Assignment review editors sometimes get access to material where the author or tipster may have committed a questionable or illegal act to get over the material. This may include, for example, sensitive material or information from within companies, banks, organizations we have reviewed.
No matter how we get the material and its origin, we always do a thorough analysis and evaluation of it. If the information is correct and the disclosure is of sufficient public interest, we can publish regardless of where the data comes from or in what way our source has come across the data.
Sometimes we say no because it can be difficult to verify the material or that the misunderstanding is not of the degree that it justifies a publication.
Several major revelations about serious abuses in the last few years have their roots in this way of working. Among other things, the known so-called leaks "panama papers" and the "paradise leak" which revealed misunderstandings in the banking world. Disclosures that are solely due to someone coming over or collecting information in violation of agreements or laws.
When we got access to pictures and films that resulted in the report “Arlagården” we initially made careful checks about where and when the pictures were taken. We also let experts review the material and got a completely consistent picture, these are roughly misaligned animals. Several former employees at the farm have confirmed the abuses and provided us with more material.
Their own research has in a very clear way supplemented and confirmed what the films show.
Against this background, we have decided - despite the circumstances around which the film is taken - to publish. It is an important disclosure and the public interest in the serious misconduct that we can now show is great. from the Arla farm