The Express hung out gang criminals as Nazis – to be blamed

Published 29 May 2024 at 08.41

Media. Expressen is blamed by the Media Ethics Committee after hanging a gang criminal man by name and picture and portraying him as a Nazi.

Share the article

TwittraShare

The current 23 -year-old was a skinhead for a period during his school days, but in adulthood has instead moved in gang-criminal immigrant environments.

Last autumn he was arrested for a murder in Jordbro south of Stockholm, and in connection with that Expressen published him with his name and picture. The left-wing newspaper portrayed the 23-year-old as a “designated Nazi” and pointed out, among other things, that in 2019 he participated in a demonstration with NMR and was convicted of incitement against a ethnic group for wearing a Celtic cross and a wolf's chin.

23 -year-old has reported Expressen to the Media Ombudsman himself through a representative. In his report, he highlighted that it was a violation of the publicity rules to hang him out with his name and picture even though he had not been convicted of any crime but was in custody.

He also objects to Expressen portraying him as a Nazi, even though for a number of years there have been no signs that he would have any such sympathies. Judging by the 23-year-old's activities on social media, he has long since fully embraced the criminal immigrant culture.

The representative also emphasizes that a house belonging to a relative of the 23-year-old was blown up immediately after Expressen's hanging.

“In this case, there was no reason why the public should have a right to know the suspect's name or what he looked like. It would have been enough to state that a person had been arrested on suspicion of murder. It did not appear that the newspaper carried presented support for the claim that the informant was a Nazi. He was also not a public figure who would therefore tolerate more exposure than other people,” according to the report.

The media ombudsman, MO, states in his decision that the hanging was inappropriate.

“The publications have a great public interest. However, there has not been an obvious such interest in identifying the complainant by name and picture in the way that happened at such an early stage of the legal process. Against that background, it is also a shortcoming that the media did not explain the complainant's attitude towards the suspicions in the third publication,” the committee writes and continues:

“MO's overall assessment is therefore that the complainant has caused unjustifiable publicity damage.”

p>The media ethics committee shares MO's assessment and blames Expressen for having violated good journalistic practice.