“When the Norwegian people has voted NO to join the EU two times, it is not that much about oil wealth or selfishness,” you say.

Let us just agree to disagree on that count (and, I am sure, on several others).

I am sorry for the late reply. I was extremely busy at the time of your comment, and forgot all about it later on.

Make no mistake about it: Actually I salute your financially sound approach to revenues, and indeed your ability to tailor news fitting web-based platforms, and can’t say I blame you for exploring new avenues, in lieu of the exhausted www. There’s very little doubt, also, that Scandinavian (in all humbleness; Norwegian) online dailies have found themselves at the very vanguard, technologically – which, of course, isn’t necessarily to say that it’s been adding to the journalism’s quality, in its own right.

Arguably, we all perceive these things differently. Where some appreciate the informative quietness of content-focused news, preferably in sober black and white, others pay more attention to the presentation, which is where the Norwegian newspapers actually have potential to excel, but in my opinion fail to do so. Again, it’s a matter of taste. I am sure you have seen dilettantes going completely off their hinges, exploiting every possible animation and 3D effect available to them in Powerpoint (for which I stand corrected, re above home-made chart). By comparison, some newspapers seem to demonstrate just that kind of enthusiasm towards the available CSS/Flash/Video opportunities, combined with a maximisation of the improved screen resolutions, offering an opportunity to crowd the screens with monstrous imagery and a cacophony of ads resembling the Piccadilly Circus at night. That said, I must congratulate you on your last makeover, after over a decade with a layout optimised for olden days’ 640×480 resolutions (a slight exaggeration, I know, but please indulge me). Huge improvement, even though I understand you’re at it again.

Please forgive my scepticism. In some ways we live in different worlds; You catering to the commercial, and, I dare say, technological side of things, I to the self-righteous, sometimes all-too-haughty old-school journalism (in spite of 15 very active years online). But even a journalist needs to realise that his livelihood depends on revenues. Embarking on the so-called “new” media, practising journalism for income’s sake, rather than providing income for journalism’s sake however, is nothing short of appalling. In all honesty, I think it right to assert that the media debate these days revolves around one matter: revenues. It’s sad, in my view, that journalism itself has taken the back seat completely. But hey, that’s me.

Oh, before I have to dash: As you may already have surmised, I take delight in Dagsavisen’s general interface. As a source of news, on the other hand, they suck big time, of course. Just to think what they could have been, if the content corresponded with the presentation.

Even though the “norwegian model” when it comes to design isn’t to everyone’s taste, there are a couple of things NYT and others could have learned from Scandinavia if you go back a few years.

Having a good product is most important: Early on we started producing content tailored for the web; most newspapers abroad simply recycled content from the printed edition. That just doesn’t make a great web experience.

When it comes to monetizing an online newspaper, the simplistic ad models we created in the early 2000′s was crucial. Strangely, outside of Norway of Sweden no one seemed to think likt this:

1) We made ads big enough so that material from the printed edition could be reused online. Remember, this was in a time when advertising agencies had no web experience.
2) We focused on making technologies for taking care of ordering, etc., for advertisers that didn’t have systems like these themselves. That was true for most of them; some of them didn’t even have web sites.

And most importantly:

3) We made ad buying easy and easy to understand. Instead of adapting the “rational” ad models trumpeted by Google et al, we did it the old fashioned printed way: You buy this space in this section for 24 hours for this amount of money. For people used to buying print this was easy to understand, buying page views they may or may not see was not.

Models have become more complicated today, as has the ad formats. But that was the simple start. Everyone standardized formats too soon, they used ad networks instead of training in house sales staff, and they foolishly believed that the page view or CPC was the way to go. (Strange as it may seem, this simple way is still popular today)

In my opinion these errors keep holding many newspapers back online today too.

It is often about:

- The centralization of power. Decicions should be made close to the people they affect. Norway is a small nation and would have less than 1% influence on EU policies.

The EU now has a common
– foreign policy
– farming policy
– economic policy
– fishing policy
– aid policy
– and some more

- In the WTO the EU has a common policy, often pressuring developing countries into bad deals. If Norway has an independent voice in WTO it will be possible to choose to have a different policy.

- Certainly Norway does have economic reasons to not join the EU. Not out of selfishness, rather out of a wish to not participate in an economic project that isn’t going to work.

- It is a democratic problem that after the Treaty of Lisbon the EU constitution has attached market liberalism as a particular policy direction.
“Free Trade” and the “four freedoms” (free movement of capital, goods, labor and services) takes precedence over political decisions. This limits the political room for maneuver, making it difficult for elected politicians to change the political course when nessecary.

The EU Court judges often member states to amend laws that violate the EU’s free trade rules. Health, environment and labor rights must often give way.

- The EU policy of “free trade” causes more pollution because products are transported more between the nations. And if a nation has a law to protect the environment that goes against the “free-flow” principle, the EU will force the nation to remove that law. For example a member nation can not say that all new cars should only have 120 gr CO2 emittions pr kilometer. A member nation can not have stricter rules than the rest of the EU.

-Also the farming and fishing policies of the EU aren’t always ethical or environmental einough. For example, big areas are used to farm one kind of vegetable, creating a monoculture that is bad for the sustainability. Or when the EU fishing fleet is fishing in occupied West Sahara. Isn’t exploiting occupied land like that breaking the Geneve-convention?

- Most significant environmental agreements are global, and are made in the UN. Example of this is the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases, or the negotiations in Denmark last year. When this type of agreements being negotiated, the EU speaks with one voice. (last year didn’t this result in the EU not being able to decide in time for the conference? lol)

- What I’m saying is that EU countries like Sweden can not say what they want but must follow the EU’s common line.
Often Swedish negotiators come to the Norwegian ones, and ask them to suggest the ideas that Sweden has not managed to get approval for in the EU.
That also makes it even more important for Norway to continue to have an independent voice.

- Norway is the distributor of more foreign aid per capita than any other country. If Norway joins the EU, this will probably be ruined, since the EU has a common foreign aid policy.

On its own, Norway will have the freedom and possibility to choose its own policies, the possibility to make better choices than the politicians in the EU.

And there is a lot more to say too…

The only drawback, as far as I can tell, is the extra load time. Other than that, seems like “members” give a website a little more authority. Also, I believe GFC is in beta, which tells me Google plans to improve it further.

That is a little wooly if you don’t mind me saying. Please provide a little more information as to David Irving’s Holocaust/Hitler arguments and possibly a link to the “extensive refutation” – a list of the credentials of the person behind the refutation would also be useful. Don’t forget that those wishing to destroy David Irving’s credibility are not doing so out of the interest of historical truth or any such noble cause, they all have their particular axes to grind and usually have a self interest in History being portrayed in a particular (acceptable) way.

Personally I don’t believe that David Irving says anything that could be considered controversial in print. For instance, the “outlandish” figures he provides for the Dresden death toll are found in wartime documentation available for anyone to read – both on the German side and in documents of the Allies. The “official” figures given a few years ago by the German Government ignore vast amounts of conflicting information and the result was clearly a foregone conclusion, more political than historical – as much of the WWII history taught in schools obviously is. His works are created only from primary sources, not regurgitating the same material found in other history books as is the style of many other historical writers that I could mention.

That was until I did a more thorough check on the so-called facts he presented, and read an extremely extensive refutation of every single Holocaust/Hitler-related argument I heard from him. That was when I realised that Irving really is skilled in what he is doing, which in my eyes is giving those wishing to “stone-clean” Hitler a “valid” and clean face.

Although Mr. Irving certainly has done considerable studies and findings that he deserves credits for, he violates some important principles in the process of interpreting them. He does not use his considerable talent to realise his potential as a truly great historian, simply because he – far from being neutral and objective – allows personal opinions to hamper his work.

That is my opinion anyway. Feel free to revile my idiotic ignorance if the need arises:)

That’s strange… I’ve made a habit of crediting photographs at the bottom of every post – usually pertaining to creative commons sources. This time however, I’m at a loss. A simple ‘+”Franklin D. Roosevel” +cigarette”‘ search on Google yielded several versions of same picture, none, however, remotely resembling the dimensions used here.

I wish I could be of more help, but do in truth not remember (it’s been a year and a half since the post was published).

Good luck to you, though!

Sincerely,
Hans Bulthuis
2316 DG Leiden
Netherlands

Please understand that this blog post merely expresses a flicker of doubt. After all, you have to admit that Mr. Saakashvili’s behaviour in the above video clip, now sadly removed (one can but wonder why, but I hope you had a chance to see it), appears a little strange, to say the least.

I think it’s fair to say that I was just as appalled as everyone else during those dreadful August 2008 months, which becomes evident if you read my iNorden articles from back then (I apologise for the site’s obvious lack of design and images — the original look was something like this, with a Georgia related story on top, no less):

• A dangerous neighbourhood, 10 August 2008
• Hello, Cold war 2, 11 August 2008
• Should we prepare for a Soviet reunion?, 16 August 2008
• You.have.to.get.rid.of.that.man!, 14 December 2007

In other words: I sympathise completely, but that seemingly elaborately edited and prepared video appearance had me wondering. Things aren’t entirely black or 100 percent white, you know — as I’m sure you, being a Russian and all, agree.

Og joda, vi klarer oss helt fint. Så fint at jeg nesten blir flau og kvalm ved tanken på at hensynet til oss selv veier tyngre enn noe. Kanskje derfor bør vi heller ikke innrømmes tilgang til fellesskapet? Jeg tror ikke de er tjent med å få slike egoister i sin midte.