Amina Manzoor is a senior employee of Dagens Nyheter, hailed as a medical correspondent during the pandemic. She is also the recipient of the prestigious Vetenskap och Folkbildning 2017 Educator of the Year award.
Now she quits soon. She has chosen to quit without getting a new job to go to, but is working on the book “Pandemics” to be published by Fri Tanke Publishing later this spring.
This is a decision that I have been thinking about and have come to for a long time. Amina Mansour says there are several reasons, but I will rewrite the details in my book.
I didn’t agree with Wolodarski
to me Journalists “Some things have happened recently that hastened my decision-making,” she says. In an interview with the newspaper in April of last year, Manzoor said she disagreed with DN Editor-in-Chief Peter Wollodarsky, among other things, about how the newspaper relates to the epidemic.
She declined to comment further on whether her decision had anything to do with the debate about the pandemic. Nor does she want to go into detail about the importance of Peter and Ludarsky’s stance on the pandemic.
We work in almost every way.
Recently, she chose to limit who can respond to her on Twitter, due to the harsh tone and “unreasonable” reactions.
What do you think of the controversy over the epidemic?
Controversy over the pandemic was fierce on both sides. I think it is hard to silence or harass journalists and researchers. This means that the discussion is not very free. When trying to report objectively, says Amina Mansour, it is sad that you have to limit comments so that she will be harassed.
Report Control does not happen
It’s so boring, says Peter Wolodarski.
There have been disagreements between the two of you over Amina Mansour over how to spread DN on the pandemic. Did you influence her decision?
No, there is no criticism on our part of Amina’s report. On the contrary. I spoke to her myself yesterday and asked her if she did not want to regret it and stay, so from our side there is no criticism of Amina.
Is she criticizing you?
– I do not know. What I have expressed publicly is that there is a harsh tone in social media, and I think everyone who has followed the discussion about the pandemic knows it is an incredibly fraught issue. For journalists writing about this, it’s like getting close to a crossfire, and it has sometimes been a problem in the work environment for many journalists. Especially for medical reporters, you are not used to it and what you report is usually not rewritten at all in this way. But during a pandemic, and I personally have experience with it, it’s a swarm that lends itself to debate no matter what one reaches – whether positive or negative with the Swedish strategy. It can be stressful, and Amina herself recently witnessed it shutting down her Twitter comments. It is our challenge to ensure that all employees feel safe in the workplace and can report as freely as possible, regardless of whether it is popular or not on social media.
Do you think DN as a newspaper has chosen a side in the pandemic debate, making it difficult to have a different opinion?
We have a DN lead page where different positions are taken, but it’s not something individual reporters need to relate to at all. Peter and Ludarsky say there is no such control over reporting.