'Year's wildest statement', says entrepreneur after culture minister's LinkedIn post

A robust discussion between Culture Minister Zenia Stampe and entrepreneur Martin Thorborg from 'Debatten' has been shared widely on social media.

Both parties regret letting themselves be "provoked" by the other, they tell DR. (Photo: © Henning Bagger/Ritzau Scanpix, Niels Ahlmann Olesen/Ritzau Scanpix) 58 minutes ago

Criticism has rained down on Culture Minister Zenia Stampe (Social Liberal Party) after she ended up in a heated discussion with entrepreneur Martin Thorborg on Thursday's edition of 'Debatten'.

The discussion stems from Thorborg having used artificial intelligence in the drafting of his new autobiography. The culture minister challenges that only 'a twentieth' was written by Thorborg himself, and calls him, among other things, "not that smart" and "overestimating himself".

- It's trained on my fucking material. You don't know a damn thing about it, Thorborg replies, among other things.

The clip has been shared widely on social media and has sparked many critical comments about the culture minister.

- A little humility would suit you. You're welcome to disagree with @martinthorborg. But talking down to him and questioning his intelligence is just too cheap, writes entrepreneur Jesper Buch, among others, on Instagram.

Badminton player Viktor Axelsen has also joined the debate.

- I honestly think Zenia Stampe's behavior was embarrassing. The tone, body language, and the way she handled the situation was, in my opinion, far below what one should expect from a minister, he writes on Facebook.

According to Zenia Stampe, the criticism is misguided and leaves a misleading picture of her during the debate.

-----------------

'Wow, just wow'

-----------------

When the culture minister saw the thousands of angry comments after the broadcast, she became afraid that she, contrary to how she herself remembered it, had actually been out of control.

But after watching the entire broadcast, she can state that "there is nothing I said that I couldn't repeat today and tomorrow," she writes on LinkedIn.

That statement rubs Martin Thorborg the wrong way.

- I think it could almost be the wildest statement of the year. When I read it, I thought: This must be fucking satire. It can't be her own profile that wrote that. But I have to conclude that it was. And then I just have to say wow, just wow, says Martin Thorborg to DR.

In the post, Zenia Stampe writes that, unlike Thorborg, she neither speaks rudely, swears, nor interrupts during the debate.

To DR, the culture minister elaborates that she does not want to point fingers and put all the blame on Thorborg.

- But I also have no desire or reason to take all the blame on myself and my shoulders, she says.

------------------------------------------

'On social media, everything was spun'

------------------------------------------

Thorborg acknowledges that he should not have let himself get "riled up" and "provoked" by the culture minister.

But Zenia Stampe is right that it's you who starts swearing and interrupting?

- She also interrupted, I'll just say that. But yes, I interrupt, and I swear. I've taken responsibility for that. I'm sorry about it. I let myself get riled up. I let myself get provoked, and I shouldn't have done that, he says.

However, he believes first and foremost that the criticism on social media should lead to self-reflection for Zenia Stampe.

She does not share that analysis.

- On social media, everything was spun, and the clips that have circulated, and screenshots of me, and interpretations of what happened, are heavily distorted.

Asked how the clips can be distorted when they are just an excerpt from the broadcast, she replies that one must watch the entire program to understand the whole picture.

- If you only clip my very last comment, but don't see the entire lead-up to it and hear that I am being interrupted, and that is why I also speak faster and louder... That is essentially an attempt to hold the floor after I've gotten it, she says.

In the big picture, the debate does not differ from other political debates, she believes.

- It is no worse or more heated than the panel debates you sit through during an election campaign at a high school. They are no more heated than a debate in the House of Commons in the UK. It is part of the political culture, she says, emphasizing that she believes it is the spin and distortion on social media that becomes extreme.

Do you think a debate with that tone could just as well take place at a high school?

- What I say, I do not perceive as anything more serious or heated than what one might say in an ordinary panel debate. But it is true that in a panel debate, one would probably rarely stand up like Thorborg does and say 'fucking' and interrupt. You're not allowed to do that in a debate, she says.

According to the minister, the focus now should be on de-escalating and getting the conversation back to being about artificial intelligence.

- In the best case, this debate ends up actually being a lever for a significant debate about AI. In the worst case, the debate ends up only being a debate about form, and then it overshadows the important debate, and I would be incredibly sorry about that, she says.

Watch the entire broadcast here:

Debatten ( https://www.dr.dk/drtv/serie/debatten_7101 ) News

Facebook ( https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=undefined )

Warning: This article was translated by a Large Language Model, in case of doubt, you can always visit the original source.