The dialogue below may serve as an illustration of the frustration and discontent with media coverage felt by many individuals belonging to ethnic minorities in Norway. The person speaking, one of the sources of a feature story, challenges the stereotypes he feels are held by the majority society.

The interviewee first operates with a ‘we-they’ opposition, challenging the interviewer as a representative of the press – and majority society; but in his second answer applies an inclusive ‘we’, demonstrating that he is an integrated player in Norwegian society, all too familiar with stupid jokes about blondes. Thus he expresses the need for the majority society (and the media) to adapt accordingly. Earlier findings support his argument by indicating that veiled women in the press are to be found on illustration photos, while they are very rarely interviewed (Hagen 1996).

Media representation of Europe’s ‘internal Others’ has met with criticism from a broad range of researchers – and from minority groups. Below I shall try to synthesise some of the academic critique with points of view mentioned by those who were interviewed as sources for some of the feature stories I have worked with. I asked these individual sources to express their views on minority coverage in the Norwegian media, in addition to commenting the story in which they figured. I shall also present a short analysis of a group of feature stories on ethnic minorities in Norway and then concentrate on one particular story to highlight some of the problems in journalistic representation of ethnic minorities.

An expression of media representation may be deducted from the names and labels applied to characterise the Other. A scale of Norwegian-ness seems to be operating in the description of ethnic minority representatives. This came into play in connection with two assassinations in Oslo in early 2001. Two youth gangs were engaged in rivalries, and at one occasion a person loosely associated with one of the gangs was killed. On several occasions the gang members were called Pakistani or of Pakistani background by the press, while some prominent individuals (with the same ethnic background) who took an official stand against the violence were called Norwegian-Pakistanis. Not long after this, a young boy who was killed by a group of neo-nazis was called Norwegian-African. From the sports pages we have learned that if a young man/woman of ethnic minority background performs well, (s)he is often called Norwegian, and is allowed to contribute to the continuous storytelling of national pride. Danish media researcher Mustafa Hussain considers sports the "only field in mass communication where members of the ethnic minorities – especially if they are successful – are not treated as ethnic or as foreigners, but just as sportsmen" (Hussain 1997: 66).

One can contest the notion of sports pages being the only ‘media space’ where minority individuals are treated as ‘one of us’. Sports journalism is largely about the successful. But also in other coverage, the media seem at times to focus on certain ethnic minority individuals with success. In those cases, however, they are often represented as ‘queen bees’, exceptionally clever persons achieving more (tacitly presupposed) than could be expected of ‘them’, for example a girl of minority background achieving top marks when graduating from high school. This distinguishes them from the sportsmen, since in sports people of minority to a larger degree are expected to perform well.

Marianne Gullestad, who has done extensive anthropological research in the Norwegian society, suggests that an ethnification of discourses has grown stronger; making it harder for immigrants to ‘belong’ in this society. She also feels that a stronger emphasis on citizenship and less on nationality or ethnicity, which often exclude the people born elsewhere, would create a less tense situation.

Gullestad’s concern is with anthropologists’ emphasis on ethnicity, as precisely the characteristic that seems to divide the ‘us’ and the ‘them’, instead of focusing on other socially constructed characteristics of the persons studied. In this light, it might therefore seem somewhat counterproductive to study the media representation of ethnic minorities. But by applying precisely the inclusion/exclusion perspective, one should be able to register to which extent the otherness constructed is dominant or subordinate to a more universalistic (we as gender, class or all) perspective.

I see ethnification as a one-sided focus on the Other as ethnic, on her difference (from ‘us’) and (thereby often) a construction of conflict by a presupposed opposition us versus them, rather than focusing on what unites us all and/or on processes of syncretism breaking up cultural boundaries.

The answer to this dilemma of difference and likeness is not an either – or. An Other, being a person of multiple identities, may also wish to be represented as being different, as long as this is not reduced to her essence or her only-ness. But at times it may seem a burden to be viewed as ‘the exotic representative’:

Ahssain came to Norway as a four-year-old. The journalist in this case seemed eager to frame this man by selecting some exotic surroundings, which were, in this case, not relevant to the interview.

How can media ‘normalise’ ethnic minority people (represent them as an integrated part of a we) if (ethnic Norwegian) journalists still insist on putting ‘ethnic markers’ around them? One answer is that the tasks of the media have little to do with ‘normalisation’. Rather, newspapers and other news media are concerned with the abnormal, the deviant and the conflict-laden. A lasting peace is no news; neither is the ordinary law-abiding citizen, nor is most of what of what we would otherwise call good news. If this media logic prevails, the Other will tend to be interesting as long as she is different and the representation of the Other as different (and deviant) will tend to overshadow the Other as non-Other, as part of a ‘we’.

Several researchers conclude that stereotypes are applied to represent the Other in the media. Stereotyping implies essentialisation and neglecting individuality (and thereby empathy); a representation of the Others as collectives.

Interestingly Batool, a medical doctor, when asked to give her opinion about minority coverage in Norwegian media, confirms the search for and emphasis on difference as something universal (far beyond journalism), belonging to humankind. Thereby, although her critique is serious, she also harbours an understanding of the way the media represents the ‘ethnic Other’, both at the commercial and human level.

This critique is related to hierarchical and negative representation, in which minority people are mentioned as threats (criminal, violent) or as problems (economic, cultural or social burden to society), and as a consequence, part of the negative news 'flow'..

The ‘blame’ occurs in several ways. If something is wrong it is due to their cultures; if they fare badly, they have only themselves to blame; the media frequently suggest their culture is a barrier to integration or as the only explicit explanation of ‘bad behaviour’.

Saidy is concerned with the combination of blame and generalisation and its effect on the perception of ‘foreigners’ in the Norwegian society. The great emphasis on crime in relation to ethnic minorities, identified by several researchers, may serve to justify this critique. The only broadly based study of Norwegian news coverage of immigrants, undertaken by two journalists, Øyvind Fjeldstad and Merete Lindstad, covered representation of both western and non-western immigrants in newspapers and the two main TV channels in 1996. Their results showed that there were significant differences between the way the two groups were represented in the Norwegian news media. When it came to non-western immigrants, the focus was markedly more negative, with news items focusing on criminal activities making up a large proportion of the total (Fjeldstad & Lindstad 1997, 1999). Writer Ralf Koch in his anthology Medien mögen’s Weiss, states that from a newspaper reader’s or TV spectator’s point of view, it may look as if ‘multicultural’ is synonymous with ‘multicriminal’ (Koch 1996).

The minority Other is not so often invited to represent herself, but is often represented by (sometimes self styled) experts or professionals of majority origin who speak about the Other, or on her behalf. In their study Fjeldstad & Lindstad found that the main sources in news about ethnic minorities, in more than two out of three cases proved to be majority representatives who spoke about or on behalf of the minority groups (Fjeldstad & Lindstad 1997). Media researcher Katherine Goodnow in a study of the press coverage of Bosnian refugees, found that "the most obvious missing voices are those of the Bosnian refugees" (Goodnow 1998: 145). One part of the explanation might be that the minorities are considered partisan, while majority people in power, researchers or professionals are considered ‘neutral’.

The small number of journalists of ethnic minority background in Norwegian media may serve as an illustration of this underestimation. Having a ‘dual background’ can help a more broad-minded approach, since one may presume that people with this more ‘diverse identity’ have a wider horizon of interpretation. The underestimation may be slowly changing as more journalists of minority background enter the newsroom and other media rooms. Another explanation of the position as ‘spoken about’ may be rooted in the way migrants (especially refugees and asylum seekers, from the moment of their arrival) are positioned by society at large as welfare clients in need of all kinds of assistance. In such a process, as in the ‘normal’ welfare discourse, the professionals in the welfare state often speak on behalf of their clients.

Those speaking ‘on behalf of’ the minorities represent strong professional interests; in short an important part of their life is linked to their roles as ‘experts’ concerning the lives and cultures of the Others. To describe the Other as in need of professional help, and stressing that the Other lives in misery is obviously one way of catering to the professionals’ own interests. But these professionals are still often treated and listened to as sources of ‘objective expertise’ by the media.

When white (élite) representatives often speak on behalf of the Others, this may convey an idea of the Other not as an agent, but as passive and incapable of handling her own life. It may then come as a surprise to majority society if ‘they’ step out of their assigned roles. One may of course argue that it is a normal feature in journalism to look for sources that are articulate élite persons with media experience. And that this experience of being represented by ‘professionals’ or ‘experts’ is something the ethnic minorities share with

other minorities and oppressed groups like women, social clients, the physically disabled etc. But sharing a fate does not necessarily make the experience less painful. And the urge to be seen, represented and accepted may be stronger for groups whose members are treated as ‘foreigners’ in a given society. But, as Goodnow observes, such neglect also has consequences for the majority society, by observers and decision-makers being slow in coming to terms with diversity within a group, and furthermore:

She also mentions how the represented group may feel constrained both in its actions and in its opportunities to present alternative images. Thus she asks to what degree media representation actually contributes to ‘expected behaviour’ from minority persons.

Which news actors with minority background do appear in the media? Often, especially in news coverage, the focus is on the extremes, the deviants. This may take several forms. One mode is to place little emphasis on and coverage of the daily discriminatory practices and the prejudices of the majority society; and a stronger focus on the extremist groups, like neo-nazis and other racists, deviating from the normal ‘we’ (Fjeldstad & Lindstad 1997, 1999). Another way is highlighting the ones who deviate from the normal ‘they’, by being suffering victims or menacing threats to ‘normal society’.

Ylva Brune observes two extremes in her study of Swedish news journalism about immigrants and refugees. On one hand, the threatening Other, the criminal who is perceived as a problem for ‘our’ stability, or the racial threat implied by increasing numbers of dark-skinned men. On the other hand, the good Other represented by little girls and women who have been liberated, either from the immigration authorities, or from violent traditions (like ‘their’ patriarchal, fundamentalist society, or men’s wars). In short: the good Other seems to be a victim, or a victim heroine.

Writer Rana Kabbani observes the same victimisation of women in western literature’s representation of the Orient. According to her, the treatment of women is emphasised as the great divide between western Civilisation and the Barbarian Orient:

Echoes of this can be found in ‘popular orientalism’ (Berg 1998). In popular literature and films, the western man who travels to the Orient is an active explorer and often a hero; while the women (Oriental or western) are often represented as victims who need to be rescued from cruel sultans or despotic husbands. ‘At home’, such heroes tend to be majority politicians or other spokespersons. Media sensationalism combined with the logic of general news journalism seems to conform well with this pattern. As another source person sees it:

Khan dislikes the focus on extreme acts and a tendency to highlight minority representatives too much on these occasions: A(n attempt at) forced marriage is foregrounded in the news, and thus the politicians and others arrive with their ad-hoc solutions. On the other hand, she puts some of the blame on (the few) minority representatives who are invited to comment upon the incident, a critique seemingly aimed at correcting the reporters’ lack of phantasy and variety when it comes to the selection of sources.

The victim(-hero) is not the only ‘good part’ offered by the media to minority representatives. Another is the refugee who after some years in asylum, decides faithfully to return to his country of origin, or the grateful and well-integrated refugee – or immigrant – who provides for himself and his family.

This may be seen as parallel to what Ralf Koch calls "Idealbeispiele gelungener Integration". He mentions a black priest in Hamburg, a Turkish member of the Bundestag, and a police commissar from Croatia (Koch 1996: 8). It is also in this group of successfully integrated persons that we find the ‘queen bees’, people who are presented as extraordinary minority persons; a minority youth who has learnt perfect Norwegian in two years, a minority woman who has started a business of chain stores, and the Nigerian cook who excels in cooking the special Norwegian Christmas dishes.

These stories represent an important opposition to essentialisation and to negative stereotypes. And the reporters in these cases are not bound to emphasise ethnicity, rather, they may just represent these persons as part of the general strata of successful people. It is only if the stories represent such persons of minority as unusual, unexpected and deviating from the negative norm, that the notion ‘queen bee syndrome’ may be adequate.

Amin Maalouf underlines that one’s identity is a complex phenomenon, especially in a world of migration. "For globalisation draws us simultaneously towards two contrasting results, one welcome and the other not: i.e. universality and uniformity" (Maalouf 1999:87)

The merging of identity notions may be reflected in young people of today calling themselves neither Pakistani nor Norwegian, but the hyphenated Norwegian-Pakistanis, or Norwegian-Indian. But how to express on a more general level the space for these‘new’ and more floating identities? In our 'post-colonial' world, humanities professor Homi Bhabha identifies a world of migratory labourers and transients; an international world of "ethnoscapes", which, he says, has a potential for cultural difference which may establish new forms of meaning and identification strategies. He challenges the static notion of the nation, and argues for a non-static in-between-ness, claiming that migrants occupy a third space of sorts, which neither corresponds to the country of origin nor to the present country of settlement. Furthermore, he defines the "Third creating space" as a room in which

Bhabha aims at investigating whether the idea of the western world or western culture - among others through its powerful 'myth of progress' - may have an outermost edge or a limit.

If media by and large adhere to a 'two-space' model, voices from a 'third space' risk being silenced, and 'we here' vs. 'them there' will still be seen as the natural order of things. One question is whether such a 'third space' may be available as a meeting place for reporters of majority origin encountering the 'internal Other'; a place in which they recognise mutual influence and a blending of cultures?

To my mind, third space or syncretism may be more appropriate ‘tools of orientation’ in a world where new (sub)cultures and cultural oppositions are constantly shaped by the global circulation of people, cultural commodities (media) and trends.

Professor and historian of religion Saphinaz-Amal Naguib, while referring to syncretism being applied both positively and negatively throughout history, defines it as a compound of several cultural forms, "implying the idea of reconciliation, mediation and reciprocity", and "describing a progressive change in cultural systems and structures". Naguib underlines that this "progression" is not equal to evolutionism, nor does it necessarily follow a linear course of development (Naguib 1998: 100). Syncretism may still take various forms, some hierarchical (assimilation), and some more reciprocal.

I prefer the notion ‘third space’ because by third it suggests an alternative to a binary opposition; or ‘syncretism’, since it describes a process between several parts more than a result, and the in-between option of ‘being both’.

Another question necessarily arises: is the ‘third space’ a shared space (a place for a we which means all), in the sense that it opens up for people of the majority who have so far lived their lives relatively untouched by migration? This depends largely on the willingness of a country’s majority to rethink identity politics and belonging. Often, integration is seen as a set of devices through which a ‘we’ provides ‘them’ with more Norwegian-ness, like language courses and cultural education (how to treat ‘our’ or ‘their’ women, having been suggested as one course for the future). It is not seen as a two-part process, in which we all will have to learn (for example about the difference between Islam and various traditions), and to question our own inheritance and values.

Often, the media working with daily transmittance of facts to the public are simply called news media. But inside these media other genres are in operation, albeit being influenced by the news genres (Hultén 1990). One can still observe that genres like the feature story (including portraits of individuals) allow for other journalistic approaches and perspectives. A survey including 33 journalists (Eide 1998) showed that most journalists who had worked with this genre, felt they enjoyed greater freedom of choice (of topics and persons) and less time constraints when they wrote feature. They felt that news stories to a large extent were "determined" by "events themselves" (events, as defined by newsroom conventions) or by the editors. In short, feature stories seem to be less "dictated by the day and deadline".

Based on this supposedly greater freedom, do the journalistic representations of ethnic minorities in the feature genre mean a difference from the largely negative news representation pinpointed by a number of researchers? What is to be found in-between the extremes of the victimised female hero (or Jørgensen/Bülow’s well integrated and/or grateful Other) and the male, threatening Other? Which marks of majority discourse does one find? And which alternative discourses?

The feature reportage is characterised by the reporter being on the spot observing people and events and spending more time than in daily news reporting. More often than in news, the feature reportage is a result of the reporter's own idea(s). The reportage is a genre of perseverance, a kind of long distance running, while news (albeit not always) represent the short distances that require quick escalation and discharge.

To locate a number of texts suitable for this investigation I looked for journalists who had worked extensively on the "ethnic minority beat" in Norway recently. Works of five journalists who had worked more than occasionally with this combination of "beat" and genre, will be presented below. They are all female, and at the time of analysis had from 19 to more than 30 years of journalistic experience. In the following, I shall call them J1- J5, when I quote them. I have selected three stories from each of them.

Based on the above-mentioned studies and my own studies of newspaper coverage I have tried to categorise the media representation of ethnic minorities in several possible groups of sub-discourses. The sub-discourses may be seen as expressions of "categorising the Other", but also of varieties of relations between a (majority) "we" and a (minority) "they".

• The Other as victim: Often in need of help from majority representatives. The latter are allowed to play the hero’s role in such media stories, since media in need of dramaturgy often encourage reporters to look for heroes and "good helpers".
• The Other as threat and/or problem: Threat: either as criminal(s) or as problematic quantity. Related is the other as mass, as non-individual. Problem: The Others as hard to integrate; representing cultural backwardness.
• Majority ("we") as problem: the majority community creating obstacles for minority people, for example focus on strict immigration law/practice, racism and discrimination, lack of respect for the cultural values and practices of the Other.
• The colourful community: Focus on "their" (exotic) positive values. "They" are "different and exotic, but may still be equal". Related: Integration works: a "they have become good Norwegians/Europeans"-discourse.
• Learning to understand the Other: An informative/enlightenment discourse: The journalist is in an educator’s position. Often the intention seems to be that the readers should learn to understand the traditions of the Other.
• The Other as resource person: Either as collectives who have something to teach us (one example often focused here is the way "they" respect and "care for their elderly", contrasted by the careless way in which "we" put our old family members in homes for the elderly) or as individuals who have achieved something.

In the daily news coverage, the first three ones seem to be dominant (Fjeldstad&Lindstad 1997,1999), and in the first two the representations of minorities are often hierarchical. In this study I have tried to trace the sub-discourses on ethnic minorities that may be found in the sample of reportage by analysing the main topic in each of them.

I have classified the 15 reportage this way, albeit with the risk of oversimplifying. This is a first stage of analysis. The intention in this chapter is to see whether they, topic-wise, correspond to the critique of media coverage I have earlier discussed.

Several texts contain traces of more than one discourse. Two of the reportage put under "information" can for example also be seen as "problem" stories. First, one focusing on forced marriage and honour used as a justification to kill. But in discussing honour, the reporter tries more to explain than focus on the problem. The reporter also tries to look at our own (Norwegian) society and the way in which we deal with codes of honour. Thereby the story shows a kind of symmetrical approach, a "reflexive othering", trying to see "our" society with Other eyes.

The fact that several of the stories may be said to have traces of more than one discourse, and be both "negatively" or "positively" angled, is in itself a sign of the feature story as a genre being complicated, allowing for more diversity and "dual vision".

All in all, this sample shows a deviation from what is often seen in news coverage; the "negative" focus on problems, conflicts, crime, and violence. In two stories, crime is an issue. In the first one, a mother threatens to kill her daughter since she has married the man she loves (but the couple, also interviewed, resists parental pressure and escape). In the second reportage related to the Norwegian judicial system, one of the sources has served time for crimes he claims not to have committed, but the reporter leaves open the question of guilt or innocence. Instead she asks whether the composition of the jury could have had an influence on the final conviction ("we" as problem).

May the different, (more "positively" angled) stories found in this sample, be explained by genre? The journalists themselves believe the reportage/feature genre can create room for difference; that feature stories give the reporter a chance to work more independently and in greater depth than in daily news coverage:

These passages show that at least some journalists have great ambitions when venturing into the feature reportage genre: More independence, more nuance, space for history and life story: all this indicates that the reporters feel a relative journalistic autonomy when working with this genre.

I have selected one of the above mentioned reportage for an in-depth analysis. Here I triangulate my methodological approach in the sense that I have analysed the text, interviewed the reporter and three out of the four sources quoted in the text. The story presents a researcher, Mette Andersson, who has investigated the 'identity work' of young people of immigrant origin. Her main findings are referred to, and, in addition, three young persons are interviewed to 'illustrate' the findings. The story covers a full broadsheet page in Aftenposten, one of the major Norwegian dailies. Below the "summary" of the text, its headline and lead:

The headline is an intertextual play with a Norwegian children’s song from the 1950s, written by Jo Tenfjord. In the song the message repeated is that in spite of external differences (in the song: skin colour), we are all the same "inside". This might be interpreted as an attempt at promoting universalism – or, interpreted more negatively – they are all the same as us, an appropriation of the identity of the Other (or as simplifying diversity). More than four decades later, the words are reversed by changing like to ulike (unlike=different), presumably to enhance the individuality of people who are used to be seen and treated as groups or collectives. But it might also suggest that minority youth do not necessarily feel ‘Norwegian’.

One of the three minority sources commented the headline like this:

Both Batool, and one of the other sources, Sadia Khan, recognise that the headline has to do with an old children’s song, but only Batool reflects especially on the impact of the headline in relation to the overall content of the story.

The first sentence of the lead asks for reader identification at two levels: Who has not been asked at one occasion or another, or has not herself posed this apparently innocent question? But the next sentence makes the reader reflect on the consequences of being met frequently with such a question in one’s own country of residence. The reporter shifts her identification from majority (or an ‘all’ perspective) to minority representatives, and the question then turns more problematic. Furthermore, by the presence of the partly opposed verbals force (as something we do, even if the forcing subject, the responsible agent, is formally omitted) and long to be understood (as something they do), a message of ‘we as problem’ is formed. By quoting researcher Mette Andersson the reporter informs us of the occasion for this reportage; Andersson has recently finished her dissertation on minority youth and identity.

A central message of this short (main) lead is that majority society represents a problem for young people growing up in Norway. They also feel that they are assigned an identity that is hard to internalise (the ‘we as problem’ discourse).

Khan here indirectly confirms that the three are represented as having somewhat similar views, but appreciates this, perhaps as a reinforcement of her own view. The three minority sources are in the lead given only first names, while the researcher is presented with family name and occupation as well. This disproportionate presentation of the four sources is compensated by ‘sub-leads’ for each of the three minority sources: one trade union secretary, one medical doctor and one student of dentistry. Here their full names are presented. Otherwise one might have concluded that this summary had represented its sources in a lopsided manner. Researchers have found that people belonging to minorities are more often represented without full names and occupation than are majority people (Fjeldstad & Lindstad 1997, 1999).

Main story: The longest text, placed at the top of the page, opens with a referral to an episode experienced by one of the three young persons. This functions as an ‘in medias res’ introduction to the topic of identity. This story is a short reconstruction (a scene) of how a young man who has lived in Norway since he was four years old, is routinely stopped at the passport control office at Oslo’s Fornebu Airport (now replaced by Gardermoen). In spite of him flashing his red, Norwegian passport, he is asked: What are you going to do in Norway? "Seek asylum, haha", the young man answers.

The highlighting of this episode as an introduction to the presentation of Andersson’s dissertation may be a conscious emphasis on a (recommendable) way of coping with situations unknown to ethnic Norwegians. The young man is a resource person who masters the situation; he does not allow people to bully him, and thereby he avoids the role as victim of the passport police and their prejudice. The reporter explains why she selected the passport control episode for the introduction of the long text:

In the main text, the reporter then comments on the event, by referring to the background, and the policewoman’s inability to see the red passport, which for her is overshadowed by "dark hair, dark skin and a gold canine tooth. An outlook which may trigger many alarms." Here the perspective is ‘ours’ (ethnic Norwegian), whose alarms may be triggered by the mere sight of this young man. The reporter comments on this passage by saying this is meant as irony:

Next, the researcher is quoted and presented, and offers an explanation to the fact that minority youth often do not feel Norwegian. Two subtitles indicate the content of the following passages: Put outside and Bridge builders. The in-between-ness (‘third space’) of young minority persons is emphasised by the researcher, quoted directly:

This passage underlines that the young people work on their identity, but within limits posed both by the majority society and by their family background. This work is necessary for them, if they are to avoid being stereotyped.

Ahssain, when asked how he felt about being exemplified in the general part of the story, comments like this:

Interestingly, Ahssain applies the pronoun we (supposedly this we refers to ‘ethnic minority persons’) in his first answer. This way, he unconsciously or consciously, tries to generalise from his own experiences: By the highlighting of this ‘positive’ attitude in a newspaper story, the ethnic Norwegian may discover how aboveboard this ‘we’ really is (or may be). Khan also reacted positively to being referred to in the main article:

This expression shows that being assigned a (Pakistani) ‘we’ identity may also be a burden. Why should she, born and raised in Norway, be an expert on Pakistan?

The word ethnicity has popularly been used as something the Other has or belongs to, but not the majority ‘we’. In this story it is applied in an ambiguous way in a passage where the researcher is quoted:

The first clause implies that ethnic background is something ‘they’ have, while this is corrected in the second sentence. This may be a reflection of the challenge faced both by reporters and researchers, being caught between the scientific notions of ethnicity and the popularly accepted notions in society; ‘ethnic music’ and ‘ethnic art’ (as ‘their’ music and art), often found in the media output.

The researcher’s work initiated the reportage. The reporter knew about Andersson, and was waiting for her to finish her project so she could present the results. As a professional, the journalist thereby demonstrates being well informed about research on her ‘beat’. But alone, this interview would not qualify for the reportage genre. The reporter needed to illustrate the identity work process with real persons (personification). She already knew about two of the three interviewees with minority background from their previous media exposure, and the third one was found through contacts in the Pakistani Students’ Union.

This reporter’s willingness to represent the ‘ethnic Other’ as ordinary (and successful), in contrast to the above mentioned extreme stereotypes, is echoed by the three sources. Like when Ahssain proposes his mother as a subject for an interview about school policies, or when Batool and Khan ask for some non-victim girl to be allowed to speak of marriage. When interviewed, the reporter says she trusts the findings of Andersson’s thesis, since it corresponds with her own previous experience with minority persons.

The shorter sub-stories. In her representation of the three minority sources, each in their own sub-story, priority is given to their mentioning of events where a sense of difference is highlighted by the (ethnic Norwegian) people they encounter. Thus the reader is invited to learn about three persons meeting expectations that do not fit with their self-apprehension. The female doctor wearing hijab met with a colleague who addressed her husband and did not feel he could shake hands with her. The trade unionist has felt the fear of the old ladies when he waits behind them in a mini-bank queue. Sadia, the young student of dentistry, born in Norway, was addressed in English by a lady who wanted to touch her skin. All the sub-story headlines illustrate these feelings: Strange gazes; Uncomfortable labelling; Position of attack.

Two of the sources did not feel quite comfortable with the subtitles, however. They seemed to perceive them as a synthesis description of their own situation and did not think that they were quite appropriate:

Batool explains that she feels the reporter underlined her negative experiences and focused too much on her being discontent and "negatively disposed towards Norwegian society". On the other hand, since the reporter sees the identity problem as something "thrust upon them" by the outside (majority) society; she may have felt the need to focus on the sources’ negative encounters with the majority society. Due to the limited space (one full page) she might also have felt the need to be selective about encounters that are really extremely numerous, complex and many-sided.

The three sub-story leads all present some kind of a paradox which seems aimed at making the reader reflect on her own prejudice, and maybe even lead her to reconsider her opinions (interpretation in brackets):

The main parts of the sub-stories consist of the three young persons being represented by direct or indirect quotations. They all express a feeling of being (at least) bi-cultural. Thus the in-between-ness – one of researcher Andersson’s central points – is amply illustrated. In the following I concentrate on a few of the passages attributed directly to the reporter, these textual elements, though small, are significant descriptions based on reporter observations:

The common denominator for these excerpts, is the reporter’s emphasis upon a high degree of integration. This is done by countering the clichés of immigrants as ’smelling of garlic’, not performing well in ’Norwegian’ neighbourhoods (by referring to a spotless flat), and being slow (and/or unwilling) at learning Norwegian language ("not a trace of a foreign accent"). The passage "token dark-skinned" indirectly criticises the trade union establishment for not taking into more consideration the multi-ethnic composition of their membership. When asked why she emphasised the ’spotless flat’ in the case of Batool, the reporter says she wanted to underline how well established the couple was: "I discussed it with them. There are not that many young people who get a new flat these days". (J1)

All three interviewees focus on majority society treating them as more different than they feel they are. One of the interviewees (Batool) however, also speaks of the right to be different, to be accepted for her choice of hijab. She is quoted as saying she feels comfortable being different, since observing hijab grants her a certain calmness about her own identity. In a comment on the representation of Batool in hijab, the reporter expresses her ‘dual vision’:

Batool does not think the reportage came out as she had expected, since the representation of the Norwegian society was partly negative. Simultaneously she is aware of being represented as a woman of career and determination:

It seems she feels her critique of the Norwegian society has been blown out of proportion.

Here, Batool shows her reflexivity in facing the many-eyed Norwegian gaze: she also stares at people who seem foreign. And in her answer she realises that to many Norwegians, her wearing hijab must seem strange. Gazing at ‘the foreign’ is a universal feature. On the other hand, she explains that this Norwegian emphasis has made her more aware of herself, in what may be seen as a mainly positive 'reflexive othering':

Is this an example of how the dialectics of seeing and being seen may contribute to a more conscious ‘preservation of difference’? The younger Sadia Khan is represented as joking about the dentist’s mouth mask being a "half veil" and the reporter refers her refusal to put it on, since as a student she is working on a phantom head. These two different references to veiling (combined with photos showing a veiled Batool and an unveiled Khan), support a representation of diversity in the text as a whole.

The captions can also be seen as intentionally addressing an ethnic Norwegian readership:

In the three individual photos they all smile, staring at the camera. Khan, unveiled, dressed in a denim shirt, is working with her dentist tools. Batool is portrayed up against a neutral wall (at home) in her hijab and her white doctor’s attire. Ahssain, dressed in plain clothes, is sitting at a chair in a café at X-ray (a house for young people).

The punch lines of the sub-stories underline the resourcefulness of the interviewees. The last passage of the interview with Khan refers to her being one of the initiators of an open seminar arranged by the Pakistani Students’ Union, in other words, emphasising her activism. In the interview Khan mentions that she had explicitly asked the reporter to highlight this forthcoming meeting (which took place in the afternoon of the day the reportage was printed). In the final section of Batool’s story, she refers to the colleague who did not know how to address her:

Nazia’s alleged shock at this encounter of cultural misinterpretation is underlined by the three marks of exclamation. She does not feel so comfortable with this "Hello!!!", since she says she also told the reporter about being received positively in her hijab at work. Mohamed Ahssain is allowed to conclude the interview with his experiences in the mini-bank queues:

By adding the attribution "he smiles", the reporter emphasises Ahssain’s ability to be generously in control of the situation, and his benevolent, tolerant understanding of people who are inclined to discriminatory practices. Ahssain, who is generally content with the way he is represented in the story tells about receiving a letter from an old lady who had read it.

Khan also met with positive response, although some challenged her for saying that she perceived Islam as a Norwegian religion, as they found that a problematic point of view. Batool experienced the story igniting new discussions at the work place

Thus, although she feels the reporter has emphasised her negative experiences too much, she admits to her surroundings responding positively, with curiosity, initiating new and fruitful discussions.

The story seen as one, both starts (top left) and ends (bottom right) with Ahssain’s experiences. As a male minority person, he may have had more negative experiences in being seen as the not-belonging or even threatening Other (the Other as problem). The reporter here shows how her interviewee is aware of the perceived threat (represented by immigrant men, especially in groups) that he has to relate to on a daily basis. But he has to live with it.

Facts and understanding. The full-page article is an educative (enlightenment) one, first at the level of transmitting factual knowledge by representing a researcher through that researcher’s results. Secondly, through her exemplification, the reporter invites the reader to imagine and partly understand three individuals who are allowed to express themselves both about their ‘third space’ or ‘in-between’ identities and about their experiences of being misunderstood and misinterpreted in everyday situations. By the main focus, the reportage is also in line with the discourse of ‘the Other as resource person’ (the well integrated Other), particularly since all three minority sources are either well educated and/or have a good position in society. Underlying is the discourse of ‘us as problem’, since the restraints the three feel in the Norwegian society, are caused by majority representatives. It is also an example of the representation of ‘third space identities’, since all three express their wish to work on their identities in a processual way. The reporter is very aware of this.

The reporter is not fully satisfied with her story. She says she does not have a "good feeling" as she looks at it again during our interview.

This reporter had visited each of the three minority sources separately, each time with a new photographer; and the researcher, living in Bergen, was interviewed by phone. She says her story received a positive response, but "it is not a story making young people react by e-mailing me, as it would have been if the subject was forced marriage". At the same time, she underlines how difficult it can be to obtain contact with adequate sources.

This may be a sign of how the ‘negative representation’ influences the relation between reporters and potential sources. Two of the three sources (Khan and Batool) confirm that the reporter motivated them to speak out to counter some of the ‘negative coverage’. My interview with the sources was done after my interview with the reporter. Time has not allowed me to open a new dialogue with her about what the sources had to tell.

Satisfied, but longing for more. Two of the source persons were, all in all, rather satisfied with the story, while the third (N.B.) felt it focused too much on the negative statements they (the sources) had made about Norwegian mainstream society.

From the above, it is evident that Batool understands the intention of the reporter, and accepts it. But she still has problems with the ‘reversed’ negative focus, while at the same time revealing that in her environment the story functioned in a positive way, both for her and majority people. Like Batool, Ahssain also has some problems with what was not included:

From this statement one can see that Ahssain also has considerable knowledge about media’s ways and functioning. He clearly expresses that this is not the ideal world, and that therefore one has to be satisfied with fragments where one would have preferred a more comprehensive representation. Of the three, Khan is the most positive, she felt what she had to say was "very well reproduced".

From the above it is evident that all three sources have previous experience with the media, and therefore are more inclined to understand the thinking and priorities of both the reporter and the media institution. Their responses to the story may be synthesised into three points:

First, appreciation; the sources all agree that the story is important, and that it highlights ‘something else’ (something more positive about ‘us’) than the average media coverage. They all praise the reporter for focusing on achieving individuals, although one of them expresses doubts about the story having any effect: "maybe they will think: well, yes, here you have these three, but what about all the thousands? But this has little to do with this story." (S.K.).

Second, desires for an ideal world are expressed. That is, while realising that the reporter’s work in spite of hour-long interviews, must be reduced to fragments; they would regardless like to see a more complete representation. Third, the fear of a ‘reversed negativity’, especially expressed by Batool, in which her we (the mainstream’s they) is seen as too critical towards the Norwegian society, a society which they also appreciate. This critique raises again the fundamental question of whether it is possible to represent the Other in frustrating and conflict-laden situations without focusing ‘our’ or ‘their’ negativity; without essentialising.

The reporter explains the negative focus by pointing at the general media representation of society, and defends the role of the press as one of criticising the malpractice and shortcomings in society – also among the minorities. Simultaneously she adds that "in the coverage of minorities, the individual easily disappears. It is important to see the individual, that is what we all want."

The emphasis on difference is a common feature in journalism, but not only in that particular profession. Hastrup writes that in anthropological practice the researcher's culture always to a certain extent will penetrate the Other, i.e. the studied culture; and the foreign culture will represent what her own culture is not. "It is differences, and thereby the implicit negations and absence, which are registered, thereafter to be cemented by science. When researchers write about other cultures, they react as the cultures themselves: they exaggerate differences." (Hastrup 1993:15, my translation)

The journalists I have interviewed confirm this emphasis on difference to a large extent. But at the same time they seem conscious about the need to have a double focus:

Here, at least, is an example of someone who tried – from the headline onwards – to treat as normal the fact that a well-known and well-integrated girl was graduating from high school. But in this case the journalists who edit and design the reporters' material thought otherwise.

According to historian and journalist Kenan Malik many contemporary scholars consider the difference between the West and its Other as belonging implicitly to the universalism of the Enlightenment and its categories.

Malik suggests that the antiracist struggle of today is not about social equality, but cultural diversity, and the old concept of equality is held to be part of a discredited universalism which does not take into account the differences of society. The celebration of difference is an intellectual point of view forged from the idea that it is impossible to change social conditions. (Malik 1996, 260ff). Also one can argue that the more officials and the media focus on difference, the harder it is for the reader to identify with the persons being represented as (different) Others. Who defines relations such as difference or universal equality? Largely this has been attributed to the media, but also practices focussing on difference can be found in laws, immigration practices and economic inequalities which structure the world and its states in privileged and non-privileged sectors. On the contrary, universal declarations of human rights, the rights of women, minorities and children represent a focus on equal status.

Is focusing on universalism in representing the Other essential to counter racism? Will too much focus on difference or particularity, trigger racism and xenophobia, as Malik seems to suggest? This may hold true, but on the other hand, the universalism offered (from above) often contains a (more or less concealed) imperative: be like us (the majority); and thereby disrespects minorities’ rights to preserve their own tradition and religion. To focus on equality or similarity, then, might be synonymous to focusing on equal rights. Still also, in a fast changing world, people have the opportunity to become more "like each other", since they increasingly share some cultural interests, and since contact across borders involve many in global networks.

Morley refers to Todorov’s warning against the "dangers of excessive relativism" in contemporary cultural theory.

Linked to general media representation is the question of who can (really) represent (i.e. "speak for") someone else. Cultural studies professor Ella Shohat and Cinema studies professor Robert Stam quote Spike Lee, who said that no white man could have made the film about Malcolm X (Shohat&Stam 1994). Even if determinism should be avoided in analysing cultural production, since the reverse means subscribing to a view that one can only represent "one’s own"; it is still tempting to concede that Lee may be right regarding this film.

From a belief in the equal value of all human beings, one can see the need for a "real" universalism to be developed in a kind of non-hierarchical plurilog (Shohat&Stam 1994:346). In such a dialogue the privileged recognise their (class, racial, gendered) position and concede some of their privileges for the Other to be allowed space to speak: for themselves, about themselves, about the world. By plurilog I associate an attempt at symmetrical relationships where many voices are being heard without any one being privileged above the others.

From the sample of newspaper reportage we may observe a universalist approach underlining what humans share across (historical, cultural) borders, tends to be linked to a more symmetrical representation of the Other. We find attempts of such approaches when the reporters emphasise similarities between Norway and the Other’s country of origin, between ethnic Norwegians and representatives of ethnic minorities etc. One example is when J1 represents codes of honour as something universal. Another is when J2 tries to find similarities in her reportage on two Iraqi refugee families, which she first met in Saudi Arabia. When she meets them again as refugees in her home district and country, she tells how the two landscapes have something in common: Jæren and the barren landscape of Saudi Arabia. (Both are flat.) The headline of this reportage is "[They] Want to be like everybody else in Sola", another attempt at underlining (potential) sharing of habits, values and culture.

The five reporters all seem to subscribe to the view that a universalism of sorts, or an emphasis on human likeness should be stressed more in representation of minorities.

Lena Larsen, an ethnic Norwegian convert to Islam, has often been interviewed in the media for her choice of traditional Muslim dress code. This journalist wanted to move past that representation, both in presenting her and a young doctor of Pakistani origin who has also chosen hijab.

An important part of minority discourse has been a focus on "their" ability to integrate with Norwegian society; and often the Norwegian society is then seen as static, in no need of change in spite of changes in the composition of the population. One of the reporters opposes the view of a one-sided responsibility for integration.

J3 here argues for a dialectic approach: differences can not be obliterated and need also to be communicated - as part of journalistic fairness. But they need to be explained, as in a reportage about Ramadan (J4c), which seems to aim at enlightening the public about a central Islamic tradition.

To communicate similarity or likeness, you have to experience it. It seems being a woman (member of the oppressed sex) makes room for some special experience of universalism.

Our likeness to them, not theirs to us, is underlined by J5 as a challenge – to herself and to colleagues. Does this mean that when writing for example of their problems with oppression of women, one should keep in mind how many majority husbands beat their wives? An important part of media minority discourse has been concerned with "their" ability to integrate with Norwegian society; and often the Norwegian society is then seen as static, or in no need of change or adjustment even if the composition of the population changes.

The five journalists have all travelled to countries outside the Western Hemisphere, and these experiences have added to their "reporter capital", and made them more aware of both fundamental human similarities and of various differences. But is it a mere coincidence that the group of journalists who have dedicated time to work on this beat in the reportage genre, are all women? Maybe not. First, because women tend to be over-represented, among journalists working with feature genres and weekend supplements. Second, the ideals of female journalists seem to differ slightly from those of their male colleagues. In spite of professionalisation, a study of Swedish journalists’professional ideals, shows that female journalists seem to believe somewhat more than men in an educator’s ideal in performing their profession. "The educator ideal, entails a wish to stimulate new thoughts and ideas and give her audience experiences plus explain events to them". (Melin-Higgins 1996:103). The educator ideal corresponds well with the normative approach to the reportage genre; claiming that the reportage should "go behind" news, and give more explanatory background. Third, the feminisation of this reporter "beat" could also be due to this field being associated with less prestige than many others, like foreign, political and business reporting.

In spite of the above proclaimed "positive" attitudes, has media coverage really contained such an overwhelming focus on the negative aspects of immigration and a development towards a multicultural society – in the whole post WWII period of immigration? Researchers

and journalists seem to observe a shift of paradigm that occurred some time during the 1980s

(van Dijk 1991, Brune 1997, Hussain et al. 1997). Before, the media often represented the non-western newcomers with a touch of curiosity and a sense of good will, or simply as resource persons needed by "our" employers. Blame was to a large degree put on society when it did not provide immigrants or refugees with the necessary tools needed for proper integration; like housing, employment, language courses – and the right to preserve their own culture (native tongue, religion etc.). In addition there was substantial emphasis on the individual fates of asylum seekers.

The journalists I have interviewed also agree to this description. One of the questions asked to them was whether they had observed any changes in media coverage of ethnic minorities during the last 10-20 years.

These answers raise new questions: Can all that is here labelled as positive, be characterised as a symmetrical representation? Or could some of the features of this "early discovery" simply signify superficial exoticism more than "kindness"? As seen above, the reporters emphasise the highlighting of the exotic in this early period of good will.

Roland Barthes in "Mythologies" suggests that the foundation of exoticism's existence is to deny all historical connections. If you associate the "oriental reality" with some good signs of indigenous life, you also safely immunise it from all real content (Barthes 1991:141). The established order, according to Barthes only knows of two modes of reaction when facing the foreigner, and both are equally disabling them: either (1) recognise the foreign(er) as puppet theatre or (2) render it/him harmless by representing it/him as a mere mirror image of the West. In all cases, the main point is to rob the foreign(er) of its/his history. Barthes comments to various newspaper stories, and he claims to find worse cultural representations of the exotic Other in modernity than in the period of enlightenment.

One can at least agree with him in this: journalism is often (bound to be) superficial and without a profound sense of historical connection. On the other hand, the journalists interviewed here emphasise precisely the possibility of including history and historical context as (more) possible when working in the feature (reportage) genre. The question remains, if Barthes’ point carries some validity, is the press a fixed part of the "established order", or may the press content at times deviate from the powerful structural constraints? Is it not an inherent role of the press to criticise that order, even if one observes that the "fourth estate" often falls short of its (proclaimed) ambitions?

Another way to explain the shift of focus is the way source criticism has been more emphasised during the last 10-15 years, partly as a result of the professionalisation of journalism. When newspapers gradually let go of their political party affiliation, the journalists (at least in theory) might operate more independently. Partisanship was considered unprofessional. Of course there are other ways of preserving a servile, un-critical journalistic approach, like pressure towards consensus manufacturing, power relations, commercialisation, conformity, or self-censorship. The shift also occurred on an individual scale; "we lost our virginity", says an experienced journalist, hinting at colleagues "waking up" to refugees who like other people could be liars and crooks. But another journalist suggests that the "pendulum swung too far in the other direction as a result of this and I wish it would soon find its equilibrium position" (J3).

Does such an equilibrium exist, or is this articulated need a mere reflection of the age-old notion of "media objectivity"? Or is it an aim to have in mind, which one can never totally achieve? I am in no position to answer these questions, but I think my examples of feature coverage of ethnic minorities indicate that this genre leaves more space for a respectful (empathic?) approach, which eventually may generate a more symmetrical representation.

Another question is, of course, whether the genre of reportage presented here will survive the attacks from the stress on news around the clock and general media commercialisation and infotainment.

Do journalistic conventions contribute to media marginalisation of minorities or other ‘deviant’ groups? Media researcher Christopher Campbell is concerned with the concept of balance in the news coverage, and treats it as a code word for the middle – for example middle American values – which are coded into mainstream journalism. This ‘being in the middle’ contributes to myths of marginality, and the marginalisation in its turn confirms the mainstream. What happens in the outskirts or margins does not count, or ‘is not there’. Blacks are tolerated as long as they stay marginal (Campbell 1995: 17). To my mind, a question that arises from this critique is whether it is possible to re-conceptualise ‘balance’ as a space in which to attempt to blur the ‘we-they’-divides.

One way of remaining marginal, is by being ignored or only being allowed to speak of oneself as ‘ethnic’, or only to be associated with ‘ethnic affairs’, as politicians of ethnic minority background have frequently experienced (Ansari & Qureshi 1998). This may occur even if one’s job has nothing to do with ‘ethnicity’.

Here, the reason for being stuck in the margins is explained in a more structural way: as long as the representatives of minorities in a given environment, be it trade union or other, are few, the burden of being ‘the outspoken ethnic Other’ falls more heavy on these individuals. Ahssain is not only interviewed, but also often asked by journalists whether he knows some gang member, some criminals or others who are stopped by the police. This may be seen as indicative of a press tendency to ask resource persons of minority background to provide them with ‘cases’ that can be utilised to illustrate problems, sometimes extreme ones. Ahssain says he is not asked whether he knows somebody who can speak about school policies.

Nazia Batool expresses another experience of marginalisation:

The above seems to comply also with Brune’s registration of ‘victim heroes’ as popular media stereotypes. Other ‘female views’ are overlooked. A victim hero is in need of charitable action from the majority society. People of minority background who live comfortably in accordance with tradition (excluding forced marriage or circumcision), for example individuals who accept arranged marriages or observe a stricter Muslim dress code (hijab), are more rarely represented in the press.

In his assessment of minority coverage, one of the interviewed sources mentions the differences between Islam and tradition as something not communicated well enough.

Being a religious leader (an Imam), Saidy may be more concerned with this particular coverage, since the emphasis on forced marriages and circumcision has been considerable in Norwegian media in recent years. He is particularly concerned with what may be seen as a reductionist view of a world religion practised in a multitude of different societies. In his view the reductionist way of representation is to blame Islam in general for negative acts performed by some Muslims who are heavily influenced by (older) traditions.

In order to understand more in-depth how media coverage functions, working with texts from several angles may be very useful. In this work, the sources quoted both represent critics, giving the reporters feedback on specific texts, and they also address the coverage of minorities in general. The 'dialogue' thus created may perhaps be helpful in paving the way for a more recognised 'third space' in the media representation - and in society at large.

Brune, Ylva (1997): Journalistikens Andra Invandrare och flyktingar i nyheterna., Göteborg: