This is a fine exemple of "everything that can go wrong" when journalism is driven by an agenda, a preconception of what is "the truth", rather than driven by a quest to find out the truth.
It early becomes clear that Edblom/Hjalmarsson/Kirvesmäki set out with the notion that they had some sort of scoop in the making, one that they relentlessly tried to turn into reality, despite the fact that there was none to be had.
Their hypothesis was that the police, by not acting earlier, had somehow allowed the antagonist, Nytorgsmannen, to continue his evil deeds. Through the documentary it became blatantly obvious that this was not the case. There was very little evidence for the police to move forward with - and what evidence there was appears to have been dealt with in a professional, relevant, fashion. Despite this they attempted to hammer home their non-existing message.
Sure... with the gift of hindsight or a seriously substantial portion of luck the investigation could have moved forward at a higher pace. But the accusation that it is reasonable to expect a job better than that performed is not only naive - it's against all what good journalism stands for.
Awarding a 1/10 may seem harsh, but Nytorgsmannen does exactly what a documentary shouldn't - takes an incorrect populistic approach and tries to drive it further. It is a don't see - except for those wanting a crash course in poor journalism.
It early becomes clear that Edblom/Hjalmarsson/Kirvesmäki set out with the notion that they had some sort of scoop in the making, one that they relentlessly tried to turn into reality, despite the fact that there was none to be had.
Their hypothesis was that the police, by not acting earlier, had somehow allowed the antagonist, Nytorgsmannen, to continue his evil deeds. Through the documentary it became blatantly obvious that this was not the case. There was very little evidence for the police to move forward with - and what evidence there was appears to have been dealt with in a professional, relevant, fashion. Despite this they attempted to hammer home their non-existing message.
Sure... with the gift of hindsight or a seriously substantial portion of luck the investigation could have moved forward at a higher pace. But the accusation that it is reasonable to expect a job better than that performed is not only naive - it's against all what good journalism stands for.
Awarding a 1/10 may seem harsh, but Nytorgsmannen does exactly what a documentary shouldn't - takes an incorrect populistic approach and tries to drive it further. It is a don't see - except for those wanting a crash course in poor journalism.