Erik Strand, 25.01.2026
In two articles in Norwegian, Kjetil Tveit demonstrates how Nettavisen, a well-known Norwegian online newspaper, distorted a reply from him in a context where his name was connected to desinformation. Tveit’s articles can be read via the links below:
Nettavisen distorts letter from reader – part 1
Nettavisen distorts letter from reader – part 2
In his two articles, Tveit gives full detail on how Nettavisen ditorted his reply to an article in Nettavisen. I will here cover the essentials.
On December 4, 2025, Nettavisen published an article with the following introduction: “FHI top rects to the spread of misinformation on vaccination”. ‘FHI’ is the Norwegian public health institute. After the introduction, a text by Tveit was linked to as an example of misinformation. The FHI top did however not mention or criticize Tveit.
Due to the statutes, VVP, most Norwegian newspapers have accepted to follow (“Vær varsom-plakaten” – “The be careful statutes”, Tveit was entitled to a reply to Nettavisen’s article. He wrote a reply where he critizised Nettavisen. In Tveit’s reply, it was clear that he criticized how Nettavisen handled the case journalistically. He did not criticize FHI or the FHI representative. In the articles in the links above, Tveit stresses that he had no grounds for criticizing the FHI in this case.
At first, Nettavisen accepted a reply from Tveit consisting of 359 words. Nettavisen then turned around and demanded that Tveit wrote a reply consisting og 200 words only. Such a demand was totally unecessary as oniline space for commentaries is next to unlimited. Tveit did however wirte a reply that fitted within 200 words. He stated that it was a condition of his that there should not be more editing of the text.. Both parties agreed that he had the right to get his reply published.
Nettavisen did however edit Tveit’s reply. Normally, headline and introduction is not counted when one counts the number of words. Nettavisen did count headline and introduction, so that Tveit’s new reply consisted of more than 200 words. Instead of notifying Tveit and tell him to send a new and shortened text, Nettavisen altered the text themselves. As Tveit demonstrates, with links to the oriiginal and alteres text, the meaning was distorted. While Tveit had criticised Nettavisen’s journlistic methods, the edited reply looked like a criticism of FHI; which was not Tveits’s wording or intention. Tveit demanded the reply removed, which it was not.
Whar is worse, is that the reply was not visible to people who visited Nettavisen. Tveit got a link to his “reply”, but he could not see it when he entered Nettavisen’s website. To be sure that he observed things correectly, he asked several people to enter Nettavisen’s website and check if they could see the reply. They could confirm that it was not available – unless you had the link. In the corresponcence with Tveit, Nettavisen admitted that it was not available from their website.
As Tveit stresses in his articles, the right to get a reply published when one is attacked in a media article, implies that the reply shall be equally accessible as the original article. This follows from VVP article 4.15 and practice from the supervising organ, PFU. Nettavisen’s behaviour here is not only misleading in the sence that it looks like Tveit had got his reply published, while in reality, it was not visible to the public. It is also a violation of the statutes Nettavisen have accepted.
Fampo 