Recently Bjørn Stærk wrote critically about a story Dagsavisen brought a few months ago (I’ll omit the details as the debate is well documented by Stærk, see this follow-up). Now, as knowledge about blogging and its disruptive potential is slowly, slowly trickling through to even the most secluded editorial retreats in Norway, several newspapers and -websites have found reason to comment on Stærk’s critique. In his regular column (not online…) in the left-wing daily Klassekampen, media research fellow and previous editor Paul Bjerke rejected the notion of bloggers’ media criticism as simply a far-right phenomenon (see Stærk again). In other words, Bjerke only revealed that he (a media research fellow) hadn’t bothered to research blogging? Yes, but there is something else and more important going on in this text. It’s what’s left unsaid in this sentence, an offhand remark about Stærk’s arguments:

“Stærk’s accusations quickly fell to the ground.”

They did? How? Bjerke doesn’t elaborate, and maybe he just means “Stærk was wrong”. But I prefer to interpret him this way: Stærk’s “accusations” didn’t result in anything – i.e. no one was reprimanded at Dagsavisen, no one had to leave their jobs (he talks about Rather & Eason Jordan in the same column). A strange logic. As long as an act of criticism doesn’t directly provoke a dramatic outcome, it’s irrelevant? Stærk pointed out what he saw as weaknesses in Dagsavisen’s reporting. After a while he even got an answer. That Stærk and others now have the opportunity to hold the media accountable in this way isn’t irrelevant, it’s immensely relevant. Potentially it can give journalism and the public domain a tremendous boost. Editors, journalists and media research fellows should be the first to recognize that.