sign in sign up
<<
Home , Conspiracy (civil), Conspiracy theory, Eurabia, Fjordman, Fritt Ord (organization)

REPORT Theories in the Norwegian Media

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1. Introduction 2 2. Conspiracy: definition and context 2 3. Methodology, sampling and coding 3 4. Analysis and discussion –coverage of conspiracy theories in the media 5 4.1 theories 6 4.2 Anti- 8 4.3 Other conspiracy theories 8 5. Comparison with the previous pre-election period 9 6. Conclusion 11 Literature 12

1 1. Introduction

This report discusses the results of a piece of research on conspiracy theories in the traditional Norwegian media, as part of Counterpoint’s ‘Rival Political Narratives’ project. Since the traditional media in consists of several TV stations, many nation-wide newspapers, and hundreds of local newspapers, the project requires some kind of demarcation, both in terms of time frame and scope. The time frame chosen is from 1st January 2013 to 6th September 2013. This time frame covers a period of political campaigning for the 2013 parliamentary election, held on the 8th and 9th of September. This provides a time period where political debate on various issues in the media was prominent and pressing. The scope is confined to newspapers, with the exception of one particularly relevant television interview. My choice of scope will be further elaborated in the methodology section of this report.

This project was slightly expanded as a result of the findings in the 2013 data; a smaller comparative section dealing with similar data from the last parliamentary election in 2009 has also been included. As this period contains much more data using the same data-gathering methodology, the analysis here takes a different method to reveal general tendencies. This will help to illuminate the data from 2013 and will moreover add a longitudinal analysis of the most notable conspiracy theories in the Norwegian media.

This report begins with a short section on definition and context, where I clarify my definition of ‘conspiracy theories’ and give some background information on the Norwegian context. The next section deals with methodology, including the process of data-gathering, coding, scope and other methodological issues. The final section presents the data and the analysis. All data gathered is coded and categorised in Annex A, an accompanying spread sheet.

2. Conspiracy: definition and context

What characterises a ? Following Sunstein and Vermeule (2009), I will take on a pragmatic albeit functional definition of a conspiracy theory. Sunstein and Vermeule define a conspiracy theory as ‘an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)’ (ibid: 205). A more colloquial definition of ‘conspiracy’ also includes between equals (friends, fellow employees etc.), or even individuals who are not powerful at all (ibid). For the purpose of this project, however, I will draw upon the definition in the former quotation. Within the limits of this definition fall both true and false conspiracy theories, but in this analysis and report I will not occupy myself with either confirming or falsifying conspiracy theories.

Since this project is oriented towards Norway in particular, a short contextual overview on the status of conspiracy theories in this country might prove useful. As Norway is one of the countries in the world with the highest levels of social trust (Newton 2001, Delhey and Newton 2005), one might assume that conspiracy theories are relatively rare or even absent.

However, a recently published book by John Færseth on this topic demonstrates that Norway has a long tradition of conspiracy theories, which runs right through to the present day (Færseth 2013). According to Færseth, the tradition of conspiracy theories is present on both the political left and right. There are also noted conspiracy theories that are politically neutral, like chemtrails, vaccines and UFOs. For the latter category, I have not found any relevant data in the period of time in question.

2

Færseth argues that the political left has an ‘accepted type’ of conspiracy theory, often involving the USA and/or . Right-wing politicians tend to lean towards Eurabia theories, as well as conspiracy theories about global warming (ibid). The author also makes the reader aware of a long range of conspiracy theories related to the , perhaps because they have had such a central role in building, restoring and controlling post-, modern and contemporary Norway (ibid). A great majority of his sources are from within the blogosphere, and a brief scan of his notes and literature list reveals that he makes very few references to the traditional media. However, I will show in this report that conspiracy theories are also dealt with, discussed, and both promoted and debunked in the traditional Norwegian media. Færseth’s book is useful in providing a general overview for where to start looking for conspiracy theories in the Norwegian media. 3. Methodology, sampling and coding

Throughout this analysis, I have used an electronic database named ATEKST to review and detect the most prevalent and visible coverage of conspiracy theories, both implicit and explicit, in the traditional Norwegian media. This database holds all printed articles of all newspapers in Scandinavia.

For both methodological and analytical reasons, it is important to distinguish between different types of text in the media. For instance, in the Scandinavian media there exists a type of article called ‘kronikk’ (‘chronicle’). The chronicle is a rather Scandinavian phenomenon, which falls somewhere in between an editorial and a feature story. Normally, the chronicle is written by a scholar, expert, politician or representative of a given organisation or group of interest, on a given topic. Sometimes the chronicles are more or less academically oriented, while at other times they are more openly subjective. Since those who write these articles do not work within the media, they are different to a normal news story or feature story. But all chronicles are approved by the editorial board of each media outlet, and normally each newspaper either chooses chronicles that discuss current events, or that are written particularly well, or that are written by well-known personalities. Clearly, the political alignment of the media outlet may also affect their choice. There are also simpler versions of the chronicle, such as the ‘leserinnlegg’ and the ‘replikk’. The former can be translated roughly as ‘reader’s contribution to the newspaper’, while the latter is a reply to a former published chronicle or general article. In my process of coding, both of these simplified versions will simply be categorised as ‘chronicles’.

Sampling and gathering data from a database holding hundreds of thousands of articles needs a systematic approach. Articles containing exact words denoting a given conspiracy theory are easily searchable, but do not necessarily provide an accurate account of the current status of conspiracy theories in the Norwegian media. For instance, promoters and supporters of conspiracy theories will not primarily see their arguments as concerned with conspiracy. Therefore their choice of words and concepts may well differ dramatically from and critical authors. In this analysis, for example, the word ‘Eurabia’ was rarely used among authors actually arguing in favour of Eurabia theories. But the debunkers often evoked the concept. In general, authors who believed in conspiracy theories rarely used the word ‘conspiracy’ in their text. To ensure data from both sides of this divide, a proper methodology is crucial. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggests a three-fold technique to be used simultaneously to avoid arbitrary or random data. These are:

1. Selecting apparently typical/representative examples, 2. Selecting negative/disconfirming examples; and 3. Selecting exceptional or discrepant examples (ibid: 34).

3

In my sampling the typical and representative data (1) are the articles that are entirely explicit, using words such as ‘conspiracy’, ‘Eurabia’ and ‘Zionist conspiracy’. These articles often address someone in particular (either a group of individuals or a named individual) and are mostly sceptical towards conspiracy theories in their tone and style of argument.

By examining the group and carrying out searches for the named individuals, I have found both negative/disconfirming examples (2), as well as exceptional and discrepant examples (3). Negative/disconfirming (2) examples are more specifically those articles that are non-typical. These may promote conspiracy theories in some way, or they may promote or debunk conspiracy theories other than Eurabia (i.e. media conspiracies, global warming conspiracies). Exceptional or discrepant examples fit into neither of these categories. These can be, for instance, articles making witty, ironical or sarcastic jokes about conspiracy theories (but not necessarily picking sides), or those articles that carry out an academic analysis on the subject.

Moreover, by analysing articles within the second and third categories, I was able to identify new words and concepts, which in turn provided a way to add to the type-2 and type-3 data in the analysis. This methodological approach has been used for the most apparent and frequent conspiracy theories, while other less frequent ones have been confined and limited only to typical examples, due to the lack of data available in the chosen period of time (or even over any time period).

Searching for data using these techniques still generates a large number of articles, where relevance varies significantly. Some articles found within the database mention relevant keywords, groups or names in a context that renders them irrelevant in this analysis – these articles have not been included nor coded. These include articles where Eurabia is mentioned as an aside, and where the actual content of the article is something entirely unrelated.

In this analysis I have also excluded articles from very small and small newspapers – especially local newspapers, which Norway has very many of because of lucrative state subsidies. In the analysis I have included all the largest newspapers in Norway, in addition to other nation-wide newspapers. I have also included two local newspapers from the second and the third biggest cities in Norway, Bergen and Trondheim respectively, since these newspapers have readers all around the country, even though they are based outside .

By using the sampling and gathering techniques described here, I have produced a ‘data mountain’ ready for coding and categorisation. I will begin by describing what can be called ‘analytical codes’, as they require analysis and carry analytical value. The first code was previously described in the paragraph on sampling; it determines whether the article in question explicitly or implicitly refers to conspiracy theories.

The second code provides a definition of the type of conspiracy theory discussed. This at times requires qualitative content analysis, especially for the implicit articles. I also code whether the article confines itself to domestic affairs, or touches upon international issues. Articles are coded as both ‘domestic’ and ‘international’ when the content analysis shows that this is the case.

The third code shows whether the article refers to the blogosphere in some sense. Many articles do this, often to argue that ‘conspiracy theories are out there, in the population’. Furthermore, this code can prove valuable in showing how the traditional media are used to comment and falsify claims originating from , and/or commentary forums on traditional media websites. The

4 last analytical code is called ‘effects’, which seeks to define the way in which the media covers a story; with which rhetorical means; whether with seriousness, argumentativeness, demagogy, irony or sarcasm.

As discussed above, some news articles mentioned the word ‘conspiracy’ explicitly; in others, the topic of the article was related to conspiracy theories, but the word was not used explicitly. It is therefore useful to distinguish between articles that discuss conspiracy theories explicitly and implicitly. When it comes to implicit articles, some data might be missed using this methodology, since conspiracies could potentially be mentioned implicitly in any news article. The only way to be certain that all data are collected would be to read every single article from the period. Time restraints make this unfeasible. But the three-type methodology for data gathering discussed above aims to alleviate this problem. I can therefore say with reasonable certainty that most of the relevant articles over this time period are included in the analysis.

After evaluating the findings from the 2013 data, I decided to expand the analysis by including some data from an equivalent time period in 2009, but using a different methodology with a different scope. The methodology could not be identical due to the amount of data available from this period, meaning that several hundred articles would have had to be coded and analysed. But it is still worthwhile to review some of the events in 2009 in terms of the most notable conspiracy theories drawn from the 2013 data. The comparison with 2009 illustrates how the most prominent conspiracy theory of this period was covered in the media over time and reveals how the 2011 attacks in Norway affected the public discourse around conspiracy theories.

As a result of the larger sample, the methodology used in the 2009 section is more heavily quantitative than the rest of the report. But in addition a small number of articles will be analysed qualitatively to compare the media’s approach to conspiracy theories in 2013 and 2009.

Throughout this report, I use a reference system where I refer the reader to Annex A (a separate spread sheet), where the material is listed and coded. Each article has a unique ID number in Annex A that I refer to in my text for quotations, paraphrasing and analytical commentary.

4. Analysis and discussion –coverage of conspiracy theories in the media

We begin by giving an outline of the data collected. First, we found that Eurabia theories are the most frequently discussed conspiracy theories in the media. Out of 54 articles, 34 are related implicitly or explicitly to Eurabia. Six of the remaining 20 articles discuss conspiracy theories in general as a phenomenon, rather than in relation to particular events or conspiracy theories. 23 of the 34 Eurabia-related articles mention the word ‘Eurabia’ explicitly, while 11 of these articles discuss issues associated with ‘Eurabia’ without mentioning the word explicitly. Four of the 54 articles have a purely international focus, while the other 50 articles are concerned with domestic issues. Among these 50 domestic articles, ten also discuss or mention international affairs. Two articles are about global warming, and three are about conspiracies in the media. Two articles are about the Norwegian intelligence services. Five articles are about Zionist conspiracies, while two of these are also about Eurabia. One single article about the murder of the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was also found and coded, in addition to another article about William Shakespeare.

5 A careful analysis of the data collected reveals some notable patterns. A common denominator in the coverage of conspiracy theories as a phenomenon (as opposed to specific conspiracy theories – these are the articles coded as ‘general’) is the use of irony, wit, sarcasm and light ridicule by the or author. One example of this was a television interview with an author about his new book on conspiracy theories. The interview was conducted on Dagsnytt Atten, a popular political debate programme on NRK1. The programme is one hour in length and normally discusses 4-5 different issues. On 27 August this year, the book on conspiracy theories was the very last issue discussed. The journalist introduced the segment with the words ‘and now over to something … a bit more funny’ (ID 30), thereby setting the course and tone of the interview. She continued by asking questions in an ironic way, while the author of the book attempted to establish a more serious tone. Reviews of the book showed a similar tendency. One article begins by exclaiming: ‘Ah! Conspiracies!’ The title of the article is ‘Among the conspiranoids’, an obvious play on the words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘paranoid’ (ID 42). This book is again discussed ironically in another newspaper:

You shall hear a lot before your ears fall off. […] Did you know that [PM in Norway] is a Jew, and has personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry? Or that the Labour Party, psychiatry and child welfare are part of a Khazar-Jewish conspiracy, where will become the foundation for a new world order? ID 43 [my translation].

But there are also examples of serious debate on conspiracy theories (in general) in the media (see ID 44, 50, 51 and 52). In article ID 44, a social psychologist, drawing on psychological canons like Milgram and Zimbardo, explains that theorising in terms of conspiracies is a very natural condition for human beings (ID 44). He also claims that events like political campaigns can trigger more politically related conspiracies than usual (ibid).

As we have seen, the general phenomenon of conspiracy theories is often discussed in the media with humour and irony. There are also articles with a serious and argumentative stance. However, as we will see, once the subject turns to specific conspiracy theories, the tone changes to an exclusively serious one.

4.1 Eurabia theories

Out of the 11 articles that implicitly refer to Eurabia, six use the word ‘snikislamisering’. Directly translated, ‘snikislamisering’ means ‘sneaky Islamisation’, or alternatively ‘hidden Islamisation’. In other words, it refers to a process whereby Norway (and sometimes as a whole) is under silent attack from Islam/Muslims, very similar to the claims of the supporters of Eurabia theories. Sometimes it is also alleged that political elites in Norway and Europe assist Muslims in this alleged invasion. Siv Jensen, leader of the , invented the neologism during the 2009 electoral campaign.

Two debunking articles (ID 15 and 31) explicitly draw a link between ‘snikislamisering’ and Eurabia. Article ID 15 is entitled ‘ has never been stronger’ [my translation]. It claims that Eurabia is the present-day substitute for Zionist conspiracy theories and that both are examples of contemporary fascism. With respect to the Progress Party and the term ‘snikislamiering’, the author says:

The fascist element within the Progress Party manifested itself for example in March 2009, when party leader Siv Jensen declared the battle against ‘radical Islam’ was ‘our generation’s most important battle’ and compared Islam with Nazism. She saw the Norwegian nation as under attack from a ‘hidden islamisation’ [snikislamisering], meaning that Muslims conspire in to destroy Norway. ID 15 [my translation].

6

Few articles go so far as to explicitly suggest that the Progress Party contains a fascist element. The same author goes even further and says the following to the newspaper in article ID 38:

It is hard to determine whether the Norwegian Progress Party is a fascist party with populist elements, or a populist party with fascist elements. ID 38 [my translation].

These two articles contend that conspiracy theories, here exemplified by Eurabia (and in part by Zionist conspiracy theories) are associated with both the Progress Party and fascism. Another article is not as extreme, but warns against the normalisation of Eurabia:

If the concept of Eurabia become a legitimate object of debate, it will fast become easier to be tricked by low- quality arguments. And considering that all debates have two sides, it will all of a sudden become intellectually acceptable to believe in Eurabia as a concept. ID 1, [my translation].

The author warns against allowing pro-Eurabia rhetoric to enter the media, because letting it become a legitimate perspective means encouraging its spread. He ends his article by encouraging editors to bear this in mind when considering printing pro-Eurabia content (ID 1).

However, in article ID 6 we see a purely debunking argument, questioning the presented by pro-Eurabia bloggers. The author notes that bloggers tend to use the Pact of Umar as proof of how Muslims are to conduct themselves in relation to other religious groups. She stresses the need to see the pact in the context of the time it was written, and argues that it cannot possibly be used as a guideline or rule of conduct for Muslims in modern-day Norway (ID 6).

22 out of 34 Eurabia-related articles are chronicles, while four are feature stories, two are news stories, three are written editorials, two are interviews, and one is a book review. In other words, a majority of articles about Eurabia theories are chronicles, not written by . Journalists discussed or covered Eurabia theories (or the exact word ‘Eurabia’) only 12 times in an eight-month period, which averages as approximately 1.5 times a month.

Out of all 34 articles about Eurabia, 11 refer directly to the blogosphere in their text. By blogosphere here I employ a broad definition including blogs, -like amateur newspapers, and social media, as well as commentary boxes on online newspapers. Ten of these 11 articles debunk, criticise or undermine Eurabia and its supporters. Their reference to the blogosphere is directed against promoters of Eurabia. For example, the well-known blogger is often mentioned. Fjordman became infamous through the manifesto of the convicted terrorist and mass-murderer , though Fjordman personally condemned the attacks. A recent debate about Fjordman being awarded 75.000 NOK for writing a book about Eurabia is discussed in articles ID 1, 9,11 and 31. This award was granted by , a private organisation whose aim is to support freedom of speech and a free press. All four articles explicitly criticise Fritt Ord for the grant by debunking and falsifying Fjordman’s Eurabia argument. The evidence here suggests that promoters of Eurabia tend to use the blogosphere as their means of communication, while their critical counterparts write articles in the traditional media. Out of all the 34 articles on Eurabia, only three partly or fully support or promote Eurabia.

Færseth (2013) documents that Norwegian conspiracy theorists tend to despise the , and the data here appears to support that conclusion. (However, without examining the blogosphere, we cannot ascertain from this data whether similar debates between debunkers and promoters also take place within the blogosphere itself.) Færseth’s argument aligns with the opinion

7 in the former quotation from ID 1, where the author cautions against editors allowing Eurabia to become a legitimate object of discussion. Ironically, however, this analysis suggests that the concept is in fact introduced in the media mostly by authors opposing and debunking Eurabia.

One exception is article ID 17. Here the author openly supports Eurabia by criticising and replying to another chronicle showing concern about a right-wing tendency in the Norwegian secret services. The author claims that this concern is misplaced and that the real danger lies nowhere else than in the on-going Eurabia invasion. This is one of the only articles found that supports Eurabia. Article ID 37 is also supportive of Eurabia, but this article refers specifically to Turkey and a process of ‘snikislamisering’ taking place there.

4.2 Anti-Zionism

Among all 54 articles, the second most prevalent conspiracy theory is the Zionist conspiracy, discussed in five examples. Two of these are about both Eurabia and Zionist conspiracies. One of these two articles compares the convicted mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik and the self- proclaimed neo-Nazi and convicted murderer (ID 5). This article is the only one with a neutral, informative style; the other four clearly aim to either debunk or undermine these conspiracy theories. No articles supporting conspiracies concerning Jews or Zionism were found.

In article ID 28, the author highlights the spread of conspiracy theories about Jewish people from conservative imams trained in the Middle East, and advocates Norwegian-based imam training, similar to the ways priests are educated in universities. In another article (ID 35), a Norwegian Muslim encourages his fellow Muslims to question their own practice of their religion and to rather be self-critical, instead of blaming the West or the Jews. In article ID 53, a leading Socialist politician reacts negatively towards a Muslim imam, and says: ‘The leader of the mosque has a view of Jewish people that is a paranoid conspiracy theory, which has no grounds in reality’ (ID 53) [my translation]. This was in response to an interview with the imam where he blamed Jewish influence in the media for Norwegians’ negative views of Muslims. All articles about Zionist conspiracies are serious and either argumentative or informative. None of these articles use humour.

4.3 Other conspiracy theories

The remaining ten articles, focused on neither general, Zionist nor Eurabia-based theories, contain a mix of references to different types of conspiracies. First, I will briefly elaborate on conspiracy theories related to the media, and then on conspiracy theories related to global warming. All these articles are presented seriously, without any attempt at humour.

Two articles are directly related to allegations of systematic media bias. Article ID 27 is about a recent case of allegations where the husband of party leader and PM candidate Erna Solberg (Høyre [Right]) accused NRK of systematically sabotaging his wife’s campaign. He also claimed that NRK has a clear tendency to support the Labour Party. The article in question (ID 27) argues that if this conspiracy theory is held by politicians on the right in general, the loss of credibility could be devastating for their campaign (ID 27). Article ID 32, on the other hand, is about the reception of a book on political media bias (in favour of the Labour Party) in Norway. The author claims that only two newspapers have given the book a fair assessment, while ‘the closer you get to social democracy, the more condescending the review of the book becomes’ (ID 32) [my translation]. He continues by providing examples of these reviews, and concludes by saying that Norway is showing

8 increasingly totalitarian tendencies (ibid). Both articles are written with a serious tone, and they both promote the conspiracy theory of systematic media bias.

Conspiracy theories about global warming were also discussed in the time period of the study. In an interview with Environmental Minister Bård Vegar Sohlhjell, the Minister portrays the Progress Party’s arguments against global warming as a wild conspiracy theory. The Progress Party, in return, claims that global warming could be caused by natural variations and might not be caused by humans. The Minister rhetorically says that: ‘I could understand this reaction if there were just a handful of climate researchers in Norway, all members of the Socialist Party, but we can’t actually control the IPCC’ (ID 47) [my translation].

Apart from these cases, a few less prominent examples of conspiracy theories were mentioned in the media: I found a debate on whether Shakespeare wrote his own work (ID 46); a discussion of new theories explaining why and how Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was killed in 1986 (ID 22); and a critic who claims he lost his job because he criticised the way Labour Youth leader behaved on the day of the 22 July 2011 attacks (ID 24).

5. Comparison with the previous pre-election period

In the previous section, I looked at the Norwegian media in the run-up to the 2013 parliamentary election. The analysis reveals that Eurabia was the dominant conspiracy theory discussed in the media over this time period and that most of the coverage of Eurabia was critical in tone.

However, in 2011, Norway was victim to a brutal terrorist attack from Anders Breivik, an extremist advocating an ideology bearing some similarities to the Eurabia theories discussed in the previous section. Does this mean that we can find differences between the media coverage in 2013 and four years earlier, during the campaigning period for the 2009 parliamentary elections? As explained in the methodology section, an identical analysis for the 2009 time period (dealing with the same keywords and using the same data-gathering methods) is beyond the scope of this project. But a straightforward frequency analysis indicates the significant differences between the two time periods. The following chart shows the prevalence of articles mentioning the words ‘snikislamisering’ and ‘Eurabia’ in the Norwegian printed media (this includes the number of articles in all printed media):

600 500 400 300 2009 data 200 2013 data 100 0 Keyword: Eurabia Keyword: Snikislamisering Chart 1.

9 While the word ‘Eurabia’ is used slightly more often in 2013, the word ‘snikislamisering’ is, as shown above, mentioned far more frequently in 2009 than in 2013. This was the year the neologism was invented and introduced to the public by Siv Jensen, the leader of the Progress Party. It was first used in the party’s annual general meeting, in a speech by Jensen about immigration policy (ID 55).

In section four, I argued that most of the 2013 articles were critical of Eurabia theories and of the term ‘snikislamisering’. Does the difference in coverage with 2009 suggest a different political climate? The answer to this question is multifaceted. One partial explanation is that the Progress Party’s desire to join a new coalition government has motivated it to avoid controversial rhetoric. The fall in use of the word ‘snikislamisering’ could also be related to the link that others have made between the Progress Party and Anders Breivik, as well as between Breivik and the Progress Party’s concept of snikislamisering and Eurabia theories in general. The enormous difference in the prevalence of the word could also be because it simply went out of fashion. The next chart illustrates the frequency of the word ‘snikislamisering’ in the media during the pre-election period in 2009 (from 1st January until 6th September 2009), broken down by month:

250 January 200 February March 150 April 100 May 50 June July 0 Snikislamisering August Chart 2.

Reviewing these numbers, it is clear that the word was introduced at some point in February 2009, gaining considerable amount of attention both in February and even more in March. However, the remaining months show a decline in interest, though these numbers are still relatively high when compared to the 2013 period, where the word was mentioned only 30 times in total (see Chart 1).

To review how this concept was employed and covered in the media in 2009, it is worth analysing some particular examples from this period. These examples draw on typical quotes, concerns, arguments or problems presented in relation to ‘snikislamisering’. Typically, these are articles covering the introduction of the neologism and not articles discussing it from a theoretical perspective, as we have seen from many of the examples in the 2013 data.

The first article that mentions ‘snikislamisering’ in February 2009 discusses whether police officers should be allowed to wear hijabs while they are on duty. Carl I. Hagen, the former leader of the Progress Party, claims that allowing such things would be an example of ‘snikislamisering’. He goes on to argue that a single individual with a hijab does not pose a threat, but in aggregate wearing the hijab is an alarming tendency that he equates with ‘snikislamisering’ (ID 56). It is important to note that Carl Hagen is no average politician; he was leader of the Progress Party from 1978 until 2006, and throughout has had a central role in shaping Norwegian public discourse.

10 Siv Jensen is nevertheless the one who coined the term, and the media coverage of her party’s AGM triggered its general use in the media. One of the first articles explicating and defining this concept is a news article by NTB – Siv Jensen is quoted as saying that her party wants to ensure that Norwegian law and democracy is the only system in control of Norway. She warns against giving any groups special treatment, and points to Malmø in Sweden as an illustration of the damage ‘snikislamisering’ can cause. Jensen paints a dark picture of Malmø, claiming that the Swedish police rarely dare to travel around the city for fear of their security and that laws instead of Swedish law control parts of the city (ID 57).

Of course, in 2009 such opinions were yet to suffer from the stigma associated with the Breivik attacks, and a cursory look through the 2009 articles indicates a more direct, explicit and xenophobic style, particularly when discussing Islam and conspiracy. But this does not mean that such remarks went by unnoticed. The use of the term sparked a debate resulting in 127 articles mentioning the word in February 2009 and 237 articles in March. Both of the examples I discuss here illustrate clear tendencies of conspiracy theorising: Hagen in his way of seeing the Hijab as an example of a dangerous Islamic takeover, and Jensen in her portrayal of Malmø as a Sharia- controlled city, foreshadowing Norway’s possible future. 6. Conclusion In this report I have analysed the Norwegian media’s coverage of conspiracy theories. The data used has been coded and categorised and is presented in Annex A.

The articles related to conspiracy theories in the period analysed are predominantly about Eurabia. The data also includes coverage of other conspiracy theories, including conspiracy theories about global warming, the media, Zionism, and the Norwegian intelligence services. A tendency towards humour, ridicule and sarcasm is noticeable in articles covering the general phenomenon of conspiracy theories. However, when conspiracy theories are discussed in the particular, they tend to be taken very seriously, and are quite often related to domestic party politics.

Among the Eurabia-oriented articles, some highlight associations between Eurabia theories and forms of fascism. ‘Snikislamisering’ is also mentioned explicitly as an example of a Eurabia theory. A great majority of the Eurabia articles were critical of the conspiracy theories. The evidence suggests that supporters of Eurabia theories tend to express their opinions in the blogosphere, while critical voices and debunkers use the traditional print media. But when comparing this with data from 2009, I found articles more supportive of Eurabia theories, especially from politicians in the Progress Party. ‘Snikislamisering’ was also much more discussed in 2009 than in 2013. One possible reason for this is the shift in acceptability of the term as a consequence of the 2011 terrorist attacks by Anders Breivik.

At the time of writing, the 2013 elections have concluded and the Progress Party is set to join forces with the Liberal-Conservatives in government. As soon as the electoral results indicated that this was a strong possibility, the international media promptly highlighted the links between Progress and Anders Behring Breivik. Some even went so far as to describe Progress as the ‘Breivik party’. As a consequence of this negative coverage, the Progress Party arranged an international press conference in an attempt to build a better image. In this press conference, the word ‘snikislamisering’ was raised, and Progress politician Ketil Solvik-Olsen admitted that using a word like ‘snikislamisering’ was going too far, apologising for any past misunderstandings. But, within a few days, other well-known members of Progress were in the media once again portraying ‘snikislamisering’ as a very real threat to Norwegian society. Conspiracy theories still linger in Norwegian politics.

11 Literature

Aardal, Bernt. 2011. Det politiske landskap. En studie av stortingsvalget 2009. Oslo: Cappelen Damm. Delhey, Jan, and Kenneth Newton. 2005. 'Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?' European Sociological Review no. 21 (4):311-327. doi: 10.1093/esr/jci022. Færseth, John. 2013. KonspiraNorge. Oslo: Humanist Forlag. Miles, Matthew B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis : an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Newton, Kenneth. 2001. 'Trust, , Civil Society, and Democracy.' International Political Science Review no. 22 (2):201-214. doi: 10.1177/0192512101222004. Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. 'Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures*.' Journal of Political Philosophy no. 17 (2):202-227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x.

12