THE TYRANNY OF SILENCE
By Helene Tveiten-T.Chr.-Human Synthesis-13 May 2025
When the media controls what the people think. When Norwegian big newspapers like VG , Aftenposten , ikk and TV 2 Nyheter systematically close their comments on articles about Pride, while censoring or removing comments with broad public support, it is no longer a matter of journalism. It’s propaganda - and it’s a democratic problem.
Even an innocent wet cake comment - written under a VG post about which cakes people should bake - was recently deleted. The article that was about cake I suggested a moist cake for 17. May, a Norwegian classic that was not actually mentioned in the article.
When such contributions are removed, it's not about preventing hate speech. It's all about control. And when control becomes personal, it also becomes ideological. The fact that this happens just minutes after I shared my chronicle in VG's comment section about Pride testifies to systematic censorship aimed at individuals.
The fear of the masses
The comments fields are becoming the footnote of history and with that the people lose their informal parliament. Where ordinary citizens used to be able to correct, shade or oppose the press, the door is now closed - especially when the topic is Pride or immigration. This is happening not because Norwegians are hateful, but because their opinions no longer fit into the approved narrative and because there is an increasing shift in society that actors behind the media are trying to control.
When editorial offices delete comments that have received hundreds of positive reactions, or close the entire comments section before opening it at all, a deep fear is revealed: The fear that the people actually disagree. The fear that reality is more conservative than the newsrooms. It's not about "safe spaces". It's about controlled understanding of reality.
A journalism at the service of the elite
A major reason for this development may be the media's ever closer ties to political and economic interests. Public grants, commercial partnerships, and sponsorship from players with clear ideological preferences – both national and global – have made the press vulnerable to influence. When billionaires and corporations anonymously pump money into the Pride celebration, while owning or sponsoring large parts of the media landscape, a natural question arises:
Who is profiting from the unification?
When actors like Isabelle Ringnes pump in millions in this agenda and at the same time gain column space in the same media that is strongly linked to her growth, among other things, as a substitute journalist and through interest organizations, one should perhaps stop and think. Norwegian media is producing overwhelmingly positive articles about Pride today - often without opposition.
A review of coverage lately shows that the vast majority of articles on Pride are unequivocally positive, while critical perspectives are almost absent. When this is combined with actively closing the debate rooms, it appears as a conscious choice: Not to mirror the opinion, but to shape it.
From diversity to a monopoly of opinion
It is often said that Pride is about love, tolerance and inclusion. But a project that does not withstand critical questions is neither inclusive nor tolerant. When children in Norwegian schools and kindergartens participate in sexualized rainbow activities, while parents do not get their external concerns in a public debate, there is not diversity. This is ideological indoctrination. When individuals abuse freedom of speech to come up with unfounded nausea, it easily moderate.
It's a Democratic warning when parents across the country feel they can't speak out without being stamped, censored or threatened with sanctions. When the entire media landscape ends on one view, and the people's disagreement is quietly cleared away, we are no longer in an open conversation. We are in a monopoly of opinions.
The elite are not the people
It doesn't help that a small economic elite donates millions and billions to Pride, if the people don't recognize themselves in the message. It does not help that state councilors, directors and celebrities go in parade with rainbow flags, when ordinary citizens are not allowed to question what the flag represents or what activism actually leads to. Like cancellation, hate and violence. Democracy cannot work if one party is allowed to buy defining power, while the other refuses the word.
Freedom of speech is not just the right to say what is popular.
It is first and foremost the right to say what is unpopular - what challenges power, trends and the spirit of time. When the comments are closed and the oppositions are fucked, someone has to stand behind and remind you of this simple but fundamental fact:
Democracy without a real debate is not democracy. The consensus has been controlled. And when it comes to those who violate the right to express themselves, it can easily be moderated.
The End.