Reminiscent of abuse of power – VG

This is a comment. The comment expresses the writer’s attitude

A reservation must be made that we do not necessarily know all the details of the conflict between the Manchester United manager and the licensee of TV 2.

But the information available about what appears to be close to a boycott is sufficient to state that Ole Gunnar Solskjær should think carefully about.

If there is anyone who owes someone an apology, it is Solskjær who should say sorry to TV 2. Not the other way around.

The reason why it all has cut itself should be an interview from March this year. There, the aggrieved party in a rape case against the former Molde player Babacar Sarr expresses disappointment that Solskjær, who then coached the club, chose to trust the player right up to the trial.

Sarr played a game shortly before the case went to Romsdal District Court, and Solskjær stated to the channel that “We have chosen to trust him – to believe in him – and he has handled the situation very well, I think”, before referring to the club management .

There are different opinions about that choice from Solskjær.

But offended are, of course, in their full right to have a say. And of course TV 2 also has every right to make critical journalism about a demanding case.

Should they refrain from interviewing the woman, who is anything but the strong party in this case. for the sake of a powerful manager?

According to TV 2, Sarr played 60 matches for Molde after he was charged in the rape case, 34 of them after the public prosecutor had issued an indictment. He has also been wearing a captain’s armband while he was charged.

Ole Gunnar Solskjær is happy to dislike journalism about the Sarr case. But it is democratically problematic if a football coach mocks the freedom of the press by restricting access as a consequence of criticism. Solskjær himself could have chosen to answer questions properly about a situation that was obviously difficult, but has instead appeared rather evasive. The undersigned has previously called it “tricky but correct” that the player released suspension as accused, but in any case reactions to critical journalism are not justified as a result of the victim’s views being promoted in public.

Again, it must be emphasized that Solskjær himself has not commented on the deadlocked situation. But Manchester United has been asked by Dagbladet, which first mentioned the case, specific questions about the substance of the case, without answering them

TV 2’s sports editor Vegard Jansen Hagen, on the other hand, responds specifically when he confirms that Solskjær will not be interviewed by TV 2’s journalists, that it is the interview with victims in the Sarr case that is stated as the reason and that there has been no “sign of reconciliation”. more than half a year has passed ”.

In addition, Solskjær is said to have reacted to the fact that an English version was made on TV 2’s website. But why should TV 2 stop translating its journalism? The criticism from the aggrieved party is about something Solskjær must accept to be confronted about, regardless of country or language suit, and which he has not exactly answered in an impressive way.

Here it is worth recalling that the woman interviewed by TV 2 has experienced an enormous burden. Babacar Sarr was, as is well known, criminally acquitted in the district court, during a dissent where the professional judge was in the minority, but he was sentenced to pay compensation for rape. Sarr then left the country after the contract with Molde was terminated, and has later not appeared for further legal proceedings.

The aggrieved party must, of course, have the right to state how the case has been viewed from her point of view, and the channel that secured the interview in no way deserves to be punished for practicing journalism.

There is reason to ask whether this case is another example of an unfortunate culture in the billion-dollar Premier League, where the PR machinery has far too much control over the exchange of words.

It is also interesting that Sir Alex Ferguson is Ole Gunnar Solskjær’s great role model. Of course, there is a lot the Norwegian can learn from the legend, but when it comes to handling critical press, the Scotsman was the opposite of a role model. Ferguson used his position as Manchester United manager for seven years to boycott the BBC, because he did not like how his son was portrayed in a documentary in 2004. Without taking a stand on this particular journalism, it is an abuse of power to use the United position as Ferguson did.

As far as Solskjær is concerned, Manchester United is probably right in that the formal obligations to the licensee are fulfilled, and TV 2 nevertheless enters press conferences. But he must have stopped competing as he previously did, including on the inner court, and according to Dagbladet, there must also have been rejection around the Europa League play-offs.

According to sports editor Vegard Jansen Hagen, the change in behavior is about Ole Gunnar Solskjær demanding an unreserved apology. He should definitely not get that.