[jahaja]

Your argument was not made towards "deteriorating journalistic quality". You made two wildly inaccurate statements and are simply not backing them up beyond presenting opinion - rather than scandal exposing - articles where most sources, at the very least, have been more criticized than DN.

And while trying to prove your statements you link to a _tv-debate_, like who's the best tv-debater would matter. That video seem to come from a blatant right-populist account which leaves a bad taste as well, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

[ptype]

Firstly, my comment regarding DN losing credibility was swiftly clarified elsewhere in this thread as an observation and in fact we have seen other commentators agreeing. I would welcome any observations, or even your personal opinion, you have made to the contrary. The development of DN actually saddens me.

Secondly, in my book, ofcourse being accused of lying, misusing statistics and covering up are journalistic scandals if you strive to be a premier journalistic publication. Maybe we have different expectations of journalism, but perhaps a softer term could have been used to save us both some excitement.

The TV debate was in a well known debate program on state television, and I'm sure you agree that it is very rare for a DN editor to openly receive such strong criticism from another journalist. I have no idea who posted that video on YouTube (I just remembered the debate and googled it) but the original source is state television, so that's an odd comment of you to make.

I haven't seen any sources from you either proving that the mainstream sources I provided as examples have been more criticised than DN.

[jahaja]

I'm so tired of this tendency that one can apparently - with a straight face - use such hyperbolic language then still refuse to recant it even in the slightest even after failing to back it up beyond "Well, I think this is scandalous!". This is pointless.