{"title":"Bestilt arbejde","authors":"John T. Lauridsen","doi":"10.7146/fof.v60i.130498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John T. Lauridsen: Hot work.Changes in attitudes in the Copenhagen press between 1941 and 1943 \nThe position of the Danish press and the behaviour of the Foreign Ministry’s presscentre during the German occupation have only been examined sporadically and inadequately.This is illustrated taking outset in Politiken’s crime correspondent, VilhelmBergstrom’s diary and articles recording two court cases involving communists in 1941and 1943. The legal proceedings in both cases were commissioned and orchestratedby the German occupation forces, using Danish courtrooms as the backdrop. In 1941,the Foreign Ministry’s press centre called on newspapers to write about the case, but in1943 the head of the centre remained silent while the drama unfolded as the Germanswanted. There was also a clear difference between the press coverage in 1941 and 1943.In 1941, the majority of the press coverage was about an international terrorist storycentred on communism as the villain, and there was no lack of violent outcomes innewspaper leaders. None of them cast a thought for the mindless contribution theywere making to the occupying forces’ anti-communist propaganda. The backdrop forthis was widespread anti-communism in Denmark.The situation had changed in 1943. It dawned on journalists that they had servedthe interests of the occupying forces in their coverage of a brutal murder committedby communists in 1936, and they wrote their reports on the 1943 case with this inmind. They were more restrained, even though the murder story in itself was juicystuff in peaceful Denmark. As one of the journalists noted, it was time to think aboutthe future, with the advance of the USSR after the German defeat at Stalingrad, thepolitical landscape could change very quickly, so it was a bad idea to have been a meremouthpiece for the occupying forces. Reflection had taken over.","PeriodicalId":219437,"journal":{"name":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/fof.v60i.130498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
John T. Lauridsen: Hot work.Changes in attitudes in the Copenhagen press between 1941 and 1943
The position of the Danish press and the behaviour of the Foreign Ministry’s presscentre during the German occupation have only been examined sporadically and inadequately.This is illustrated taking outset in Politiken’s crime correspondent, VilhelmBergstrom’s diary and articles recording two court cases involving communists in 1941and 1943. The legal proceedings in both cases were commissioned and orchestratedby the German occupation forces, using Danish courtrooms as the backdrop. In 1941,the Foreign Ministry’s press centre called on newspapers to write about the case, but in1943 the head of the centre remained silent while the drama unfolded as the Germanswanted. There was also a clear difference between the press coverage in 1941 and 1943.In 1941, the majority of the press coverage was about an international terrorist storycentred on communism as the villain, and there was no lack of violent outcomes innewspaper leaders. None of them cast a thought for the mindless contribution theywere making to the occupying forces’ anti-communist propaganda. The backdrop forthis was widespread anti-communism in Denmark.The situation had changed in 1943. It dawned on journalists that they had servedthe interests of the occupying forces in their coverage of a brutal murder committedby communists in 1936, and they wrote their reports on the 1943 case with this inmind. They were more restrained, even though the murder story in itself was juicystuff in peaceful Denmark. As one of the journalists noted, it was time to think aboutthe future, with the advance of the USSR after the German defeat at Stalingrad, thepolitical landscape could change very quickly, so it was a bad idea to have been a meremouthpiece for the occupying forces. Reflection had taken over.
John T. Lauridsen:烫手的工作。在德国占领期间,丹麦新闻界的地位和外交部记者的行为只得到零星和不充分的审查。这在《政治报》的犯罪记者、VilhelmBergstrom的日记和记录了1941年和1943年两起涉及共产党的法庭案件的文章中得到了说明。这两起案件的法律程序都是由德国占领军委托和策划的,以丹麦法庭为背景。1941年,外交部新闻中心呼吁报纸报道这一案件,但1943年,当德国通缉的戏剧性事件展开时,该中心的负责人保持沉默。1941年和1943年的新闻报道也有明显的不同。1941年,大多数新闻报道都是关于一个以共产主义为反派的国际恐怖主义故事,报纸领导人也不乏暴力结果。他们谁也没有想到,他们对占领军的反共宣传做出了盲目的贡献。这一切的背景是丹麦普遍存在的反共主义。1943年,情况发生了变化。记者们开始意识到,他们在报道1936年共产党人犯下的残酷谋杀时,是在为占领军的利益服务,他们在报道1943年的案件时也抱着这种想法。他们比较克制,尽管在和平的丹麦,谋杀的故事本身就是有趣的素材。正如其中一名记者所指出的,是时候考虑未来了,德国在斯大林格勒战败后,随着苏联的推进,政治格局可能会很快发生变化,所以成为占领军的传声筒是个坏主意。沉思占据了一切。