Talk:Dagbladet

I'm going to remove the segment stating that "It's is widely known in Norway that Dagbladet is supporting the left side of the political system and is not accepable to be neutral on issues regarding USA" for a variety of reasons: Salmon 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The text is not NPOV
 * The text is written in rather poor English (if anyone want to reinsert it, please upgrade the language)
 * Factually, what it says is wrong. Dagbladet was, until 1977, a part of the Liberal Party, a centre-right or pure centre party. Today, Dagbladet is arguably radical on certain issues (especially regarding culture), and moderate on certain other issues. It is also the only major newspaper in Norway to be completely politically independent.

Dagbladet is a left-wing paper. I`m Norwegian and read it some times to see things from a new angle. Dagbladet is radical. Venstre is a moderate market-liberal party today but it was not always like that. Dagbladet must be considered left-wing. --M1chaelz0r 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that Dagbladet should be considered a left-wing paper. Although it might take that stand sometimes, it all depends on who is writing each article. Its at least wrong to state that their political alegiance is to the centre left, just because some of their articles might seem that way now and then. Daneic 12:10, 14 July (UTC)

I cut the last part on web paper dagbladet.no. I regard it as highly polemical and unfair. While the web paper clearly is a tabloid, it is also amongst the more innovative webpapers internationally, as sometimes noted by poynter online ao. My position as managing editor of dagbladet.no makes me even more biased, of course. I have therefore striven to write a short, factual paragraph, hoping others will expand and develop in the interest of wikipedia users. Parts of the entry on the newspaper itself, also strikes me as un-encyclopedical. ("Dagbladet has in recent years chosen an editorial direction towards "simpler" news, often of human interest. Dagbladet and it´s main competitor VG are increasingly adopting the style of UK tabloids like The Sun, where hard news and thorough investigative journalism has been replaced by sensationalism and simplicity. As VG and Dagbladet are the only true national newspapers with substantial readership this has arguably weakened the state of journalism in Norway, as readers cannot rely on a great deal of hard news from these two newspapers. This "dumbing down" of the two newspapers has been done to increase sales, but readers have reacted rather negative to this solution, and daily circulation is steadily declining.")

A less biased observer might see more difference than similarity between the main Norwegian tabloids and The Sun. To my knowledge, the British paper is rarely studied, nor "copied", by management in VG or Dagbladet. "Simplicity" is a convenient word, but not qualified here. It goes on in this vein. This part of the entry seems more motivated by argument, than information.

Helge Ogrim
 * Dagbladet is without doubt a left-wing tabloid newspaper, but today rather in favor of SV, AP than Venstre. If anyone thinks otherwise they're merely socialists in complete denial of reality. -GabaG (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

True national newspaper?
"As VG and Dagbladet are the only true national newspapers with substantial readership this has arguably weakened the state of journalism in Norway, as readers cannot rely on a great deal of hard news from these two newspapers"

What about Aftenposten, which has a larger circulation than Dagbladet? Unless someone are able to come up with a good argument why Aftenposten isn't a national newspaper (and cite a source of that in the article), I'll eventually change this. Marstr2 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dagbladet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622030526/http://blink.dagbladet.no/index.htm to http://blink.dagbladet.no/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305005104/https://www.jus.no/index.gan?id=29935 to http://www.jus.no/index.gan?id=29935

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dagbladet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.tns-gallup.no/arch/img.asp?file_id=212417&ext=.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130703160309/http://www.na24.no/m/propaganda/?articleId=3628156 to http://www.na24.no/m/propaganda/?articleId=3628156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Implied Israel started hostilities on Oct 7 2023
To add to the theme of anti-Israel "historical revisionism", is it appropriate to add that they implied Israel initiated hostilities on Oct 7. They only added that it was in response to Hamas attacks after complaints were submitted. Anyone familiar with the paper knows this wasn't a "mistake".

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjk08dov6 120.18.160.112 (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)