X-Musk

Different perspectives on editorial media

In spring 2025, Elon Musk shared on the platform X a survey showing that Norway is the country in Europe with the highest trust in editorially controlled media. For Musk and his many followers, this was interpreted negatively. In the comment sections, Norwegian media consumers were portrayed as gullible and uncritical, in contrast to users on X, where anyone can be their own journalist and editor. Behind this lies a radical view of freedom of expression, where all types of speech are allowed, and where neither the state, editors, nor algorithms should regulate who gets to reach an audience. In practice, this means that the strongest, most engaging, and often most emotional voice wins out.

Criticism of editorially controlled media also comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum. As early as 1988, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote the book Manufacturing Consent, where they argued that American media are structured in a way that makes them loyal to commercial interests and societal elites. Journalism then appears neutral and objective, but in reality can reinforce the views of those in power. Since then, media ownership has become more concentrated — also in Norway.^1,2

There are reasons to ask critical questions about the media. But that does not necessarily mean all skepticism is well-founded. We all tend to be more skeptical of information that conflicts with our own values and worldview. This is not necessarily a sign of critical thinking, it can also be a sign of confirmation bias. For example, research shows that conservatives and liberals in the US rarely refer to the same scientific sources, even when discussing the same issue.³ In Norway, we see a similar tendency. Trust in the media is lower among those who identify with the political edges of the political spectrum.^4,5 Increased polarization is likely part of the reason many do not recognize themselves in traditional media and instead seek like-minded communities on social media. This also affects how news from research is communicated, interpreted, and overlooked.

When science meets the public

Journalists play a crucial role as bridge-builders between research and society. But translating scientific findings into understandable language is challenging: new research is often uncertain, nuanced, and preliminary. The media, on the other hand, rewards clear headlines and quick answers. This is why special demands are placed on journalists who communicate science: they must simplify without distorting, allow room for uncertainty, and cite their sources. Serious media outlets often contact independent researchers to add nuance and ensure the quality of what is presented.

An important characteristic of scientific knowledge is that it is open to criticism and correction. There are mechanisms for correcting errors, peer review, and an ideal of verifiability. When journalism works well, it reflects these principles. This enables us as readers, even without a professional background, to understand what is documented knowledge, and what is opinion or spin.

Why can we still have trust in the media?

Editorially controlled media are far from flawless. But they are subject to a public responsibility and committed to principles of verifiability and transparency. Journalists have education, work under editorial responsibility, and follow common ethical guidelines, such as the Norwegian Code of Ethics for the Press and the Editor’s Code.^6,7 These require the media to be open about sources, to provide space for different viewpoints, and to correct errors.

A key difference between editorially controlled media and many other information platforms, like TikTok, X, or various blogs and podcasts, is that self-criticism is institutionalized. As the philosopher Lars Fr. H. Svendsen has written (trans. from Norwegian): "An essential question is whether the sources you rely on are open to criticism, and whether they have mechanisms for self-criticism."⁸ In serious media and research, this is part of the very structure: Errors should be correctable, claims should be verifiable, and opposing voices should be highlighted.

Editorially controlled media follow principles that make them easier to verify. To uncover various forms of fake news, many countries have established more or less independent fact-checking organizations that scrutinize what is conveyed by journalists and others. Faktisk.no holds this role in Norway and is owned collectively by the major media houses. However, far from all cases are easily categorized as false or true, and since trust and mistrust in the media are as much about perspective as about factual matters, one’s skepticism towards the media can also lead to skepticism towards fact-checkers.

Fact-checking organizations, such as Faktisk.no, are part of this infrastructure. But fact-checkers also face mistrust, especially when they debunk claims that people are already convinced of. Take the criticism that the leader of the Centre Party, Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, directs at Faktisk in the clip from W. Wee’s podcast. Vedum may be right on the substance of the matter and may criticize the fact-checkers for doing a poor job with arguments, but to go from that to undermining the very purpose of fact-checking as a "thought police" undermines the ethical structures journalism is built upon. For journalists and readers alike, it is important to develop what can be called well-founded skepticism: an attitude that involves seeking out multiple sources, assessing the sender’s interests, and being willing to adjust one’s own positions in the face of better arguments or evidence..

What does this imply for your studies?

When you as a student navigate news and research communication, it is important to know who is conveying the information, and to assess what gives the information credibility. Critical thinking is not just about exposing errors, but about understanding structures, responsibilities, and the difference between documented knowledge and personal opinions. For writing assignments, this means you must follow the story upstream, that is, find and evaluate the sources behind the news story.

Overland, J. og Tørdal, R. M. (2021). Eierskap av norske aviser og TV- og radiokanaler, NDLA.
Allern, S. (2022). Propagandamodellens renessanse. In B. Kjos, et.al. (ed.), Presse, profesjon og politikk. Festskrift til Paul Bjerke (s. 185-207). Cappelen Damm. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.169.ch8
Biever, C. (2025). How Democrats and Republicans cite science: Study reveals stark differences. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01311-9
Moe, H., Fladmoe, A., Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Finstad, U. (2022). Tillit til mediene. Falske nyheter og partiske journalister? In M. Mangset et.al. (ed.), Ytringsfrihet i en ny offentlighet (s. 113-133). Universitetsforlaget. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215051017-2022-06
Thomassen, M. og Bjørgan, J. (2025), Tillit til nyheter. Nordmenns digitale nyhetsbruk 2025.
Norsk Presseforbund (2024). Vær Varsom-plakaten. PFU-Basen.
Norsk Presseforbund (2019). Redaktørplakaten. PFU-Basen.
Svendsen, L. (2025). Dumhet, idioti og dumme idioter: Hvorfor du bør tenke selv - og sammen med andre. Kagge.

Social media News media Academic literature 🔒 Artificial intelligence 🔒