It took courage to publish this when it seems this state of affairs has become more trying with every week FLI has tried to show how they’ve been learning and doing better after course-correcting from the initial mistake for months now.
I have one main question with a set of a few related questions, though I understand if you’d only answer the first one.
While the FAQ mentions how Nya Dagbladet is one of few publications critical of decisions to put nuclear weapons near the Swedish border, it doesn’t directly address why Nya Dagbladet was considered for a grant in the first place.
What was the specific work Nya Dagbladet had done or was expected to do that had them be considered for a grant in the first place? Would it just have been to fund Nya Dagbladet to publish more media in favour of nuclear deescalation? Or was it something else?
As there are apparently few but still some other publications doing the kind of work in Sweden FLI might have been prospectively interested in funding, what was it specifically about Nya Dagbladet that had FLI consider them more? How much were the following factors:
perception that Nya Dagbladet published higher quality or more impactful content?
Nya Dagbladet having less funding than other publications and thus being considered a marginally more scalable and neglected publication?
the apparent independence of Nya Dagbladet’s journalism, such that an increased independence might have been thought to give them more leeway to criticize government policies that risked increasing government policies?
It appears Nya Dagbladet significantly deceived FLI, such as keeping hidden details about its political affiliations when the grant applicants presumably would have known that that disclosure might have their application rejected. Yet does FLI consider Nya Dagbladet to have 100% lied? I.e., is it thought the publication would have used the money only for what the grant would have permitted, or is it thought it might have totally scammed FLI to use the money to push other propaganda and conspiracy theories?
After finally publishing answers to these questions while still being doubted and having to take care of business as this scandal ends, I don’t expect anyone from FLI to immediately answer these questions. Please take your time to answer them, or just decline to answer them at this time.
If I understand correctly the grant would’ve been for Nya Dagbladet’s foundation, not the publication itself.
Still, unlike others I’m not completely reassured yet. I would also like to know why the grant was considered in the first place and I don’t think the FAQ clearly answers that.
Thank you for sharing this.
It took courage to publish this when it seems this state of affairs has become more trying with every week FLI has tried to show how they’ve been learning and doing better after course-correcting from the initial mistake for months now.
I have one main question with a set of a few related questions, though I understand if you’d only answer the first one.
While the FAQ mentions how Nya Dagbladet is one of few publications critical of decisions to put nuclear weapons near the Swedish border, it doesn’t directly address why Nya Dagbladet was considered for a grant in the first place.
What was the specific work Nya Dagbladet had done or was expected to do that had them be considered for a grant in the first place? Would it just have been to fund Nya Dagbladet to publish more media in favour of nuclear deescalation? Or was it something else?
As there are apparently few but still some other publications doing the kind of work in Sweden FLI might have been prospectively interested in funding, what was it specifically about Nya Dagbladet that had FLI consider them more? How much were the following factors:
perception that Nya Dagbladet published higher quality or more impactful content?
Nya Dagbladet having less funding than other publications and thus being considered a marginally more scalable and neglected publication?
the apparent independence of Nya Dagbladet’s journalism, such that an increased independence might have been thought to give them more leeway to criticize government policies that risked increasing government policies?
It appears Nya Dagbladet significantly deceived FLI, such as keeping hidden details about its political affiliations when the grant applicants presumably would have known that that disclosure might have their application rejected. Yet does FLI consider Nya Dagbladet to have 100% lied? I.e., is it thought the publication would have used the money only for what the grant would have permitted, or is it thought it might have totally scammed FLI to use the money to push other propaganda and conspiracy theories?
After finally publishing answers to these questions while still being doubted and having to take care of business as this scandal ends, I don’t expect anyone from FLI to immediately answer these questions. Please take your time to answer them, or just decline to answer them at this time.
If I understand correctly the grant would’ve been for Nya Dagbladet’s foundation, not the publication itself.
Still, unlike others I’m not completely reassured yet. I would also like to know why the grant was considered in the first place and I don’t think the FAQ clearly answers that.
…
I understand that Tegmark’s brother was affiliated with them but wasn’t part of the leadership.