[alansaber]

"Ex UK military members discover the private sector pays 10-20x more" underlines the title, but yes, media should disclose it. But even if they were "just" retired ex-military, their bias would be the same (being a member of the UK military).

[defrost]

Media in general is poor on declaring any and all bias of their various interviewed "experts".

Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in).

Automotive experts promoting car brands (that they receive advertising and influencer dollars for).

etc.

[matsemann]

One thing I've seen a bit in Norway, and which is relevant this month, is opinion pieces by "concerned parents" that get their writing into national news, but a quick search show that they're often head of some bigoted organization. Of course they should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it as any other, but the news papers not disclosing this is unethical imo.

[jeltz]

There was recently in Swedish media an article about harassment of Jews in Sweden and the guy they talked to was a member of a Zionist organisation who advocates for that Jews should move to Israel. It is fine to interview him, but such a clear conflict of interest should have been disclosed.

[ifwinterco]

I would argue it's not fine to interview him when (from the sound of it) he literally works for a hostile foreign intelligence agency

[pcf]

Many parts of Norway are much less functioning than many Norwegians understand. The media sector is one of them.

[vintermann]

Well of course, if you're a concerned parent or concerned person of any kind in Norway, the first thing you do is start an organization. There are even some who start many, in the hope of cross-pollination.

What's more extreme to me is people like NRK's economy commentator Cecilie Langum Becker, who I read today went over to a lucrative job as communication chief in Aker. A corporate PR person by trade, for 8 years, she had front page space every day to push austeritarian, interest-scold propaganda that would make The Economist blush. So good of our public broadcaster to promote voices we rarely hear from in the media /s.

Actual grass roots organizations, even for unsympathetic causes like anti-pride, worry me less than the whole Orkla-Schibsted consensus.

[jeltz]

I think you are underestimating these grass roots groups. Some of them are supported by foreign inyerests who want to undermine trust in the government.

[vintermann]

So we are told, but generally I don't buy it. Certainly not just for moustache-twirling "destabilization" purposes. If foreign interests bother with fringe Norwegian issues, it's because they get something directly from it. It may of course be that e.g. Israel gives support of various kinds to groups like SIAN or MIFF, or Russia to groups which are critical of Norwegian military support for Ukraine. But even that doesn't give us right to dismiss these groups as insincere - it's quite a way from that to actual front groups and astroturfing.

Either way, I think the focus should be on the "respectable" corruption, not on unhinged noisy attention seeking outsiders.

[alansaber]

You don't buy the idea of a comically diffuse goal? That seems to be the end state of most major organisational committee meetings

[amiga386]

What you're seeing there is churnalism; journalists just want to get a piece printed and move on. Sometimes the whole piece comes from a source that benefits from the piece being printed, not just the expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism

Sometimes the expert benefits just by being in the news, see for example NPR banning the expert they quoted 77 times, law professor Carl Tobias. Mainly because he'd write to them offering his opinion on the topics of the day, and as he is a law professor, even if the topic isn't law, NPR journalists couldn't help but accept his quotes to pad out their articles. https://www.mediaite.com/media/nprs-new-rule-for-2026-stop-q...

[buran77]

> Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in).

Doctors commonly have kickback arrangements to prescribe specific medication. Sometimes it's the correct course of action they just always go for the particular brand, other times it's the wrong course of action but they prescribe it anyway for the kickback (the OxyContin scandal comes to mind).

[defrost]

Pharma reps "bribing" doctors prescribing habits is a thing, for sure, and varies in degree by country.

This is a separate issue for media reporting on (say) new tanning treatments that are endorsed on screen during traditional "news hours" in undeclared infomercial segments that feature "independant" medical experts gushing over benefits of perineum UV treatments.

Frequently both the company that paid for the faux news segment and the guest experts that also benefit fail to have fiscal interests disclosed.

[buran77]

Oh, I just meant it's not just "quack doctors" doing it. it's a fairly common practice.

[defrost]

In a doctors suite:

Doctors prescribing drugs recommended to them by pharma reps should disclose that connection.

On a media "news" program:

Producers of media programs should disclose any connection "experts" they interview on a subject have to the financial returns or funding of that subject.

[NopIdoN]

Try TainTan™ Today!

[throw_a_grenade]

10-20× more in private sector for senior leadership/advisory role sounds reasonable, but still, I wonder if some part of that compensation stems from the fact that the person is availing him/herself as an asset of influence, i.e. can be used to push narrative through media while posing as independent, credible expert. Needs further research and/or A/B testing I guess.

[alansaber]

Well yeah when you hire at a senior level it goes unsaid that you're partially hiring for that persons influence. The labour value alone would not reflect such a high price.