Statement no. 22446 from the Media Ethics Board exp. no. 16/2023 pertains to the article published by Dagens Nyheter on September 1, 2022, with the headline “That’s why the newspaper Arbetaren is storming again”. The article discussed the internal conflict that arose when Kajsa Ekis Ekman was appointed as editor-in-chief of the newspaper. It highlighted the protests and criticisms against her appointment due to her lack of managerial experience, foreign policies, and her stance on trans identity. The article also alleged that Ekman was a front figure in the new transphobic movement and had made statements that could be seen as relativizing Russia Today. Ekman reported the article to the Board, stating that the allegations against her were untrue and that she was not given the opportunity to respond to them.
The Board found that the article had significant public interest and its contents were unproblematic. However, the statement regarding Ekman’s alleged involvement in the transphobic movement was problematic as it portrayed her as a person with a phobia rather than a political attitude. The Board also noted that Ekman is an experienced debater and therefore must accept criticisms of her views without being given the opportunity to respond. Nonetheless, the Board found that the newspaper did not offer Ekman enough opportunity to present her perspective on the allegations. The Board suggested that DN could have published Ekman’s reply to the critical claims against her.
Statement by the Media Ethics Board no. 22446, exp. no. 16/2023
On September 1, 2022, Dagens Nyheter published an article with the headline “That’s why the newspaper Arbetaren is storming again”. From the preamble, it was clear that the appointment of Kajsa Ekis Ekman as editor-in-chief attracted sharp internal criticism.
Initially, the text dealt with the hundred-year history of the syndicalist newspaper. The ongoing conflict was then described.
In January 2020, the newspaper’s then editor-in-chief resigned and another person stepped in as acting editor-in-chief. When she was on sick leave, a replacement was needed and talks began in the spring of 2022. In May, the board and Thomas Karlsson, CEO of the SAC-owned company (SAC stands for Sweden’s Workers’ Central Organization) that publishes Arbetaren, presented a couple of proposals for substitutes. One of the proposals was the writer and debater Kajsa Ekis Ekman. The editors reacted strongly, according to one employee, who was quoted:
“We immediately reacted to the fact that it was a person who lacked the managerial experience needed, but also that it would be a bad image and direction for the newspaper. It was partly about her stance on foreign policy and her relativizing of Russia Today. Partly about her role as a figurehead in the new transphobic movement.”
In this situation, Karlsson chose on his own initiative – and against the will of the editors and the board – to give the substitute position to Kajsa Ekis Ekman.
The protests were not long in coming. Two people resigned and three were warned of dismissal after they criticized the appointment. Shortly thereafter, all board members of the SAC-owned company chose to leave their positions. The next step was that SAC’s central committee separated CEO Thomas Karlsson from his job. In addition, it decided to terminate Ekis Ekman’s contract and to start an external investigation.
Kajsa Ekis Ekman, for her part, argued that her employment could not be terminated, with reference to the Employment Protection Act. In an email to Dagens Nyheter, she had written:
“I have not received any notice of dismissal from anyone. I have read it in the newspapers, but no one from Arbetaren Tidnings AB has communicated to me.”
Notification
The publication was reported by Kajsa Ekis Ekman. She took issue with the wording “front figure in the new transphobic movement”, as it did not fit. She was not part of any transphobic movement. She was a writer and feminist and had worked as a journalist for 20 years.
The newspaper had not asked any follow-up or control questions and she had not been allowed to comment on the claim.
The article also stated that she would have made “foreign policy positions” and “relativizing Russia Today”. This was alleged without context and without comment from her, making her appear as an unpleasant and suspicious person. It was not specified what the positions would be, which made it difficult for readers to form an opinion.
Dagens Nyheter responded through editor-in-chief Anna Åberg. Kajsa Ekis Ekman was a prominent debater with a solid journalistic background. Her book “Om könets existens”, as well as a debate article a few years ago (“Könet i kopenn”) had been questioned both in content and position. Trans people, but also RFSL, had turned against Kajsa Ekis Ekman’s rejection of the concept of gender identity. In the debate, it had been suggested that Kajsa Ekis Ekman diluted or contributed to transphobia.
Kajsa Ekis Ekman herself had actively participated in the subsequent debate. She had asserted her position with the full knowledge that others viewed her positioning as transphobic. She was quoted from a DN interview from April 2021:
“There are separate parts to this. It is about care, about young people, about gender roles, about women’s sports, about school, about the word woman. You don’t have to think the same on all issues, but I hope that the time when you can dismiss all discussions with an ‘oh, transphobia!’ is over.”
Another area where the whistleblower was criticized concerned the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today. There, too, her statements and judgments had triggered strong objections.
The criticism when she was appointed acting acting editor-in-chief was precisely about these positions regarding gender and against gender identity. DN understood that it was this criticism and debate that the employee who spoke out, himself a transgender person, was referring to in the reported article.
Before publication, Kajsa Ekis Ekman was contacted by DN. She did not want to be interviewed during the call. Instead, she asked the newspaper to email her questions.
DN therefore sent her an email with a number of questions, including how she viewed her work situation in light of the criticism that the editors had leveled against her and the content of which she knew. The newspaper asked her to call, but the complainant did not return the phone. Instead, she sent brief answers to some of the questions. The answers were reproduced in the notified article.
In other words, Kajsa Ekis Ekman had the opportunity to present her image. DN had also, without success, sought her for comments in connection with both later and earlier publications on the same subject. The newspaper assured that it would have generously considered wishes on her part to speak afterwards.
Kajsa Ekis Ekman had long been aware of the terms of the debate and the objections directed at her for her book and debate contributions. Against that background, it seemed a little strained to, after almost two months, be upset that a person known to her, on previously known grounds, perceived her as part of a transphobic movement in the public debate.
Kajsa Ekis Ekman replied that she had not been given the opportunity to respond to the criticism. She had answered the questions sent to her from DN, but none of them had touched on the allegations about her in the article, which she also showed with a series of quotes from email conversations.
The complainant believed that a distinction must be made between debate articles and news articles. In a news article, harsh statements about a person should be balanced by other voices or counter-questions. Had the claims about her been made in a debate article, it would have been a different matter. DN, for its part, believed that it would have been enough if Ekis Ekman himself had taken the initiative to write a reply, which in that case would have been published.
Former Media Ombudsman’s assessment
The person handling the case at the Media Ombudsman was former MO, Ola Sigvardsson, this as current MO Caspar Opitz considers himself to be good at matters concerning DN. Sigvardsson stated that the portrayal of the conflict surrounding the appointment of acting interim editor-in-chief at Tidningen Arbetaren had significant public interest. The newspaper has a long history and is the most important organ of the syndicalists’ union.
Most of the reported article is unproblematic in terms of press ethics. What justifies a media ethics examination is the following statement:
“It was partly about her stance on foreign policy and her relativizing of Russia Today. Partly about her role as a figurehead in the new transphobic movement.”
Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a very experienced debater and has acted on many issues in the public arena for decades. She therefore has to accept that others criticize her views without her being given the opportunity to respond at the same time. It is part of public political debate. In that light, she must accept that the person who spoke to DN expressed a critical stance towards Ekis Ekman’s publicly expressed views on the suitability of being interviewed by Russia Today.
More problematic is that she is described as a “front figure in the new transphobic movement”.
It is well known that Kajsa Ekis Ekman has discussed issues of gender and transsexuality in both books and articles. She thus has to accept that her analyzes are criticized, but in this case the criticism goes from thing to person.
A phobia is an unreasonable or exaggerated fear of something, a trait or part of a person’s character, rather than an attitude. There is a comprehensive understanding of those who have phobias of, for example, reptiles or spiders. On the other hand, phobias in politicized contexts are to be considered something negative; Islamophobia, homophobia or transphobia.
To be portrayed as a person with such an attitude is derogatory. It is a person whose arguments are considered to lack weight, someone you don’t need to listen to or take seriously. In the media ethics assessment, there is reason to note that the claim about transphobia was not put forward in a debate article, but in a news article, with the claim to tell about the facts as accurately as possible.
In summary, DN has, in a news article, let a person unreservedly single out Kajsa Ekis Ekman for transphobia. The newspaper has not offered her to comment on this particular claim and the newspaper has not allowed other voices to speak on the issue. That Kajsa Ekis Ekman has been described with this term in other contexts does not reduce Dagens Nyheter’s responsibility for the use of the word.
Against this background, DN has caused Kajsa Ekis Ekman unjustifiable publicity damage for which the newspaper should be criticized.
The Media Ethics Committee blames the newspaper
The Media Ethics Committee shares MO’s assessment and blames Dagens Nyheter for having violated good journalistic practice.
This is a shortened version of the board’s decision. The decision in its entirety will be available on the website of the Public Media Ombudsman/Media Ethics Committee:
www.medieombudsmannen.se
Footnote: The Press Opinion Committee and the Public Press Ombudsman were reorganized on 1 January 2020 into the Media Ethics Committee and the Public Media Ombudsman.