When the obituary becomes a discussion post

Aftenposten’s investment in obituaries is positive. But Erling Lorentzen’s obituary violates the newspaper’s own guidelines.

Debate
This is a discussion post. Opinions in the text are the responsibility of the writer.

Aftenposten breathes new life into death. Obituary director Jakob Semb Aasmundsen explained in February that the number of texts sent had multiplied in the past year. Therefore, the newspaper will profile the obituaries more than before.

It is an exciting adventure, but not without risks.

Erling Lorentzen’s obituary, which appeared in the newspaper on March 10, shows some of the pitfalls that both Aftenposten and obituary writers should avoid.

Debate raised

But first: discussing obituaries is new and unfamiliar. Therefore, let me emphasize that the purpose of this article is to problematize the content of the obituary, not to criticize the deceased.

Erling Lorentzen’s obituary was written by Stig Arild Pettersen, author of the Lorentzen biography. Will and resistance. Pettersen himself has invited a debate by publishing the text in a Latin American group on Facebook. There it has provoked reactions.

Some believe Pettersen paints an optimistic picture of Lorentzen’s controversial company Aracruz in Brazil, others react when he attacks Lorentzen’s opponents. Let’s look at two examples and link them to Aftenposten’s guidelines for obituaries.

1. One-sided manufacturing

“The obituary is not the place for corporate advertising.”

In Pettersen’s text, Aracruz is described as an “industrial adventure that has created tens of thousands of jobs, lifted families out of poverty, facilitated unions and, not least, has been an industry leader in measures. environmental and replanting. [ …]»

What he says is not false, but it is very one-sided. An equally comprehensive description is that Aracruz was born because of Lorentzen’s personal ties to Brazilian dictators, with loans from the country’s development bank that violated the bank’s own guidelines.

Pettersen describes this well in the biography. In addition, the company has displaced indigenous peoples, as confirmed by both Brazil’s indigenous leadership and the Ministry of Justice, and established giant plantations that displaced species-rich rainforests.

2. Discredit opponents

The Aftenposten guidelines further state that obituaries are also not the place “to write badly about competitors or enemies.”

Lorentzen was controversial. In some business circles he was seen as a community builder and an environmental hero. In many environmental and human rights organizations, Aracruz was considered the worst. In the obituary, Pettersen puts it in a way that easily discredits anyone who criticized Lorentzen: “Erling knew that the story told by activists and the media was not true.”

Aftenposten, for his part, chooses to highlight another problematic quote when the obituary is shown online: “The story that was told about him was so unadorned that it was directly wrong.”

Violates the guidelines

Lorentzen’s obituary is a good text. Aftenposten’s investment in obituaries is positive.

But sadly, this obituary breaks Aftenposten’s own guidelines. It will be a contribution to the debate that followed Lorentzen and Aracruz for 50 years.

I’d like to hear what Aftenposten and Pettersen think about this, because the obituary debate is uncharted terrain.

• Follow and participate in the discussions on Aftenposten’s views on Facebook Y Twitter

More obituaries: