For 2 weeks in Denmark the topic of the documentary was “greater than Trump”, says producer Michael Bévort. The published of Grønlands hvide guld (Greenland’s white gold), a 55-minute movie concerning the Danish exploitation over a number of a long time of a cryolite mine in southern Greenland and the huge sums of cash it generated, made waves in February in each Greenland and its former colonial ruler, Denmark. However the response between the 2 couldn’t have been extra polarised.
In Greenland, which stays a part of the Danish kingdom, with Denmark nonetheless controlling its international and defence insurance policies, there have been emotions of anger and deep disappointment. The nation was in the midst of an election being watched by the world because of Donald Trump’s threats to take management of the Arctic island. In keeping with a ballot for Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, greater than a 3rd of voters stated the documentary would affect their vote.
There was additionally a way of long-awaited recognition – that the tales individuals had heard from their pals and relations about what occurred within the now derelict city of Ivittuut have been lastly being confirmed by a public establishment as massive as DR, the public-service Danish Broadcasting Company.
Politically, it was seen as seismic within the nation’s capital, Nuuk. It had the potential, some believed, to alter the facility dynamic between the territory and the Nordic nation, which has lengthy been framed as Greenland being financially depending on Denmark. “A brand new documentary movie reveals that Denmark has earned at the very least 400bn kroner [£46bn] from only one mine,” Greenland’s then-prime minister, Múte B Egede, stated on the time.
Whereas there have been initially some optimistic opinions in Denmark, the Danish media rapidly flipped to assault, after one of many economists who appeared within the documentary denounced its interpretation of the figures. “It was horrible,” Bévort instructed the Observer. “It was the worst shit storm, nearly ever.”
Criticism of the documentary centred on the determine of 400bn Danish kroner, the quantity the group calculated was Denmark’s gross earnings from the mine over 133 years, adjusted to as we speak’s worth.
However Torben M Andersen – an economics professor at Aarhus college and chair of the Greenland Financial Council, who seems within the documentary – put the determine into doubt by urging warning over the calculation, which he stated referred to turnover between 1854 and 1987, not revenue. The documentary is cautious to emphasize that the determine – calculated utilizing logbooks from the Danish nationwide archives – refers back to the total turnover as a result of, as they’re suggested when coping with colonial economics, manufacturing prices have been spent in Denmark utilizing Danish staff and gear.
For 10 days, DR stood by the documentary. Regardless of criticism from a number of politicians, together with the Danish Moderates’ tradition minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, who decried its “poor journalistic craftmanship”, and economists, DR’s information director, Sandy French, refused to provide in, saying: “There have been no violations of press ethics pointers, there are not any factual errors or reservations that haven’t been made”.
However finally they modified their minds. They introduced that they’d withdraw and “depublish” the documentary and that DR’s information editor-in-chief, Tholmas Falbe, was resigning. French stated the turning level was new details about a graph of complete collected gross sales of cryolite that had been faraway from an earlier model of the documentary as a result of it was not correct.
“It might look like a minor factor in comparison with the massive debate concerning the documentary, however this new discovery is essential to me as a result of you have got to have the ability to belief that the presentation is correct,” stated French. Bévort, who’s looking for a brand new house for the documentary, stated the uncommon transfer to depublish was political. “It’s nothing to do with the movie. They’re going after DR.”
Rune Lykkeberg, editor-in-chief of Danish newspaper Data, agrees. “Not political within the sense ‘we have to censor this message to appease the federal government’. However corporately political within the sense that ‘we should do that to guard our model and management the harm’.”
He added: “DR is just like the BBC, a public-service station whose final govt is the federal government – the minister of tradition appoints the top of its board who appoints the formally impartial CEO of DR. He got here out with heavy criticism of the documentary, which was additionally political overreach.”
The transfer to depublish was a “horrible choice”, Lykkeberg added. “The documentary was a part of public debate, it was a public truth that individuals have been deliberating and it was within the widespread curiosity that everybody may entry it. It doesn’t assist anybody which you could’t see the movie you’re speaking about. And the documentary shouldn’t be harmful.”
Naaja Nathanielsen, who was a minister within the final Greenlandic authorities and within the present authorities, which was formally sworn in on Monday, stated the transfer was “an overreaction” from DR. “It has extra one thing to do with the Danish self-interpretation of their actions in Greenland greater than what this film is about,” she instructed the Observer.
Whereas she has not seen the numbers, so can not touch upon whether or not they’re precisely right, she believes they’re honest. “What I do imagine is that it’s not an unjust presentation of the economic system between Greenland and Denmark,” she stated. “I’ve confidence sufficient within the numbers to say they characterize an accurate interpretation of the best way issues have been – even when Denmark began investing extra in Greenland.”
However to focus a lot on the figures alone “derails” the dialog from what must be the actual debate, she stated. “In Greenland we are able to have each narratives … sure, there’s something up to now with Denmark that has been awry, that was not proper, that violated rights. And we are able to nonetheless settle for and acknowledge all the great things Denmark has performed as nicely. So for us each narratives can exist on the identical time.”
However in Denmark – or at the very least Danish media – she says, that appears to not be the case. “There is just one narrative that may exist, and that’s that Denmark was good to Greenland and that’s the top of the story.”
DR and the Danish minister for tradition didn’t reply to the Observer’s request for remark.
Supply hyperlink
