"Claes Wahlin answer Björn Wiman"
"This is a kulturartikel which is a part of Aftonbladet's opinionsjournalistik."
"Many cultural journals become frustrated by not having full transparency in what they review. A large part of the debate surrounding the Swedish artistic institutions, as well as around the Swedish Academy, carried out through a series of so-called revelations, often dramatized with a number of articles published over time."
"the Border between the ran and the review is in day liquid. When Björn Wiman claim that I write to the royal dramatic theatre suffered a drive, so we have a gränsproblem. (I wrote the now not so, but it lifted the whole to be about institutions in general and what the consequences are). When the DN publishes the testimony (if that is the right term) inside the house, so these, by definition, subjective. In addition, they may stand unchallenged."
"Ironically, came the same day that Wimans defense for DN's review Lars Noréns the testimony (if that is the right term), where he – reasonably has at least the same transparency as the other as told from inside the royal dramatic theatre – adjusts and complicates the medial image. "
"And now, when the Expressen Debate publishes a letter of thanks to Eirik Stubø from 46 performing arts at the royal dramatic theatre – Stina Ekblad, Reine Brynolfsson, Rebecka Hemse, Sofia, Jupither, Nadja Weiss, with several – so we see such a complication. What does not weigh it against the DN's testimony?"
"so it is, we don't know exactly what happened, and when the reporting is rather to be fast than accurate, then there is space to, for example, as I wrote, the fan, other wrongs."
"This is a very human thing, but to then let publish these stories without at least surround it with the appropriate reservations, make that an audit is easy to go for a drive. It helps neither the department in question or kulturjournalistiken. Full transparency is impossible, the least the reader can ask for is to get to know what you don't know."