For two weeks in Denmark, the documentary's subject matter was “larger than Trump,” says producer Michael Beboat. Broadcast of GrønlandsHvideGuld (White Gold, Greenland), a 55-minute film about decades of frozen mines in southern Greenland and the vast sums of Danish exploitation it produced caused waves in both Greenland and former colonial rulers Denmark in February. However, the reaction between the two could not be more prejudiced.
In Greenland, which continues to be part of the Kingdom of Denmark, there was a feeling of anger and deep sadness as Denmark still controls foreign and defence policies. Thanks to Donald Trump's threat to rule the Arctic Island, the country was in the midst of an election monitored by the world. According to a Greenlandic newspaper poll Sermitsiaqmore than a third of voters said the documentary would affect the vote.
There was also a long-awaited recognition. This was finally confirmed by a public institution as large as the Dr., Public Service Danish broadcasting company, that people had heard from friends and relatives about what had happened in the now-non-rection town.
Politically, it was considered an earthquake in the country's capital, Nuuk. It believed that it could change the dynamics of power between territorial and Scandinavian countries that have long been framed as Greenland's financially dependent on Denmark. “The new documentary shows Denmark has won at least 40 billion cloners [£46bn] Mute B. Egade, then Prime Minister of Greenland, said at the time.
There were initially some positive reviews in Denmark, but the Danish media quickly attacked. “That was horrifying,” Beboat said. observer. “It was the worst shit storm.
Criticism of the documentary focused on the figures of 40 billion Danish cloners, with the team calculated the total revenue from more than 133 mines. A year adjusted to today's value.
However, Torven M. Andersen, professor of economics at Aarfs University and chairman of the Greenland Economic Council, who appears in the documentary, halted the numbers by cautioning calculations rather than profits for sales from 1854 to 1987. The documentary notes to emphasize that this figure, calculated using the Danish National Archives logbook, refers to overall turnover, as advised when dealing with colonial economics, was spent on production costs in Denmark using Danish workers and equipment.
For ten days, the doctor stood by the documentary. Despite criticism from several politicians, including Danish host, Culture Minister Jacob Engel Schmidt, who denounced the “craftsmanship of poor journalism,” and economist and doctoral news director Sandy French, said, “There was no violation of the press ethics guidelines.
But in the end they changed their minds. They announced that they would withdraw and “take” the documentary, and that Dr. Tholmas Falbe, the editor-in-chief of the news, has resigned. The French said the turning point was new information about the graph of total accumulated sales of cryolites, which was not accurate and thus had been removed from previous versions of the documentary.
“It may seem like a minor thing compared to the big discussion about documentaries, but this new discovery is important to me because it requires you to be able to trust that your presentation is accurate,” French said. Bebolt, who is trying to find a new home for the documentary, said the rare move towards DePobrish was political. “It has nothing to do with the film. They're chasing the doctor.”
Rune Rickeberg, editor-in-chief of the Danish newspaper. informationI agree. “We need to censor this message to appease the government, not political.” But it's corporate political in the sense that “we have to do this to protect our brand and control the damage.” ”
He added: “The Doctor is like the BBC of the Public Service Station where the ultimate executive is the government. The Minister of Culture appoints the head of the board to appoint a formal independent CEO of the Doctor.
The move towards DePobrish was a “terrifying decision,” Rickeberg added. “The documentary is part of the public debate, and it's a public fact that people are deliberating, and it was a general concern that everyone has access to it. It doesn't help people who can't see the film you're talking about.
Naaja Nathanielsen, pastor of the previous Greenlandic government and current government, was officially sworn on Monday, saying the move was an “overreaction” from DR. “It has more to do with Danish self-interpretation of their actions in Greenland than this film,” she said. observer.
She doesn't look at the numbers so she can't comment on whether they're accurately correct, but she believes they're fair. “What I believe is that it is not an unfair presentation of the economy between Greenland and Denmark,” she said. “Even when Denmark began investing more in Greenland, I'm confident enough in the numbers that say it represents the correct interpretation of things.”
But she said, in order to “derail” the conversation from what the actual discussion should be, just numbers. “In Greenland, you can have both stories. Yes, Denmark has in the past, unfortunate, it's not right, and it's violated rights. And you can accept and acknowledge all the good things that Denmark has done.
But it doesn't seem to be the case in Denmark, or at least in Danish media. “There is only one story that can exist. That means Denmark is good for Greenland, and that's the end of the story.”
The doctor and the Danish Minister of Culture observerRequest a comment.
