I would say that they were likely exaggerations or amalgamations of events but not (necessarily) made up events. 

so if the media doesn't espouse one man's ideas even though they are based on xenophobia some how they are to blame for you becoming radicalised this type of thing gets me all the time, so it tries to make him a victim and every one else just collateral damage ,we might not like it but we are responsible for our actions

I have no idea who Mark Steyn is, I mostly read NYT and WSJ plus the occational blog to get an idea about what mainstream thought in the U.S. is like.

I will however argue strongly against the idea that the terrorist was in some way cencored or blocked from a normal way of engaging in dialogue with his opponents. That they don't get all the attention, all the time, and that the vast majority of people think their beliefs and "solutions" are insane doesn't mean that they're being cencored.

Yes and no. Immigration policy in Europe has been neglected for years but Islam immigrants are hardest to integrate into our european community due to the beliefs and culture they have (for example the place of women in their society is completly opposite to ours) compared to that immigrants from East Europe are much easier to integrate as they share the basics of european culture and morality. Also another great source of immigrants is India.

You really don't think criticism against our current mass immigration is censored in Europe? It is, especially in Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden.

It's partly the censorship over here on these matters that causes deep frustration and drives people like Breivik into violence and terror.

I'm from Norway. On your first point: I'd like to see some serious documentation of that claim. It certainly isn't the case in Norway, something that is fairly easy to prove.

Your second point is disgusting.