it is not God who has given us them. They must be discussed. Why is that? I am not talking about that because I say that we could do the journalism when it is like this. What I am talking about is to try to look critically at ourselves and say why do we choose the stories we do, why do we tell them at the pace we do, why do they have the form and the chance. But I do not think it is right to say I have a media, and I have it as I have already said, where we have something that goes really really fast and then we have something that definitely does not go fast. Sometimes slower than my taste. We have a very updated stream where I think it is central that it is really what is written. Then you can say, you can certainly get a traffic app for that. Yes, you can certainly do that, but it is a very bad forecast and all sorts of other things. So we are a place where you can collect a very fast flow of news and especially on the newspaper, but also in what is called the premium universe, can go the longer way and have colleagues for it. I really believe that. So in that way, I agree with you a long way. I just think you lack a leg, which is that people would just like to know what is happening. And that is how it is. And they would also like to know it in a trustworthy way. And that is what people should really like to have. Because that is something that we are giving some advice on. But we do not we are investigating it in different ways. But now we are just trying to ask some people here this morning what kind of media they actually use. If they trust the media they get. And then you can just sit and enjoy what people say. Can we sit? Yes, you can sit down there. It is not that far, Thomas. You can get there. the questions are coming up. Good. I use the internet a lot and I am connected to those news services that are different kinds. It is DRDK. And I am really happy for BBC. And otherwise I use Facebook a lot to find out what they think is interesting in my network. Yes, the internet primarily. But it is actually electronic content in the regular newspapers. The Jyllands Post, the Politiken, sometimes we get lost. You can find some online newspapers Radio. What do news sources show you? I think I am quite broad oriented. I do not go down and say that I only read the Politiken or JP. Newspapers. The home pages of DRDK. TV2. But otherwise it is... I usually keep the newspapers. And I also have them electronically. I think it is the most important thing about my work. Not always. No, I do not. On DRDK. Partially also on Facebook. But... There is a lot where I think it can be useful. And there is a lot to check. Where is the original and where does it come from? Check the link itself and go a step further. Yes, a bit of the way. But not completely. And filter free. I do not do that. But I think when you are in the industry you know how to build these different proposals. No, not... There is something critical. You can of course figure out where they come from. If it is something where I seek knowledge in advance. Then it is fine. I think in a higher degree. But I also think that there has been some inflation in the quality. And you can feel that journalists are pressured on time. And therefore they are pressured on the quality they can deliver. Not necessarily, no. Yes, it does. It does in general. If they live up to what is the purpose of journalism. To be critical and ensure that the powerhouses answer the question of what you are doing. Not in a higher degree than others. No, not more specifically. For that reason. More, especially if it is the larger public media, then I do. I think there is always a backslide behind things. It is not... Often there is an agenda that is behind, so not necessarily. No, not necessarily. There is a little bit. It depends on who it is. Over a broad range of people, some, I would say, are more suspicious than others. Most of them are. They have a point of view, and they argue from it. And you don't know that beforehand. Therefore you can judge what they are telling about. Yes, in a way, there are also some pre-cautions. Yes, it does. I am generally more critical. Yes. They also share of course, as we might have predicted, in, how shall I say, in quite different camps, and they seem to be pragmatic in their way of going about it. also said it, Jacob, that people would like to have both parts. The deep-rooted, the journalism, where they clearly can see a transparent point of view or attitude to something, but they also want to have what is the faster update or news. So we might have to differentiate quite a lot when we talk about, we should not talk about one kind of journalism, we should maybe talk about different kinds that should supplement each other so that you can have a democratic conversation, a journalism that is relevant and relevant. But what I am wondering, when you think about users, partly in your everyday life and your work with journalism, and when you hear this, which gives a somewhat diffuse picture of what we should do, because they are very pragmatic choices from day to day, what they actually do. We also have this thing that some, can it really be that some both read the Jyllandsposten and the politics now and then. So there is a bit to take note of. We have many different types of users, we have different types of journalism and how is it that we in reality also engage these users to to want journalism in the long run. Yes, Jacob, you can start. I am super happy for exactly what is called that you can both read one and the other newspaper, and I will not emphasize mine, but others, it is the same. But I think that there is a future, now I am talking about but it will also apply to the digital media. In a high degree of differentiation, we look too much alike right now. I can hardly find hair in the soup with the politicians, things that I would never do with us, and they would in response do something on the Jyllandsposten and in response to the Berlinger. We look too much alike. So it is very important that we find our way, I think, within the journalistic box that I belong to, that is a little closer to the the eye of the journalist than Leas. The eye of the qualified journalist. As far as I am concerned. I know he is a journalist, and I am very happy about that. But I think, for my own personal opinion, I would like to say that it must not again surprise the Jyllandsposten that Sønderjylland was Easter yellow at the last election. It surprised all the media The Danish People's Party had a colossal conclusion in Sønderjylland. No one saw it. No one saw the opinion polls. No one saw it. And that is simply not good enough for an newspaper called the Jyllandsposten. So our ability to get our fingers down in the mill and be taken care of by the people and treat the people that are taken care of, to be treated, so to speak, has probably never been greater. If I were to say, I would like to point out one more thing. It is not a statistical task, this. But I think that there are more people who actually trust what we say. And I think that is also true. When you make those official opinion polls or polls on our credibility, we are together with the media and the newspaper, and in the rest of the world, also politicians. We are completely at the bottom. And it has not always been like that, but we have never been at the top. And that is, to put it simply, some bullshit. But if I ask each and every one of you, I am asking each and every one of you, do you lie to the Danish press? Do we say something consciously that is not true? That is what you do when you lie. Try how many would say yes to that? Two. And how many would say no actively? More. But still not all of them. There we have a challenge. I can just say that in my own opinion. We do not lie. And we just do not. We say something that goes against the rules. It can be said, and I think it is an issue, that we get information out in a row and in a selection that makes you end up at a certain point of view. And that is not what I am a fan of. I am not a fan of, I mean, I share a little bit of the criticism of the cover of Trump's election campaign. Now I am looking down at the casket here. I do not know if it is meant as a statement or a provocation. It is completely the same. I actually share a little bit of the criticism of whether we got covered by that steel belt that was so crucial for Trump's election, good enough. In the press in general. Did we get it covered? Good enough. Did we take it seriously enough that in millions, in ten million, 32 million I think it is, in that belt alone, had lost their work? Did we get it in order enough? Or were we just taken by the fact that he is a fool? Yes, I think that it is a little bit a statement from many of us. That we were just taken by the fact that he was a fool. He was a fantastic host and he said that one liners, that only American presidential candidates in his caliber can get away with it. And we all jumped on them. And that is a statement. I think that we are turning too much. And I think that is a new development for us as media. That we are not going to be as stupid as we were when I was young. We used an expression. A story should be so stupid that it can be kicked up in the ass of a mouse. And it should not be. It should be a little more round in its entrance. So that you can actually emphasize that there can be more truths. But it is not really just a question of angle. It is also a question of where is your focus? Is it on the spectacle around another tweet from Trump? Or is it just on the board? We only have 100% of the time. And if we use 90% of the time in the Twitter feed then it becomes what is running with the attention. You don't need the Twitter feed. He said our things. Yes, yes. But the challenge is that he fits perfectly into an impulse media culture. Where you run after the fast alarm. I was thinking, Anders, in relation to how do you fit some of these things into the use of the devil and that we might live in a bubble. There are actually many who have put questions about whether it is so much bubble now. Whether there is really no more discussion and much more differentiated debate on one's... Do you really not hear much more because you are friends with someone who has had a different life than yourself? But how does it fit into your picture of the little devil? I can't really say. What I notice these days I think that it is never easy to come here. It was people who were in some way in the communication industry or were journalists themselves. But I think it is true that something is true. We talked about it before. We believe in what is in the media. It is true when it has been shown. And the history is first verified when it has come out and some journalists have taken it. There are also people who can be lucrative by using similar media. By looking at them and saying that it is some kind of newspaper from the USA. Who the hell has control over what newspapers from the USA are? There are people who are completely machines to throw propaganda out. I have a question. A question I have been wondering about and I am thinking about asking. Because I have noticed that when I notice what kind of mechanisms work I am completely interested in what it does. It attracts and moves our attention. And I can't imagine a more effective way to get attention from journalists. The most effective way to get attention from journalists unless you write a referendum or give birth to a throne is to stand up and claim something completely crazy. I am not interested in it because what you do is to give people time to talk. Those who agree with them get these messages completely delivered directly from the newspaper and journalists are there to spread it. But the interesting thing is where does it come from? For me as a psychologist it seems like a neurotic obsession. It is completely unthinkable. Trump can do it. Something grotesque. The whole press is running towards it. And what we are talking about for a moment one or the other is going to be elected. We will see it in the municipal election. One or the other that says all black immigrants are anal sex. And whoops! Then everyone will say this is the most crazy thing. And then it will continue to reach what he wanted. Namely to be known to the people who are in the process of voting. Or the political or the journalistic DNA that says here is something untrue. Here I come with the torch and tell that it is not true. I am a bit about some of the experts who want to tell me where does the frivolous neurotic obsession of running around where someone says something crazy and tell it to all people. Was that what you wanted to answer, Lars? Or was it something else? I like when you talk about those crazy things. you go down and it becomes disgusting to listen to. It is symptomatic. We should go home now. I think if I had to go back 20 years. I was taught in 1996 as a journalist from the factory in northern Aarhus and came out to a reality where there was no internet as a factor we should relate to in the news production. It was so small on the way that it could deliver facts and you could perhaps get some phones in the beginning. I think we can say that 25 years ago it was an out-of-the-box telephone book. That is to say that there is a change between 2000 and 2005 where you experience in a steady way on the newspapers that the stories you can see that have an effect on the internet and you can measure that down to the smallest detail how long people read on that site and it is measured. The programs do that automatically. There is a focus on reading numbers in a completely different way at that time when the internet starts to really go through as a source of news which I would say has some effects and has some echo in the classical media. I don't know if that is the reason but I think some of it also is connected to what I said in my first speech which is about this Marxist-crisis, this whirlwind of news and I don't think that you even need to start a psychology study to know that the one who shouts the loudest is often also the one who is heard. We can see the discussion today both on the internet and through the social media a new opinion poll tells that new citizens, there is a frontman called Pernille Vermund who by God can say something so you can eat her ears. I think they have got And then you say, why should you even report what she is saying because it is now a fourth poll in a row where she is at least below the 2% which is the limit and all this discussion about whether you should reflect what is sensational it can also be the parliament politicians who can say some things that we can perhaps beat ourselves on, some of us who don't have the same opinion and it is not in relation to and then there is the factor I was talking about before because some of what some of your sources said just outside the door was that you could feel that I think journalists are but some of them have also been sad and so on. There has been a development in relation to that we have divided the journalist's opinion even more than it has been before so that there is a large really been sad when we hear Paul Madsen about it, then it can be that we are entertained with how many articles extrabladet.dk should deliver every day and then I can later tell how many journalists they are to it then you can begin to get an impression of how sad you are, that is to say then you can well have a tendency to take something like there is a Trump or a Pernille Vermund or something else and scream up and then say bang and if you yourself get interested in it and then drive the machine, I think one of the factors and then we have the other part of the journalist and it is some of them Jacob reported about that can also be used relatively long time or really long time but then also makes it completely heavy journalism and then I'm back at it and said in another article how is it that we find forward to the journalism in this huge sea of ​​nourishment how is it that you pay attention to it the journalism that makes a difference I can help you because it's two of the official news criteria you are learning at school and I totally share your wonder sensation and conflict is two out of five news criteria that you learn when it arises then there is a good history so it is a type of sensation lies becomes so serious type sensation yes but it is also just a presentation it is just so it is in a specific phase history tradition handwork simply that that that movement I agree yes and it is namely that the more I think about it the more I get angry about it especially because we are on the set land and we are in no way Danish radio traffic but still then you can see something that I think is insanely exciting namely that the more time we spend on history the more thorough we are the more nuanced we are the more doubt we dare to express for the more we dare to be constructive and show solutions the more it will be read or that idea of ​​that I am with on that what do I know it's a baby further than a crore dille guaranteed something people want to click on but the idea that you don't also want to read about where things succeed that you not also want to honor quality that it should also be integrated in the those five news criteria so now we have got news criteria expanded a little punctuated again now or is it okay no overall it's a whole institute on university or it comes right away not constructive news as if it is that it has never been anywhere else has been everywhere all the time so now it's a self-employed thing I could I talked about it for a long time completely agree that it is a criterion to inspire people's lives I would like to keep up anyway new local example is so it's a great example of where I think that we should just make sure that it is not the good taste that determines what we come what comes on the front or the back of the story we cover or not when new citizens come then you should not be so particularly politically capable of saying they have found a country it's interesting if they can pull on someone they could on the first polls there they had between 5 and 6 percent of what is it voter turnout and would be a landslide if if if the election had been there it's like the one element we should then we have to stop because they get 0.6 percent of the polls now I think would be a dangerous way then I think was in before Lars over Denmark that sort in what what is the right can tolerate to know it I think it really really really would be shit and then I think you should you should you should I mean we have just recently that if you do again a discussion internally on our editorial we had a I think it was a previous story about that Martin Hendriksen for Danish Folkepartiet would go to church to the high tides and the proposal was completely political stone dead so you could rightly say why do you spend it then why do you give him the time to talk because it's all about the debate consists of debate consists of someone throws a lump on the outer wall he said and then there are some who pull it back to the middle again but the Danish debate moves that way if we hadn't given the question of what is it this country Danish Folkepartiet country is so popular to talk about I'll just take that air from 1994 and on then they would never have existed but the opinions had existed then we would not have listened to anyone out there and it would have been a life mistake for our society as it is Sweden right now it is it is an under pressure to open the debate and we are not set in the world but why should you ask a question if you answer why should such a completely crazy proposal that only has the purpose of getting all the reds to scream and share things like psychopaths on the net why should it have to all the time so because there is a hold back there is a hold back there is a hold that is okay then it will be protected from the whole on the front side is quite wide because there are holdings behind and it is quite central case at the moment what the discussion in Denmark also fills a part in other newspapers in Jyllandsbosten I just say ask of the people who come and hotel and how many should we lock in and so on and so on it fills a really really big part and this was the Danish People's Party's latest offer on a cultural assimilation but feels disgusting used sometimes when you say that it is it is understandable now says Sir Esbjørn makes it insanely good he gets up and says something completely crazy then I share all the reds and sing there he gets the right one haha not but it is a bit like that film I love the smell of red that screams tomorrow what is it the sound of red that screams in destruction on the internet it is music format is not it like that sometimes thinks and so on that is just something you say to distract attention and get us to run in some direction you have to run with yourself holdings or no they run no way in the holdings there they we look at it later good example of that is that it is a and Storberg's cake you know what I'm talking about hotel or can or they go wrong if you know the wrong hotel and go in where I think it was really interesting to see what happened and something happened it was that the news that Inger Storberg had made this post on his facebook wall was cold ported on the way just a few minutes after it happened I think the police had it half an hour after they just told her she had done it and I think it's important to tell about that Denmark's integration minister celebrates celebrates in that way his political landowners but what I would like wish more had done was to put it into that cake in a case for example when to find out before you cooperated news further that it proposal as she is proposal number 50 she was taken and taken by a single parliament and was some kind of technicality about courses to imam I mean I think it's actually if nothing else enlightening and get and get in with this context because if we don't put it in context then the news helps with banalize the political what what Inger Storberg did I mean and then we are then we are what is called something profitable idiots it's not called when you just stand up and go on and continue but we are we can just beat now you are not I do it too completely completely completely I'm too much about cognitive biases to believe that you stop having them because you know they exist so I do it of course sometimes I can stop a little in it and other times I just do it like you eat something piece of food you know you shouldn't I just do it and look forward to it so we do it all together come now that's what it is we all carry disease I think it's an interesting example I'm coming with and I said not that the story about the panella vermon should not be brought I discussed whether to do it on the basis of her party's expansion but but that's interesting in relation to Lea's example with hotel in the kitchen as one can have all kinds of attitudes to I think it's completely legitimate that you as a politician celebrate that you have achieved political goals I think it's completely in order when you bring it the way she does it on is just something that uses some of the mechanisms on a little more refined way, but uses some of the mechanisms where you know that there are journalists you can send out in the news and I think there are some challenges for journalism in relation to how often you bring what should you call it sorted or unhacked information from the net as part of news articles instead of walking the steps longer then wait half an hour then get hold of what is her name or get hold of mark or wait a week a week is probably enough to tighten it there is I think it actually fits very well with maybe getting Paul Madsen with because what we are going to talk about now is what we click we are not completely done with understanding the users in some of the I will try to get it collected because I have at least some things I would like to get used to but I think it would be nice to get Paul Madsen on and we are ready with him Thomas we do a deep dive and say that equally to whom we contact and refer to us then we are always in opposition and we always look up to the power and try to like to take away the power that is in a society equally who it is so that's why we are controversial media today I think I have to be someone you can completely see what we are doing so otherwise we don't get the users to believe in us and play in the middle of a time with fake news and all kinds of other so what we try to do is explain to the users what we do how we do it so that they will believe that it is so to speak the right angle we have set on things our way of communicating is to be very very direct in the way we say things and we think it's nice to get out and that's why we do everything for the rubrics we make are some who get people up from the chairs to click on what we do and that's why we do extremely much of the rubric is catching some call it clickbait yes yes that opinion the more people you get to read what you do the better it is but of course it has to be right and therefore is a classic extra tradition is to work extremely much with the words we use about things so that many get to read it but at the same time also that it of course is suitable for the article content well we don't care about content we want to be popular but we want to be popular with some content that is right and that comes out broadly to people I am a very very big fan of clickbait I mean clickbait is a word that has been misused to be something very negative but but clickbait means so to speak in its basic essence that you just get out to people it can be abused if it's like that you just do something just for many to read it and fucking happy with it if it's right or wrong we are not on we are not happy with something wrong we go extremely up in that things are right yes so here was something with some some ways and what should you say and work with journalism is to create transparency we have been in actually several times here and then it's something with this with clickbait so this is about if a the science must work so it must be out to someone and it's like that what should I say something we also talk a lot about as characteristics for science and we have in which way it is also something you were in on Anders and you asked this question we have some comments on it I just thought before we got started that it was nice to get him get him on yes Jacob you start I confess to the total to the whole what Paul says just not everything Paul does it's about the way you do it and I'm not I'm not I don't know what's on the city girl tomorrow but terrorist girl from city I didn't do it or what the hell that's how I write extra bad it's completely dependent on what he says also like that Ф�� I don't have a problem with what he says, not what he does. But as it is done, it doesn't happen with me. What do you mean by defining? I think you should explain that. Well, he says what I say now. If you use a cover letter that is covering and correct, and can create readers for your material, then there is no way around it. It is a basic piece of journalistic content that is really important. That is also the case in my opinion. We have a different tradition than the Extrabladet has. And we have a fair number of ladies. In the relation? Yes, us too. Well, that one could consider. Lars? I must confess that I was employed at the Extrabladet for 10 years. I spent two and a half years making the front page on extrabladet.dk. And that is a couple of generations ago, I think it was six years ago. And there has been a lot of progress in relation to how the machinery runs. I saw yesterday that Bolle shared a picture of a cake on Facebook. And now they have received one billion clicks since January 1. So he is good at clickbait. Clickbait is another word for tabloidizing in a sense. Tabloid journalism is not subordinate journalism. It is just a sharp angle in a way where you go directly to the point. If you want to put it that way in a football language. And the Extrabladet and other media in recent years, and certainly DR.dk, have done a lot of work to do that. And you can have all kinds of opinions on that. I think most people can't... There must probably be some of you who have a location that is among the billion on Extrabladet.dk over the last four months. But the problem is that when clickbait has become the hard currency in journalism, then all media can't avoid it. And then all media are somehow infected by it. And you can handle that by just clickbaiting the headline. So you can make a super sharp headline. And that is a whole science in itself. And it is very exciting and very fun to be involved in and to be strong enough to make headlines. But then there is also journalism. And what can I say? You can see... At the moment, there are a few different ways to do it. Where I also sometimes think that some of the more classic news media are... So the two other newspapers too. Clickbait is perhaps also more on the headlines today than it was before. But it is not the same as that journalism, that the article itself is not thorough. And sometimes even very long before you get to the bottom of it. And get it backwards. Lea, would you also like to... The best the internet has done for journalists, is to remind them that there are readers to their stuff. When I was involved in the Berndt's newspaper in a short period, when the newspaper still meant something on paper, the Berndt's newspaper management discovered that those of us who were involved in the newspaper, would rather be involved in politics and could be part of the political community. Roughly speaking. And then a trial was carried out where everyone in the newspaper editorial office was supposed to meet a reader. And then you had to interview the reader and you had to go home and on the internet, and then the report was published. And people had it. I mean, reading was beyond what anyone could imagine. You could not spend your time on that. And in my time in the newspaper industry, which I otherwise have a great generation for in many ways, but I must admit that we never talked about the reader. Never. I'm out of that attempt. Never. And that's a huge mistake. Journalism that is not read by anyone is not journalism. We must start with the question, how can we help our readers today? What are we supposed to do to help him or her? By filling the gap between what he knows and what he wants to know. And if we want someone to read our journalistic, we must also get them to click on our manuscript. So I am a huge supporter of clickbait. It must be a story or a rubric that covers, and covers a fucking good, wild, well researched history. Then there is no reason to shake your pants about clickbait. Anders? I remember when I saw this extra clip, this extra clip behind the facade, or whatever it's called, where Paul Mersn and the others were in the US, and they were on the Huffington Post, which is that close to being able to clickbait something. And I thought it was so beautiful and touching, and I thought it was touching that they were showing themselves so much. I thought it was fucking great, and very extra-clipped of them. But I see them come out with red young girls, and very red, beloved girls, over the things he has heard on the Huffington Post, and say, this, this, we must also know. And now we see how the result looks like. But it's very easy to laugh at, and it was also meant to do so, thank you very much. But it also means that you have understood, now you talk, if you are inspired, you talk about these news criteria, and I say, well, on the internet there are some other news criteria. It's something you should know about people's brains, when something is passing by in the field at the moment. And when I hold courses or something, I usually say, there are some things you should understand, some criteria, it looks a little different, I usually work with a kind of viral loop. I say, the first thing you should do, is to have people to stop. Otherwise there is nothing else that you do, that plays any role. Think it through, nothing. And then there is nothing to say that people, they already start by saying, wow, that's a little bit of a crass one, this one, he is screaming at me. Yes, but I know that if you don't stand up, then everything is equal. The next thing that should happen, is that what you have to format and read, it should be framed in a way, so I know, oh cool, now it might be that I will soon start to light my brain. And that means, that if I can find out who the scourge is, and not myself make a piece of work with it, then there is a greater probability that I say, okay, this is really super cool, or lower than this. Then I click on it, then I have to touch it, I have to feel it in some way, I have to get angry, I have to pump adrenaline, for example, or good feelings, because when we fill our feelings, then it happens that we become more powerful, we become less able to think about it, and down there, there are some links you can click, and a comment field, and then the mill runs. If something is also socially attractive to share, that is, that I can look good, or I feel I have to warn the world against something, or tell it, then it is also only good. But in reality, you just have to understand, that the game is set by the primitive, dirty, cognitive corporate tricks, that are called, I have to have people to stop, otherwise there is nothing else that plays a role. So it is very easy to laugh at Paul Madsen, but there is like a reason, we click, we have, now I should probably stop and let it be embarrassing, right? But otherwise you could make someone who says, who in here has not ever clicked on something like Britney Spears, without cheating on the extra page, right? It's a shame that we all feel a little too good to click there, and they just got a billion clicks this year, right? So something where they also do it right. It's very easy to laugh at, if you are under that domain, and it is you, it is you who choose to click on, I have heard such a diagnosis, they talk about ADHD, I have heard it is called ADOS, it stands for Attention Deficit, uh, shiny, because we simply just, you have to do, if you can do something to catch, it is the task quite simple, out in the field, where the slate is, it is very easy to laugh at, but that's the way it is, and it is not Paul Madsen who invented it, it is those who made your brains. Yes. Now we may have many questions. I will perhaps just go further here, it is also about the reader of the Ylansk Post, this can I say, our most read article the last year, it was called From Rain to Anaconda, and it was, it was not a scientific article. No. So, it exists in the best circles. Yes, yes, even in the best circles. Yes. We actually came from a little, because I said that there was perhaps, we may have lacked a little, and a little discussion about who the readers are, because the way we have talked about it now, it is a bit like someone out there, someone who opposes journalism, but as it is to a large extent, you may have been more implicitly involved, it is that the readers and readers today, it is also someone, who sometimes, operate a kind of journalism, they perform as amateur experts, on different things, they are someone who goes into an interaction, so they are much more, they are interacting in a different way, in journalism than they have been before. How do you relate to that? That the readers take that active role, do you think, puha, how do we sort it out, or is it a positive active for journalism? It is totally positive, it is completely positive, we just have to use it correctly, at Z-Land we do not encourage people to comment, but to contribute, in the recognition that we know that, Sara who writes about school for us, she knows a lot about school, but she can by definition not know as many as our 7000 members, so therefore we use technology to, to absorb their knowledge, their perspectives, their experiences, and in this way, make journalism better, and tell what we are doing, and say, are there anyone who has a source within this area, are there anyone who thinks something about this, and who has a qualified input here, and the extraordinary thing is, that our contribution track has become just as valuable, I think, as the very journalism, so people also write down that, and we have moderated it, zero times, and that is when you take people seriously, when you talk to the kings of people, they also become kings, because the country is full of kings, who know everything, there is an expert sitting down there, in everything different, I would also like, we should not hear from, about, what is it called, because, you are clearly smarter in a collective, you nod like that, for me it is a statement, that we have not reached there yet, but that co-creation element, which is an example, it is a forward-looking way, and it is also a forward-looking way, to create a perception of ourselves, as a media, that does not only speak from that, the diversity, as Lars mentioned earlier, but actually is in communication, with those who use us, and that communication, is that we actually see, what people are interested in, on the digital media, is a innovation, as you said earlier, it is not forbidden, to be interested in, but to do something that is relevant, as people like to read, and that, the internet has, made us extremely big services, so it is a part of the hope, it is a part of the hope, to keep us relevant, it is that we actually, can follow what people are interested in, so there is data, you can look at, and then beyond that interaction, Lars, you also have a question, and it is completely true, that it is one of the hopes, and I completely agree with, but if one uses it, in that way, then one should just be aware, that then one neglects, one's meaning, one's reader, one's own audience, in many ways, and when I say this, it is because, because the responsible press, which has a lot of focus on, immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, all of them, also come from, from these various groups, also have permissions, in the press in Denmark, and have had it for 12 years, one of the things they insist on, is that what is the result of the groupings that the media often experience, describe them, talk about them and use them as sources, only when there are problems with immigration, when there is racism, etc., and imam, is that there is a very large distance between the media and the media's authority, precisely in the circle. So I just say, you have to be aware that if you want to save the whole reality, you don't need to take any advantage of your own authority. It's a stupid expression, it's not to talk about it, but you have to try to look out. And there are some blind spots in Danish society that are not only about the group I just talked about, but which also might be about, now you mentioned Jakob Fører and Sønderjylland, there can be other parts that have difficulty getting to the words in the media, and that have difficulty being heard in the media. May I just make a short comment? Because one of the fun things is, now you say authority, one of the things I hear most from Sættelands Bredelever when I ask them, is the desire to hear from others than someone who looks like me. So at least among our readers, it's the question that asks, show me other realities than my own, especially in this time. So I'm clear about the fact that you have to be your own blind spot, and recognized, but I actually don't experience it like that. And on the other hand, I think there is, especially in this time, a desire to actually be able to walk into the shoes of the journalist, in realities that don't look like a sign. Well, that's the story about the Kundeby-fans, and there are good examples for it. Now you come out to Kundeby, and now you actually describe the reality out there in a small society. I think you could discuss whether you should have done it before, it's not to be known, but I think there are some examples for it. Now the journalist also takes out in a reality that many of us don't even know about. No, come on, is that flying around in the helicopter, or standing and freezing in front of a certain sports hall? Then I read it. Then I read it. But it's not the stories that are out there these days, because it's something else than a helicopter. Okay. It is. The Berlingske Aften foreshadows articles about these things. And you're talking about running out and being there, that was mostly after it happened. Yes, but the dilemma is that it would have been fine if you had previously described the reality that made the Kundeby-fans what the Kundeby-fans have become. It would have been fine if you had made the Brønderslev family, can you say, described the reality before the Brønderslev family, something like that. But it's not that I'm a journalist. And one simply manages to give an excellent 보�給 to assist its readers. and might as well speak to this all in this morning, because that would be great at things of my local Italy. This is a whole lot more than little people are cl consci, rather people. Jerusalem in the old city. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I was not asking this. I thought we had an answer to that. You can't talk about it without it being there. I must say that I think you have done a very good job. I must say that. So if there was to be a single question out there, and you didn't eliminate it all, then of course it would be great. I think that Thomas, that we do it in the way that we take some pieces of the question and then you can comment on it. Otherwise I'm nervous that we won't be able to collect them all together. Yes. I think that a part of it has come in on this slide, so I think we should start there. People have just had the opportunity to vote on what they think are the good questions. And something that apparently people put a lot on the stage is fake news. And that is of course also something that we have announced the debate under. Now I'm not going to stand here and complain. I'm going to have some of you on the stage, including Anders, of course, to make fake news. But is there something that... Is there something that needs to be taken seriously? I mean, it's not a huge problem in Denmark yet, but... It is a huge problem. It's not a huge problem in Denmark yet, but we have new media like Newspeak and 24Nytt and that kind of thing that is emerging and... I don't necessarily mean to complain about the opposition to the truth, but in any case... I would be happy if you could say that the parties have declared themselves supporters for their own version of reality. How do they respond to it? And the question relates very well to the way the media have created D.F. The way the media have created a new civil society. Why do they do that? No, I don't get it. But... But yes... They are the same... in 24 Newspeak and other media, Breitbart for example, who live off of polarizing a society, polarizing the readers we sit with, in relation to, what shall I say, power holders, people, media, which is the premise here. You can't deny that there are people who have a desire for a polarized society. It could also be that they just go and split the polarized society. I mean, I'm not necessarily talking about all the pages you mention, but what describes a polarized society is not to be part of creating it. I can, in a way, use the point from before, to take a Martin Henriksen on the front, now you can discuss about every single time he opens his mouth and he's on the front, but that's something else. But what's not the same as giving him a win, is to hold the critical microphone up. But I don't think you can say just because it's being discussed, it's also about making things bigger. I actually think that in journalism, and the media has a role, that they're also describing things to the readers. And the challenge is to discover to the citizens, that this is actually being described and used. That's also something we've used time for. I think it's important to keep the tone in your mouth here, when you're talking about fake news. Fake news is, for me, a family father who sits at home in Los Angeles and produces false stories, consciously. He knows they're false. With profit for the eyes. And with the help of Facebook to destroy the news and with the help of Google to make money from it via their advertising network. Yes, profit or politics. Or a political goal. No, actually, there are these factories. Newspapers that just produce false news to make false news. I think that's actually... We use the expression fake news very broadly. In reality, I think we'd help ourselves if we only talked... If we only used it for that. And then we'd quickly find out it's a problem, but not a major problem. The others... I think we should call it fake news. If you read Breitbart, if you read Newspeak, if you read those... Yes, they have a angle of reality that doesn't match my reality picture. But it's not fake. It's not more fake than anything else. They just over-angle, if you like, the alarming consequence of a war that has taken place in the third world. It's their daily life. And I think we're doing a huge service in our original importance if we start calling it fake news. Because then they'll be confirmed that we don't want to hear about them. Lexi? I'm getting a nickname from Trump. I'm glad for that. Lexi, you who haven't tried it, try to go to Breitbart.com and read what's written. You'll be surprised. It's not a joke, but it's very important and a bizarre quote from when we started. It's not. We've got this. I'm not afraid of that. I'm just afraid of the fact that you're going down that road when you say there's something good, there's something bad, and then the ring ends here. That's exactly what I'm afraid of. Selected news that is served in a manipulative way. Completely like if you went to Moscow and saw the news coverage of what's happening in Syria or what's happening in Ukraine. We would never know. We would never know. But what they're saying is probably right. With their perspective. So that's exactly what I think is so damn dangerous when you go down a road that's called what's good and what's bad. Breitbart, as I read, is a terrible media because it's deeply manipulative with facts. So it's not fake news. No, it's that. It's not fake news, if you agree with that. But it's a disguise. Yes. Yes. The second thing that's insanely dangerous with fake news is that we start using it like this. We throw it at each other. And on the Jyllandsbosch, we've had an example of it, where we've covered the decision process around the placement of the political school in Herning. And I don't know if there's anyone who's filled it. We've covered it tightly. There are some from Herning. And we haven't written... And I'm in a hurry about this. I didn't write one wrong word. But the Prime Minister felt called to call it fake news, and the former Justice Minister Søren Pind also spread that view on the internet. And that's dangerous for us. Something that is notoriously... I mean, it's not that I've shown it in some places, or in some way, that we should have said something wrong. But it's clear that the bottom line in that case is that Herning doesn't get his political school. So they're angry and angry and report the subscriptions. We haven't written anything that is wrong, but fake news is almost the worst. It's almost the worst one can call it. And so in that way, now you said it's not so widespread at home. No. Or it's not so dangerous, I think you said, yet. Yes, it's fucking dangerous. If this is spreading, that powerhouses in this country can fire that cannon at, when they meet history, it doesn't matter. Then it's fucking hell of a danger. It's really not. Can I just... Yes, but one thing, because now you've gone back to that a couple of times. Just to clear up that misunderstanding, I'm not out to, that we as Settler's should judge politically someone, and say, this is the right attitude, this is the other. What I'm out to, is that we should tell what's right and wrong in the meaning of the recognition. And then you said, and what's good and what's wrong. Yes, yes, but I would like to ask you to tell me I'm not a supporter of the Caliphate's introduction to Denmark, and that my journalist is driven out of other principles than that. And that makes me, by definition, not an objective journalist. So therefore I'm more attached to the journalist who has integrity than the one who is objective. But it might be more interesting if in reality you can stop with saying, why don't we put that strange term, which is really so hard to get rid of, put it a little in the grave, and have it up with you and use it so much. Try to put it. What kind of? Fake news. Oh, yes, fake news. I thought, well, if you had more excitement, then I think some of you would also like to hear it. Yes, yes, yes. I think it's just me who has discovered that at some point something interesting happened, because fake news from something that was long ago used against, Trump, and after this CNN story, I suddenly discovered, and that was the first time I could remember, then he started using the word fake news against these media, but actually before that it was a term that was owned by the opposition, in some way. So it was very funny that suddenly it became something, where they said, God, yes, say the politicians, for hell, we can do that too. Even if we're full of lies, we can say fake news about others, and all the well-educated, they will say, yes, we have to take it seriously, because he says, despite everything, fake news here, it's not like anything else that he says, but we have to hear what others say, us. Exactly. Yes, more questions. We're making a collection sheet with some questions. I have one more here from Slido, which is, how do you make deep-seating, insight-giving journalism just as accessible in all the meanings of this word, like clickbait and fast news? You can just note that. And then we have a question from here. Yes, and that's because my question was too long for Slido, so I had to stand up like this. Okay, we'll take a deep breath. I think it's thought-provoking that you have used most of your time to deal with yourself as a sender of news and not on those who receive the news. Anders was a little into it at the start, where is the disease? Because it's not very important to get involved in this diverse group of readers who are aware or probably often unconsciously misinterpret considerations and and the news they receive and continue to avoid. Because there is a certain value chain where a news starts and then it is burned further and it is burned further. So you shouldn't be interested in the psychological access to I read Daniel Kahneman's I think, it's fantastic and I have really become I don't think anymore I keep thinking intuitively. I understand the question. Do you mean that the users destroy reality? No, when I listen to you, I listen to you. I think you talk a lot about yourself as a news reporter. You talk a lot about us as news receivers. I think as you perceive us as one big group and then you sit and think how can you do this in order to take the point of reference in the customer. I mean, I have to go back and say it's actually exactly what we're trying to do in Sittland. And every day we're standing up and asking the question what is it? Where is it? We're helping our readers best. And not at the point of reference what I want to tell. I mean, that's the long-term test for my journalists. Is it something you could just think of yourself and put out in the game? Or can you explain to me why in the world no one should spend their time and money on this? That's the question to them. Okay. We'll take two more questions. No, I think I can't answer. I'm actually sick of the speculation. You get two questions. to answer in a minute. Sorry. I'll take one more. Yes. Hi. My name is Simon. Hi, Simon. Hi, Hans. Now you started by becoming enormously popular by calling us all for the disease. But in that regard I have a question. One of the things I've noticed in the established media is that they refer to each other. A Jewish public school teacher beats the kids in the 10th grade and writes about politics and then continues to write according to the policy a Jewish public school teacher allegedly has beaten at least four children. My question is does the same criticism or research or source criticism occur when you bring forward news in an attempt to avoid the machine to bring out fake news? You promised to tell about how many articles each journalist had the responsibility to write on the Extra magazine you said that Paul Massen would tell how many we write and then you would tell how many journalists they have hired. It's at least somewhere in the... Oh, that was... I didn't see that coming. I just wanted to hear I'm a little curious because I imagine that when you sit as an English journalist you ask if they really go in and research the history of politics. I don't know how the bullet is made but I think that's... You have to. You have to. We discovered in the newspaper a rule to get good press in 12-13 I think it was. And one of the things we discovered one day was that in reality it's actually based on the existing rules and that's what you can get to know as a media if you get accused of press if you continue history without checking if they hold or don't hold. Can we get an answer from the real world? In practice it's... No, no, but I'm just saying we're right. We're announcing all of this at Rithaus and we're pushing them. We're not double-checking that. We're not. When we continue Telegram about now I'm taking 45 again we're not double-checking that. We're not. We should do that when there are big exclusive things from other newspapers and we do that as far as we go with them. But I'm not going to deny that you can find in the note block unprocessed material i.e. quoted material. But it is related to just to tell about the food chain that also were listening to. The food chain is typically night but also during the day when have news as media can send it to Rithaus and stand as media inside it. And that means to me that Rithaus sends out it is still in the post that it is sent out. We have answered it. Often quoted in note blocks but it is not the same as the work time. As I understood the question it is the work time. Do we check everything through the door or print something out of it? And we print something out of it. So we a problem. Exactly. I think we move on with answers and then we have three questions would just say that the top good question we tried to be in on it in the near where we can use the digital opportunities to find out what interests people. I was also a little bit in on it when I said something about the weather and TV2 News. But I actually have something in it. It is our most important task right now. It is simply to pick our readers from each other and ask what do want to We have two very different reader groups. We have some on print and some on the newspaper. It is one of our big challenges because we don't have double coverage. So we have to find material that fits both groups. There is example a 15 year age difference between the readers on the newspaper and the digital media. It does a lot about what they interested in. We can 't do that. We don't have 7000 people. No, exactly. We don't have 7000. But I know the police that share the house with have done it. It is very educational to sit in the room with those who use the newspaper. Why do it? The point is completely right. If we continue to be up on that mountain where I want to recognize we are, we will die. We must come down from the mountain and be in a closer dialogue with those who should use us. We have a question in here. Yes, I am one of these politicians. I am a candidate for alternative in Skanderborg. My question is how do I get through the established mind without pulling my views ten steps up the stairs and make it exciting and exciting because as I see it when I share happy news it is really difficult to get it spread. Try to give me an example. It would be difficult for me to answer. I hope we don't feel like a concrete wall. We should feel like like a Now there Farid Vargan ıll prefer rather score something I the press. Are you sure you really want to get into politics? No, yes, but it's not because I can do it, but I'm just sitting here thinking ethically, do I want the quick clicks or do I want the real clicks where there are people who are interested in my opinion? Then you can take Paul Madsen's ethics, which says, use the dirty tricks you need to do, because when you first get in and have had the time to talk, you can try to get some of your political knowledge through. I don't know if I can say anything better. I think, like those communicating apes we are, I think it's like this, unless you're very lucky or something, then you have to do something that will get all of those, one or the other, to throw it on the road or one or the other to start telling you about something exciting, crazy or something, so that you actually get through. There are a lot of city council candidates right now, right? Yes, I have a good advice. Write to us. All summer we don't write about anything else. We write about the fact that you're a person who wins and moves the world and things that work out. So you're welcome to come in. So you're going to do that too, right? Yes, I'm going to do that. Beyond that, be happy that the information monopoly has been used. Make your own media. You are your own media. But then it might be about learning a little bit of the trick that everyone needs to learn. You simply have to learn to say, when you want to make a good, honest statement, then it can be that you have to remember that you have to have people to stand up for you. You have to have them to understand that they have to light the candle. And when you come in, it doesn't help to expect that they will say the important thing that will hit their feelings and their political nerves somewhere else. It has to be there. It has to hit them. But it has to be accessible. Then it can well, without becoming some kind of media cloud, guaranteed to get better in a whole lot of areas. If you know that when things hit us out there, then it should be possible to do that. It should be possible to be read by someone who is not clicking on something that might be interesting, and actually not deciding whether they want to think about your statement now, for example, on social media. So you can just start by learning the craft and lifting it up so that you fight a little more equal conditions with those who are already paying attention. Is it very old-fashioned now to say that maybe you should just stand up for your own message and tell why you want to get into politics? I mean, I'm so overwhelmed by the fact that you have to think about the political situation and the political conflicts. There's a part of me, that we just have to have a kind of Yokohama Esports Freshman from. Everybody says, you know, if you want to do something, then just get to the surface. Go out and try something. a slide in relation to the border between journalism and the commercial. I mean, this with the fact that you... And it's not any of the classic media, I must say. Local media, right? It sounds the same. You can also take something like... Can you not say who it is? It's a little practical. They want to keep things going. Or are we not listening? No, I would say they don't want to keep it going. No, no. I'm saying it's not any of the classic media. But let's take something like... It's a slightly different genre, isn't it? But Ritshav, where you start to be able to pay for getting your news put in. And we hear you say it's a little more convenient on Ritshav, when the news comes from Ritshav, versus something that just comes in your mailbox. There are also other news... I just have to stop there. There is a fucking difference between Ritshav sending a press release. We don't print that. We don't do that. No, we print Ritshav's news. Which you have done through a journalistic process. Okay. What you're talking about is that you go to Ritshav, pay Ritshav for it, and then channelize your press releases. I just want to say that there were two topics I'm going to talk about here. One of them is these people who call up from some amateur media and say, well, now we could well think of making some money, and we can both give you an unbiased article, and at the same time you can get some publicity. That's something else. Yes, and that says it's actually two topics that have just come up here in the same question. Excuse me. And it's a short comment. Should I say something? Yes, thank you. The last thing, that's something that I think we also do at the Jyllandskosten, or I think I know that we actually do. We call people up and say we're starting to make a post about havers. And we could well think of hearing something about havers from you. And then you can also announce it in our newspaper. That's how the introduction should be. Sometimes the introduction is so wrong. So it's first at the bottom of the conversation. Then it goes up to someone, and you're actually on your way into a sales conversation. And that's deeply misleading. If it starts up there, then it's an extended form of an announcement post. And on the front of the newspaper, there's an announcement post. I don't know if you remember if there's an announcement post or if there's a theme post or something like that. But there's an announcement. I think there's an announcement post. Which has another chief of staff than me. Namely our advertising director. It exists. It's just something to say. It's called content marketing. And it's a widespread phenomenon. If you ask me what I think about it, then it's not my heartland, that type of journalism. But it's a way to finance the research in journalism. And for me to see, is it a qualified way to make an advertisement book. Which is capable of making a, I don't know, mycosine. Something like that, that you can read in a newspaper. Then it says on page three that Ben Burr has had fantastic success with a pill. That's it. So I think this is a journalistic product. But it's not in a qualified play that's in the newspaper. And it's our advertising director who is the chief of staff. So in that way I know it well. I don't know that you call me up and say, I could think of something for this in the newspaper. And then I say, take it and we can figure it out. That won't happen. And if it does, then I'd love to hear from you. Larsen, last one. Now we're also talking about credibility in reality. And what's interesting in that context is that it may well be out on the J.P. That there's a special department and also some special journalists who do it. It's someone who works there. It's not like that everywhere. That's just something to say. There are also well-established media in Denmark. There are sometimes those who make these theme articles. Or articles, as they're called. Which are paid by others than the individual media house. It's a challenge for the credibility that an English journalist has. Because one day you have to call a tobacco manufacturer and make a shelf article. And the next day, or a week later, you have to call a tobacco manufacturer and say, Why do you use poison substances in relation to colouring? Or I don't know how you make tobacco. But it's one of those styles. You can't be a commercially established journalist one day. And the next day you have to be a critical journalist. At least not for the same employer. And there we also have some discussions with employers in relation to that. You have to be very, very clear about the notes of these things. Not just on the front page, but also in the articles. Because we all know that when you read a newspaper, it's not certain that you read it from page 1 and end up on page 48. You can hardly open it between the sections. You have to be able to see what's in the pages. And of course there's also a discussion in relation to the individual journalist and the individual editorial credibility. And that's just to say that the dilemma we're in, from the front page, is that it's a really good idea for the media houses to experiment with making money. But when you do it by using the media's credibility, then you have to share it with the people with open eyes. It sounds like they have it out on the edge of the mountain, but I wish that it would spread to the rest of the world. And that's the way the Danish media is. Yes. But we have that out on the edge of the mountain. Yes. And in the northwest. And in the northwest. It's good to hear, because that's exactly what we wanted with this. We wanted to identify some of the challenges, but also show how different journalism is worked out, and keep some of these standards high, such as credibility, authority, trust, and try to work with it. And we've been really far around. We've discussed a lot about what's true and what's false. We've been able to define fake news, or at least come a little closer to it, and at least been very aware that when we say something, we have to be very clear about what we're actually talking about, and try to define our concepts. We've been very much into the principles of journalism. What are some of the principles that should really dominate, when we do journalism? What are the criteria for news that we should have, that you and those of us have? We should be transparent about what we do. And that's also why we have these debates that are actually important. And we can perhaps do the same as Settland, by going out and being much more active. If I could make a clickbait on what I really think I got out of it, and I would ask you about the same thing as the conclusion in a second, then it could just be that the hope was, perhaps, to understand your readers, and to understand what is relevant to the readers. I don't know if any of you have a clickbait for what you got out of the debate. Jakob, you have one. No, I wouldn't say that. I'd rather go out with hope. That would be great. I'd just like to say that we're a bit of a grudge-cone when we're up here. And the truth is that never have so many people used so much time to get into how society is structured. Even if they don't use it the way I do, or the way the extra-bad guys do, or the way Settland does, or whatever, the shopping of information has never been bigger. There have never been so many people who read, or see, or listen. So it's not that bad in the kingdom of heaven. You can just pay a little for it. That would be great. Other, completely concluding comments? I'd like to bring it up, but I don't think we've ever had better journalism than we have now. The fact that it's all better now than it was in the old days, I don't have any special evidence for that. Yes, I just wanted to... That was just something useful. Lea and Lars... I'd just like to give you a gift. It's a pleasure to share the panel with smart people. Thank you. You're welcome. And Lars, now you're almost forced to say something. But I'd like to say the same as Lea. Well, then just do it. I'd also like to say thank you to our audience, who have been patient, who have sat and listened and asked questions. Thank you to all those who have been online. Thank you to Visualink for hosting. It's been a pleasure. Thank you very much. Shall we give the audience a hand here? Thank you for coming out.