A sustainable media support for the whole country

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposals in the Committee on the Constitution's report KU3 A sustainable media support for the whole country. I would at the same time move for the rejection of all motions.

Now, the outdated media support is finally being phased out. I say it again: Now, the outdated media support - the press support - is finally being phased out. The Sweden Democrats have for a long time pushed for this to become a reality.

The press monopoly was once born because the Social Democrats wanted to save party-friendly press. A system was constructed to save the so-called second newspaper in many places - a second newspaper that was almost always social democratic. And that is still how it looks today. In nine out of ten places around Sweden, the second newspaper is social democratic.

A sustainable media support for the whole country

Since the support was introduced, it has mutated, grown, and become something of a media monster. Forms of support have come and gone, and as the media landscape has been digitized and changed, more and more have qualified for the support. The support has been entitlement-based and not need-based, which the new support is. Anyone could start a newspaper and have a right to support.

A river of money has been channeled to a multitude of newspapers, primarily in various shades of red. Editorial offices and owners have maximized their operations to be able to receive as much support as possible at the taxpayers' expense.

A kind of peak - or bottom - can probably be said to have been reached during the pandemic years when environmentalists and Social Democrats poured money into the system. One must assume it was for essentially the same reasons as when the support was introduced.

Madam Speaker! We have free media for many reasons. One of the most important is that power needs to be scrutinized. One truth, however, is that it is difficult to neutrally scrutinize the one who feeds you. One can therefore ask whether media that live off a political system are able to critically scrutinize the same in a completely clear manner. The answer is obviously no. From this, it could be argued that there should not be any press support at all. But if the press support were to cease entirely, most newspapers would probably soon go bankrupt, regardless of whether they are digital or not.

If we do not have any independent media, we get no scrutiny of power - and little, or no, news reporting. Without independent media, the advertising market would move into the large social media platforms. The small amount of news reporting we have left would likely end up there as well, with the exception of public service. We would get a news market on the terms of the American tech giants. Imagine that! It would be a market far from the citizens' influence and with news aimed at maximizing the number of clicks. No scrutiny of state-owned companies, activist agency heads, municipal auditors, or elected officials would be conducted.

A media subsidy is therefore needed to keep democracy alive and to scrutinize those in power. We all here in the Riksdag need to be scrutinized. Important events abroad need their reporting, just as does that which takes place in, for example, Vaxholm, Älvsbyn, Borlänge, Sölvesborg and Ånge. It is very important to support smaller, local media that have a real need. But we do not do that through a patchwork of different forms of support. Instead, the Swedish Riksdag is now introducing a new system.

The new system aims to cover the local need for a living press. We are moving away from the old entitlement-based system where, primarily, a certain circulation was required. We are moving away from the system where the editorial page was the important part. Instead, we are introducing an arrangement where the support goes to local news newsrooms that need support for their editorial activities. That is the entire basis of the new system.

The money should go where it does the most good for the taxpayers, by having newsrooms report on what is happening in the places where they are located. This does not mean that the power in Stockholm will no longer be scrutinized; there will be plenty of newspapers reporting on us. It does not mean that certain national media will no longer receive support, but it means that the emphasis is placed on local media.

Is this new system an ultimate solution? It probably is not, but it is the least bad solution. If we do not get this change in place by the turn of the year, the entire support system will collapse like a house of cards, because it is based on an exemption that Sweden has from the EU.

For the newspapers that fall outside the new system, a fairly generous transition support will be provided over a five-year period. We will also evaluate the new system during 2027 in order to make corrections if necessary.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes reality is simply so complex that no simple solutions exist. A completely abolished support is not the way forward. But the old support system is finally being abolished, and this support reform is the best solution in a constantly changing and shifting media landscape.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1 in the report which we are now to debate.

Why do we provide support to the press? One might ask that. Let me go back in history a bit, specifically to 1766. That is when Sweden receives its first freedom of the press act. It is also the world's first. This leads to a newspaper boom. Within the span of six years, 80 newspapers are started. Then, of course, other times come, and Gustav III puts a stop to the freedom of the press.

It is not until 1830 that what can be called the birth of the modern press occurs, namely when Lars Johan Hierta publishes the first issue of Aftonbladet on December 6, 1830. After that, the daily press grows and makes major breakthroughs in Sweden until approximately the 1940s. At that point, the number of newspapers begins to decrease. During the 1950s, an average of five newspapers disappear per year. The crisis for the daily press begins to be seriously debated in the early 1960s.

In 1963, Sweden received its first press inquiry. It describes how the largest newspaper in a market will take over at the expense of the smaller ones, which affects media diversity negatively. In 1971, Sweden introduced press subsidies to secondary newspapers. Since then, the press subsidy has been investigated many times. But no decisive changes have actually been made, despite the fact that the media landscape has changed drastically.

There are those who argue that there actually should be no state media support, considering that the media sector should be as independent as possible. But I want to argue that there are good arguments for state media support. All of Sweden should have access to media diversity and journalistic coverage. The residents of Storuman, just like the residents of Stockholm, have the right to know how their municipal money is used and how their elected representatives carry out their duties. The market does not solve this on its own. Therefore, a publicly funded media and press support system is needed.

For me, it is also based on values and principles. The media support aims to safeguard the citizens' opportunity to obtain information, so that they can participate in and influence the public debate on equal terms. Journalism and debate are an essential part of building society and far too important to be left to market principles.

Look at our miserable contemporary situation right now! Wars and conflicts are escalating all around the world. Along with this, both disinformation and propaganda are spreading. Independent, high-quality news journalism is perhaps more important than ever.

A new system was needed. The large supply of local newspapers that once existed has become significantly smaller. Almost all are struggling with declining advertising revenues as local advertisers are offered lower prices and better target audience adaptation from global digital actors such as Facebook and Google.

The support that exists today undoubtedly has a number of problems. The operating support sometimes ends up with large, well-off actors who receive an incentive not to increase their reach as much as possible, as they would in that case lose the support. Other actors, such as daily newspapers, have not received any increase in support for a long time. In the current situation, significant parts of the support end up in large and medium-sized cities when the need exists in smaller localities and where the population lives more sparsely.

Another issue is that many skilled journalists find a more secure livelihood with better working conditions as communicators in private or public activities. The number of communicators increases, and the number of journalists decreases. There is no contradiction, but this depicts a problematic development.

All this provides a poorer basis for the so important local journalism and thus also for local democracy. If there is to be access to local journalism that monitors the issues close to people throughout the entire country, we must also take political responsibility for it. A new media support is therefore required that focuses on a vital journalism with local anchoring and coverage across the whole country and a diversity of media, so that we ensure a free formation of opinion.

Madam Speaker! A new system has been developed. We Social Democrats support the fundamental purpose of the new support, namely journalism throughout the country - more journalism throughout the country.

But we are not in agreement, and unfortunately, it does not only concern issues in the margins. We have great concerns. These are concerns that we share with the industry and that the referral bodies that have responded to the proposal have expressed. I became no less worried when I heard the previous speaker from Sverigedemokraterna describe the purpose of the support.

The new media support risks creating high thresholds for new media to start, which risks favoring the well-resourced actors and reducing diversity. It is good that the new support focuses on local journalism throughout the country, but it must not happen at the expense of diversity. We risk getting white spots in subject matter. We also risk losing the evening newspapers in the towns. These are newspapers that, just as the previous speaker said, happen to be Social Democratic. These are few in number, seven or six depending on how one counts. Compared to the number of bourgeois editorial pages, it is a rather meager collection, it must be said in this context. But national newspapers are also affected, such as Nu, Dagen and AiP.

The purpose of the press subsidy is to be able to preserve a diversity in the local daily newspaper markets. I believe this should also apply with the new system and for the future. The goal of having a press subsidy is that it should contribute to versatile news reporting, debate, and opinion formation throughout the country, with multiple voices and free formation of opinion. You have heard the Sweden Democrats in this debate; there is therefore a purpose to specifically attack S-newspapers.

Another thing is that the support risks being consumed by large, well-off media instead of going to those who are in need of support. Furthermore, the democratic conditions that the government proposes are diluted compared to the commission's, which is unfortunate.

We also demand that the government introduces a review point that evaluates the new support in a few years, so that we do not get an irrevocable development in the wrong direction. We Social Democrats do not rule out that the review point should also include economic conditions for the future. We are prepared to discuss the economy in this.

We want to see lower thresholds. We want to see a strong media diversity. We want to see a democratic condition worthy of the name and proper follow-up and evaluation. These are, therefore, not marginal issues we have views on.

Madam Speaker! Many media companies have now said that they find it difficult to oversee the economic conditions for next year and onwards. Despite the fact that a new system is not yet in place, we are already seeing consequences of the new system. These are news that arrived just the other day. These are consequences that point to both a poorer media diversity and fewer journalists across the country - precisely the opposite of what we described as the purpose of a new media support.

Many decisive details are regulated in the draft regulation that is to be decided by the government. There is therefore a great responsibility now on the government to ensure that these consequences do not become as large as we fear - if the new media support is approved by the EU, that is; we have not received that announcement yet. The clock is ticking. The current support expires at the turn of the year, and it is not without giving the impression that the government is acting at the last minute.

Madam Speaker! It is a pity that we are not in agreement on all these parts. From a historical perspective, it has been important to have broad political support for the press support. If we politically succeed in creating a stable and long-term media policy, the conditions are created for more journalism for more people and thus also a more prosperous democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! The press subsidy was introduced in the 70s. We received a fine history lesson from Ida Karkiainen, I must say. That it needs to be redone is beyond doubt. That is what we think, both in politics and in the industry. But it is not enough to just think so. We simply must get a new media subsidy in place.

The regulation approved by the EU Commission that our current system rests on will expire at the turn of the year. That is where we stand now.

What has happened until today? In October 2021, the previous government appointed an inquiry, led by Mats Svegfors, whose task was to investigate a new press and media support. One of the starting points in the new inquiry was to take into account the fundamental agreements that were made in broad political consensus when the media support was introduced in 2018.

The consensus and, likewise, the purpose of the investigation was to strengthen democracy by promoting the public's access to independent news reporting throughout the country via a diversity of public news media with high-quality editorial content. It is now that investigation which has formed the basis for the bill A sustainable media support for the whole country, which is today's subject of debate.

Madam Speaker! The market for Swedish news media is undergoing a strong change, which is largely due to digitalization. Pleasantly enough, I read the other day that the proportion of boys and girls who read books and newspapers daily is increasing in all ages from zero to 18 years. Those who are zero years old do not read, of course, but it concerns the others who are literate. The proportion has increased according to the survey Ungar & medier 2023 and according to another survey called Småungar & medier 2023. At the same time, the proportion of children who do not read at all is also decreasing.

How great it could become for these young people, who with the new media support can take part in substantial local news, investigations, and monitoring in the municipality where they live. One or another might even want to become a politician or perhaps is studying to be a journalist. It would be a very pleasant consequence that I welcome.

For the sake of democracy, we need a media public sphere throughout the entire country. Therefore, it is proposed in the bill that media of significance for democracy at the local and regional level shall be prioritized. This should mean that the primary purpose of the new media support is to promote access to public news media across the whole country. If by diversity one means that all political newspapers should receive money, that is not our view of how the media support should be used.

On page 173 of the investigation, I read that the purpose "should therefore be to promote access to local and regional news reporting across the entire country, that is, as far as possible in all the country's municipalities and regions."

Of our 290 municipalities, more than 200 municipalities have 30,000 inhabitants or fewer. Not to mention the municipalities that are around 10,000 inhabitants or fewer. There are a full 87 of them. It would be wonderful if, as far as is possible, there were a local news editor in every municipality, or in almost every municipality, who can provide its inhabitants with news, scrutiny, and monitoring.

Today, a very large proportion of those who live in the countryside or in smaller municipalities have no journalist monitoring or scrutinizing the society they live in. The government wants to change that.

Madam Speaker! News reporting should be of importance for democracy. That sounds good. But what does it mean in practice? Ultimately, it is about the democracy being able to handle common affairs in society. Articles or segments in, for example, a local newspaper where one writes about cultural or entertainment life can be of importance depending on how the municipal decisions have been made.

All over Sweden today, there are areas where it is particularly difficult to conduct news monitoring and scrutiny on commercial grounds. In these places, it is therefore extra important that local journalism is supported.

A new media subsidy can ensure that the public's access to independent and qualitative news reporting is strengthened. That is why it is so important that a new media subsidy prioritizes local and regional media. It is thus fundamentally a matter of democratic support rather than industry support.

But when the state is to distribute money, there must be conditions. It should state quite clearly that if one receives support, it also means that one contributes to democracy.

Some of the conditions mentioned in the bill are, for example, that one shall have exclusive, self-produced editorial content. One shall have an own title with independent editorial resources and a responsible publisher. One shall also be accessible to those with disabilities.

In order for media to be eligible for the new media support, one must take into account the democracy aspect, that is to say that what is published must not significantly act against the foundations of our democratic system of government or significantly be in conflict with respect for everyone's equal value, people's freedom and privacy.

Madam Speaker! Can there then be risks with a democracy condition from a freedom of speech perspective? In a legal sense, freedom of speech is regulated in the Instrument of Government. It is stated there that everyone, towards the public, has certain freedoms and rights.

To apply the democratic condition, it is important that the values expressed can be traced back to the values found in our constitution. The bill contains an overall direction and certain principles. But all concrete conditions regarding publication and the size of the support will be set out in a regulation.

The goal of a media policy where the state is involved with financial support must be to support freedom of expression, diversity, and independence. There are therefore good opportunities to now take advantage of this opportunity and ensure that all of Sweden is included on the media map in the form of local reporting and scrutiny.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the KU's report on a sustainable media support for the whole country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! First of all, I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 7. We in Vänsterpartiet naturally stand behind all the reservations we have in the report, and in this report, there are perhaps also particularly many.

Previous speakers have given a picture of the media industry's development in recent years. It is high and increasing costs and decreased advertising revenues. There are many challenges, and on that we agree.

The Moderate Party's speaker just before me spoke about the importance of as many people as possible participating in news and reading. Previous speakers have also noted that in this year's media report Medieekonomi 2023, it is observed that there was a record-high media consumption during the media year 2022. It is very pleasing.

There is a great interest among the public to access news reporting and other media. Despite this, the media are in a tough position with reduced profitability due to increased costs and decreased advertising revenues. This is stated in the report, so we have that for the debate. We are probably quite in agreement on all the challenges that exist.

Madam Speaker! When I stand here, I first of all want to state that it is in the middle of November 2023. We have a press subsidy that expires at the turn of the year. An approval from the EU Commission is required before a new media subsidy can be put in place and paid out.

I can also state that the government judged that the commission's approval would come during the time the Riksdag was processing the matter. Now we stand here in the chamber today debating the media support without this very necessary approval in this context having arrived.

The situation is, to say the least, unclear, or as the Authority for Press, Radio and TV, MPRT, the future Media Authority, stated when they sent out their draft regulations this summer: "Currently, neither the law nor the ordinance is ready. The reason that the draft regulations are prepared before the law and the ordinance are approved by the EU Commission is that the authority wants to facilitate for the actors and be able to initiate the processing as soon as it is practically possible during the autumn of 2023 so that the decisions regarding support for 2024 can be made shortly after the law and the ordinance have entered into force." This is, therefore, a quote from the draft regulations.

Furthermore, it can be read on MPRT's website that the authority hopes to be able to pay out the support in April 2024. That, of course, depends on what previous speakers have touched upon, namely that the bill we are debating today only includes eleven paragraphs at a fairly general level, where much of what is essential for the media that will apply for support shall be specified in regulations and ordinances.

Madam Speaker! The proposal for media support has been debated and criticized extensively over the past year. Large parts of the media industry testify to the great uncertainty and anxiety that people are now living with. In many places in the country, they are now cutting back on already lean media newsrooms. This week, I met an editor-in-chief who started as editor-in-chief responsible for one newspaper but now manages three, and in every newspaper newsroom, they have cut 25 percent of the rather tight staff numbers they had from the beginning. But despite all this – despite all the warnings, cuts, and austerity packages – the responsible minister is not here, and thus she cannot answer the many questions that exist. She has been quite invisible in the debate altogether, and even here she is conspicuous by her absence. And what the Minister for Culture promised about the regulation being anchored with all parliamentary parties did not at all correspond to the expectations I had, unfortunately.

There is a great risk that it will now become as many warn, that the media support will be paid out so late that smaller newspapers manage to go bankrupt before the money arrives. It would be too dangerous - I mean terrible - if that warning became reality.

In this report, we have a unanimous announcement which I welcome, where the government parties have chosen to meet us in opposition. It concerns that the media support shall be followed up annually and that an evaluation shall take place in a few years. This is naturally good, and there I promise to closely follow up on the concerns that many of us have.

Mr. Speaker! There is very much to say regarding both the handling of the media support and the content of the government's proposal. We, from the Left Party's side, agree with the government that a new media support system is needed because the current system is fragmented with several different forms of support that make it complicated to understand. It is also not adapted to today's digitalization. This seems to be what the vast majority agree on.

Our position is that free, independent, and autonomous media are a central part of building a stable democracy. In Sweden, we have at least until today had a long tradition of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and our media landscape contains a great diversity of both privately and jointly owned TV and radio channels and newspapers. There has been a consensus that the media companies in Sweden have played an important role by contributing to the public debate in society.

In Sweden, we have had a tradition – previous speakers have said that it dates back to the 1700s – of encouraging free debate and free exchange of opinions. There has been an awareness and a broad consensus that even media with small circulations have contributed much to the debate and have been important for the free word. Therefore, a diversity of media and a modern media support system designed to meet the demands placed on a democratic society were needed.

In this, one needs to safeguard local, regional and national news journalism as well as media diversity as a whole. The system also needs to be designed so that it is as understandable, fair and transparent as possible and provide the most support to those who have the greatest need, so that the purpose of strengthening democracy and strengthening journalism throughout the country is fulfilled.

Through the media, people are given the opportunity to form well-founded opinions, tools to participate in democratic discussions, and the opportunity to hold those in power accountable. The importance of broad and comprehensive free journalism can therefore not be overstated.

One of the concerns that has been raised in the debate and which I share is the worry that the government, through its proposal, prioritizes support for local journalism at the expense of media diversity. It is deeply unfortunate that an unjustified and false opposition is being presented, which risks impoverishing the diversity of media. It also goes completely against the purpose of the media support and the broad agreement that has been made historically regarding the media support, where it has been about strengthening democracy by promoting the public's access to independent news reporting throughout the country via a diversity of public news media with high-quality editorial content.

We in Vänsterpartiet naturally want to safeguard and emphasize the importance of local and scrutinizing journalism that maintains high quality, but as I said earlier, we have a tradition of also looking at the value of those media that contribute to media diversity and freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker! This risks impoverishing the diversity of media and having negative consequences for democracy. We believe that the proposal becomes counterproductive because it contradicts the overall purpose of the media support, namely to strengthen democracy.

Mr. Speaker! Now I have almost only spoken about the handling of the bill itself. Now I intended to say a little bit about what the Left Party has for its own proposals as well. I regret that I have already exceeded my declared speaking time.

In addition to what concerns media diversity, we have objections regarding the government's proposal for a new democracy condition, which we, together with among others the Journalists' Association, are critical of. In short, our and others' criticism is that a democracy condition risks becoming arbitrary, especially in combination with the fact that decisions on media support shall not be appealable. Several referral bodies have also raised the question of whether a democracy condition contravenes the intention of the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

It can be stated that provisions regarding a democracy condition are associated with a number of problems. Several referral bodies object and maintain that such a condition could be applied arbitrarily and could have a negative impact on freedom of the press. We believe that there are risks with introducing such conditions because the political majority's perception of which opinions and phenomena can be a threat to democracy can quickly change. I therefore believe that today's existing system is sufficient.

If one nevertheless considers that one should have a democracy condition, we consider that the legal text should be changed and clarified with a reference to the Instrument of Government to avoid risks of a conceptual shift, where considerations are taken into account other than those now mentioned in the legal text. In combination with the government's proposal for a non-political composition of the media support committee and our proposal for a possibility to appeal decisions on media support, this would in any case reduce the risk that the democracy condition is applied in an arbitrary manner.

We consider, just as I said earlier, that one should simply be able to appeal the Media Support Board's decision, especially if a democratic condition is introduced. Just as previous speakers have pointed out, there is great concern and uncertainty regarding how the Media Support Board will make decisions. What priorities will the board make? Which municipality will receive support for its local newspaper, and which municipality will not receive local coverage? When and how will the Media Support Board make that trade-off, and when will it be considered reasonable to prioritize media diversity over local journalism? It becomes unclear, we believe.

We believe, just like for example Tidningsutgivarna, that a right of appeal is necessary, especially in relation to decisions on whether an applicant qualifies for support or not.

Mr. Speaker! We have, as said, quite a few more proposals. I just want to mention one, which some who are listening to the debate might also be interested in. It is, in fact, quite new from the Left Party's side that we have a reservation where we consider that the issue of zero VAT should be investigated. It is not a perfect proposal, and it could benefit large actors at the expense of small ones. But we consider, and have concluded, that this is a way. As previous speakers have pointed out, the press today is quite dependent on media support. There are more financing issues. And we have landed on the position that we consider that the issue of zero VAT should be investigated.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! The press support that applies today dates back to the beginning of the 1970s. That is, it has been half a century. It would be an understatement to say that some parts of our society have changed since then. The same applies to the media industry. The way the generation that grew up in the 70s, the generation I myself belong to and can easily relate to, consumed news differs significantly from how today's young people consume news, often scrolling on their mobiles and not infrequently guided by the promised world of algorithms.

We are here today to debate a new media support. There is a great consensus among us that the patchwork created over the years of various supports to the media industry is not something to hold onto. When the investigation, whose memorandum forms the basis for today's report, began its work a few years ago, it was therefore timely. We must establish a media support that is better adapted to today's media landscape than the current one is. And we must move from the rights-based support that today's regulatory framework entails to a support that is given where it is most needed.

Mr. Speaker! Many media companies and many journalists are today very worried about what the future will look like for them, even the near future, perhaps even the coming year. That we stand here just over a month before the rules we have today expire and a new regulatory framework is to take effect is truly anything but successful. That the process of transitioning the support to the media industry is being hammered out so close to when the old supports expire contributes, of course, to creating great uncertainty in the entire industry, and it is highly unfortunate in an industry that in several places has led an increasingly dwindling existence. This applies not least to our local newspapers.

But now I do not intend to stand here and point fingers in any direction regarding how we have ended up in this great time shortage. Possibly I am directing myself towards the EU Commission in just this matter and saying that I would have preferred to have seen a thumbs up from them already yesterday.

I want to address the government with a clear appeal. Necessary regulations must be put in place immediately. As the committee notes, the decision we pass in the chamber today shall be supplemented at the regulatory level. That is where the government will design provisions regarding forms of support and how prioritization between those seeking support shall take place.

Mr. Speaker! 25 years ago, I took up a journalistic position at a local newspaper in Östergötland, a newspaper that at the time had staffed local newsrooms in almost all of the ten municipalities that the newspaper covered. The central newsroom was housed on several floors in a larger property. Unfortunately, that was not how it looked when I visited the same newsroom this year. Then, a number of desks were crowded into a small area on one of the floors.

For me and the Center Party, it is extremely important that Sweden has a local journalism worthy of the name - from north to south, from suburb to countryside. Our local authorities must be scrutinized. Politicians and other authorities at all levels must be held accountable. If we are to have a living and vibrant democracy, irregularities must come to the surface, and persons who abuse their power must be exposed. For that, a solid journalistic scrutiny is required, and it must take place where the knowledge of and contact points in the local community exist, with journalists at local media outlets. Therefore, it is important that the new media support should be directed towards ensuring, as far as possible, that there is at least one viable news actor at a local or regional level throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! Simultaneously with the new media support, a democratic condition is introduced, which several have touched upon, and it is to ensure that the support does not go to activities that are incompatible with fundamental democratic values. Media support shall not be granted to media that conduct activities that run contrary to the foundations of our democratic system of government or that completely go against respect for the equal value of all people.

We need to introduce the democracy condition - unfortunately, I can perhaps add - because we live in a world with authoritarian forces on the advance. We see strong influence campaigns even from foreign powers that reach right into the Swedish debate, into those mobiles where we scroll for the latest news. In such a media landscape, we must ensure that those who receive state support to conduct news reporting do so with respect for our fundamental values regarding democracy and human rights.

At the same time, it is obviously important that all news reporting, as far as possible, shall be free from all state involvement. Therefore, it is good that it is now established that the democratic condition shall be applied restrictively. Only in cases of serious violations can media companies be excluded from support.

Mr. Speaker! I mentioned earlier the concern that is currently palpable in the media industry. It concerns the uncertainty regarding who will actually receive support and how the new regulation will impact. We in Centerpartiet have been clear that we must have a prompt follow-up on the outcome. Therefore, it is pleasing that a unanimous committee today proposes a notification regarding just this. It means that the government shall, every year in its budget bill, report on how the new regulation has been applied and what the outcome has been. When the regulation has been in force for a few years, an analysis shall be conducted and an assessment of the effects of the support shall be made.

This is important, and we will follow it carefully to see if the media support is directed to those who actually need it. I know that the conditions in the media industry are really tough, and it is absolutely crucial for a viable democracy that this support is accurate.

I hope, of course, that I will see at least as many desks as last time, preferably more, when I visit that editorial office in Östergötland again.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have talked about the beginning of the 70s here a couple of times. Some may remember Future Shock, a book by Alvin Toffler that was released in 1970. His main thesis was that we then, in 1970, faced a health-hazardous, frightening, and altogether too large and overloaded amount of information.

It was then. He no longer lives, I can inform you. But think of what has happened since then! That is also why we stand here and talk about media support, but much else has occurred.

Let me first say that we in Miljöpartiet are positive about a new, modernized media support being put in place. There needs to be investigative journalism and news media across the entire country, and a media support that takes into account the modern media landscape and its needs. Local journalism plays an important role in ensuring access to information, news, comments, and analyses for everyone living in Sweden. It is simply a central part of a functioning and vibrant democracy.

We are, however, concerned that the media diversity at the national level may lose ground in such a way that companies of smaller size risk facing a tough economic situation. It is important to ensure good support for these media outlets. I will return to our proposals in just a moment, but I would also like to provide a description of the context.

Mr. Speaker! We have a threatening world around us. We see clear signs of diminishing space for people to create their own lives and develop their abilities, socialize with whomever they want, and find security for themselves and their families. War and conflicts have flared up in a way none of us had imagined. Terrible images reach us and shake our everyday lives.

For us as individual citizens, almost all our knowledge of the world is a form of second-hand information. Few of us have experienced with our own eyes what we talk about or been present in the rooms where events have taken place and decisions have been made, with the exception of those of us who have the privilege of working in this chamber. But even we are dependent on both algorithms and editors.

Some of us have the privilege of knowing or following the institute V-Dem, Varieties of Democracy, at the University of Gothenburg. They have, over a series of years, compiled data on democracy development in the world and point out that more and more people in the world live in countries with authoritarian systems of government. An early characteristic of autocratization, i.e., leaders who for the most part can be elected but who gradually grant themselves ever greater power, is restrictions on the freedom of the media.

Mr. Speaker! In order to protect us against such a development even here, it is crucial to build a system that can best defend our values. In that regard, I think it can occasionally be wise to take a step back to the basics, in our case the Instrument of Government, where it is, as is known, already established in the second sentence that "Swedish democracy is based on free formation of opinion."

With that in mind and in order to build a defense as strong as possible, I envision media support that contributes to both diversity and access to local and regional media throughout the country. The proposal we are to take a position on today can, as several before me have pointed out here, be interpreted as there being a ranking between these goals in favor of local and regional news media. It became extremely clear already in the first referral that this is how it is intended. It is not quite what was said from the beginning, but that is how it has become.

This risks resulting in increased ownership concentration with vulnerability and homogenization of journalism as a consequence, as well as a reduction of other news media with, for example, an ideological or ideological basis. It is not just social democratic newspapers we are talking about, as was mentioned at the beginning here. There are other newspapers that are built on a Christian or green basis, a business basis, and others. These media may have a national distribution but still be of interest in many places in the country. They have a decisive role for diversity, I would think, and thus also for democracy, so I become a little afraid when I hear that the government base so clearly prioritizes local and regional news reporting. There is nothing wrong with local news; I like to read my two local newspapers. But we must not forget that these others, with other points of intersection, also have significance in all places in the country.

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out a number of points that we in the Green Party have raised during the process. Initially, I want to express both concern and surprise that we have not had the level of participation in the process that we had expected. We have not had access to the more detailed work on the regulation and have therefore not been able to assess the proposals that we see will be included therein. This has also been mentioned by others. As previous speakers have pointed out, that anchoring has not occurred at all, and we also do not see anyone from the departments here today.

We believe that the definition of "general news media" is vague and should explicitly include media with more specific target groups based on societal interests in order to avoid a narrower definition that would risk excluding a number of important media voices.

In the proposal that we are now to take a position on, there are a number of criteria that media companies must fulfill in order to be eligible. We lack a clear connection to the commission's proposal on needs assessment and would like to see an explicit needs criterion added.

We need to ensure a structured transition to the new media support. The rules for transition support must be designed so that today's recipients of support also have the opportunity to develop the potential criteria required to be able to apply for the new media support. The transition support must not be based on the new criteria in such a way that it practically becomes a kind of retroactive assessment of the applicant's information. Furthermore, in our budget motion, we have proposed to allocate funds to this so that the transition to a new system functions as well as possible and negative effects can be avoided.

We also consider that a system for appeal is needed and that an early and recurring evaluation of how both the transition support and the actual media support have functioned is necessary. As others have also mentioned here, we are pleased that we have been able to gain support for those views.

I also finally want to draw attention to the joint statement that we have submitted together with the Social Democrats and the Left Party, where we particularly emphasize that it is our common view that it is unfortunate to have a ranking between local and regional news media on one hand and a media diversity that also includes media with the whole country as an area.

It is also our common view that a recurring follow-up is necessary, partly to monitor the development of the transition support and the media support, and partly to have a solid basis for a future extension of the support.

With that said, I thank you for the floor. I naturally stand behind all of our reservations but, for the sake of time, move for approval of only reservation 5.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I support the committee's proposal in the report.

We are debating a paradigm shift regarding Swedish media policy and the relationship between the state and news media. From being a media subsidy based on rights according to how many subscribers and how large an circulation one has, it is now moving towards a state subsidy based on what the editorial office looks like and what needs exist. Truly healthy newspapers without an actual need for support can therefore be left without. The main focus is, as we have heard previous speakers say, local and regional news reporting.

We have had shifts previously regarding media development. During the interwar period, between the first and second world wars, a profound media change occurred which meant that the flow of information increased significantly and it became possible to reach out with messages to the entire country's population much faster than before.

Most of us have grown up with a paper newspaper to read at breakfast, and it has been both a secure and pleasant factor. The evening newspapers have also had a significance, even though the trust in the morning newspapers has been considerably greater. Many of us hold fast to the idea that it is a special feeling to hold a paper newspaper. It has also meant that the paid paper newspaper has held its ground perhaps longer than we thought. The shift of trust is said to have been in 2020, when digital subscriptions to newspapers became more numerous than for the paid paper newspaper.

It is also important to understand the role of the media. Sometimes the media is called the third estate, which controls the first power, the Riksdag, and the second power, the government. This also gives the newspapers great power.

Mr. Speaker! The support based on circulation and subscribers is now being removed. It was necessary to replace the old form of support because the EU Commission had not accepted it. The EU Commission has pushed so that a modern so-called technology-neutral state aid shall begin to apply on 1 January 2024. We are therefore setting aside the old entitlement-based media support.

What applies from January 1 is therefore an editorial support that is need-based. From the state's perspective, the new media support will constitute a fixed cost, that is to say, the skyrocketing cost development that previously loomed on the horizon is now stopped, and the state sets a limit on what the media support may cost. But those levels can, of course, also be modified in the future. Now the investigator has also said that there are opportunities to correct gradually. That is, in itself, obvious.

As I said, the new direction is local and regional news reporting. This has created concern in a category of newspapers, nationwide so-called "fådagarstidningar" or niche newspapers. They are newspapers with national news, or news that covers local news on a national level.

Let me give some examples of such newspapers: Aktuellt in Politiken, which is social democratic. Dagen, which is based on a Christian ideology. Nu, which is liberal. ATL, independent agricultural journalism. Syre, which is green. Dagens ETC, which I believe is neutral, possibly left-wing.

Mr. Speaker! I was part of the parliamentary reference group that was created when Mats Svegfors was appointed as the investigator of the new media policy. From the very beginning, I raised the important democratic role of the minority-language newspapers and the importance of diversity. Mats Svegfors is an incredibly knowledgeable person, and I see in the investigation that he listened to us. But the concern that exists among the minority-language newspapers must be taken seriously. Among the very most important elements in Svegfors' investigation and the government's proposition is precisely the diversity clause. Here is how the purpose of the new media support is formulated in the government's proposition:

"To strengthen democracy by promoting the public's access to independent news reporting of high quality. The objective shall be achieved primarily by the media support promoting the availability of local and regional news reporting throughout the country, but" - listen! - "also by the support contributing to a diversity of high-quality public news journalism."

Mr. Speaker! In the new system, it is the media support board that decides who shall receive support. A collective assessment will be made as to whether the newspaper meets the criteria and what need for support exists. Then a decision is made.

For the nationwide daily newspapers that I have highlighted here today and have done for half a year, there is an opportunity to apply for editorial support according to the new system. As far as I understand, it involves invoking the importance of diversity. If it is not possible to get editorial support, the transitional support applies. It is a five-year phase-out of the support. But it is also possible to apply for the editorial support again after one year with transitional support, be tested again, and then enter the new system.

The last word has not been spoken! It is not lost, and my hope and belief is that the government sees the value of the democratic function that newspapers have in our society, not least when one is to tackle ordinances and regulations and modify the entire context.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes you get a feeling in the last seconds.

I listened to a speech that I agree with in large parts. I share Roland Utbult's hopes regarding the media support, and I hope that it will turn out correctly.

Roland Utbult sat, just like I did, in the reference group, and we have given input both during the time Mats Svegfors investigated the issue and also later. What do I know? Roland Utbult also belongs to one of the government's parties, and I hope that he has more insight into how it is going with the ordinance than I do.

I also agree with what Roland Utbult said when he highlighted the importance of diversity among the national media. I know that the member has also pointed this out regarding local newspapers. Then the member still arrives at the conclusion that the Media Support Board shall make a balanced assessment. Which local newspapers should not be prioritized over the other perspective on diversity in the balanced assessment of local journalism?

I have been told by the department that it will always be the case that when a prioritization is made – and it will of course be made – local journalism shall be prioritized. Period! Which municipalities do the members think should not have media coverage? When will the diversity media receive support?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jessica Wetterling for the question.

We agree with each other on a good deal, and it is interesting. We agree on much, precisely when it comes to this category of newspapers. That is good.

I have spoken about power. Who has power? When it comes to the question I have been given, it simply lies outside of my power. I do not have the possibility to answer which municipalities it concerns, and I do not even have an opinion on whether a specific municipality should be excluded or prioritized.

I count on democracy continuing to function so that the media support board, which is to decide on these grants, does so in a correct manner. That is the answer I can give, because this is, as said, outside my powers, I feel.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roland Utbult, for the answer!

I can agree with the member. Even though it feels like we both have good intentions regarding how the new media support should turn out, it lies largely outside of our power, and that is deeply unfortunate.

The committee members mentioned, above all, the concern that exists among the nationwide, national news media. But the signals I receive are that there is at least as much concern among local newspapers.

An example that I believe all members of the Riksdag have received is from the editor-in-chief of Norra Halland, a newspaper where the new media support will likely lead to a reduction of up to 2 million kronor per year as early as next year. And today we do not even know when that support will be paid out.

As I mentioned in my speech, it was not national media I visited, but my local newspaper in our shared constituency, Härryda-Posten. The editor-in-chief there testified to the same thing in, for example, Partille, where they have already cut back because they are so uncertain about what the funding will look like in the future.

This is about newsrooms that are already very small today. One still has to cover all hours of the day, but one does it with fewer than five people – and then one needs to cut by 25 percent.

I believe the great concern is shared by all who have applied for media support today. I believe it would be foolish to think that this only applies to the national media. I believe that this concern is shared by a large part of the industry.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Well, this is politics. We have different commitments here. There is a great commitment from you, Jessica Wetterling, for a certain category. I have focused on the category that I have had very much contact with. I have been at the ministry together with representatives from the free-press newspapers and tried to cast a little hope that they will be given the opportunity to survive. We are, therefore, working on our respective fronts, you and I. Together, perhaps we can get some results here.

When it comes to local newspapers, national newspapers, niche newspapers and so on, there is a proposal from Svegfors for a transitional support of five years. It is then a phase-out, and after five years it is, so to speak, over. Then it is finished. Here, one must look at the ordinances and regulations that are to come from the government and so to speak correct it so that it is not the end for the newspapers.

My hope is that they will receive editorial support, but we do not know that today. It is a bit uncertain, all in all, that is it. But it is not lost, and the last word has not been said.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Hannah (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the new media support, a reform that has been requested by both the industry and by the Liberals for a long time.

The support that exists today is poorly adapted to today's media landscape. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a new, modern media support.

We who are here in the chamber probably belong to that part of the population that consumes news to an extent that is perhaps quite unhealthy for ourselves. I believe I also speak for most Swedes when I say that the paper newspaper today is more of an exception, while the digital news is where we turn to be updated. It is clear that a support such as the one we have today, which is based on the idea that news is best conveyed on paper, has become outdated. When I open the newspaper the morning after, everything has already changed.

I want to begin by reminding that the proposal we are debating today is a product of a collaboration. It was the previous S-MP government that commissioned the inquiry, which was tasked with proposing changes to the press and media support to adapt it to a modern media landscape. The investigator, Mats Svegfors, was tasked with anchoring the inquiry's proposals with the parties in the Riksdag and the industry. He did that as well, and now the sitting bourgeois and liberal government is presenting a proposal that lies very close to the inquiry that the S-MP government commissioned.

Mr. Speaker! The digital development has revolutionized the news media and the Swedish newspaper industry. That we are reached by news in real-time today and that more perspectives than ever before find space in the debate is, of course, something that I and the Liberals rejoice in.

But as with much else, there is also a downside. The competition between media and information platforms has intensified, advertising revenues have decreased, and the younger generations do not seem to be attracted to traditional media to the same extent as previous generations. They get their information from TikTok, a Chinese-owned company.

Many newspapers are in crisis. Continued support is needed so that we can secure media diversity. But the new support must be adapted to its time. A modern media support should be technology-neutral, and that is what we take away from the vote today.

The government's proposal is about so much more than just an industry subsidy. The earliest newspapers in Sweden helped lay the foundation for our democracy. Since then, the independent press has been a cornerstone of Swedish democracy. We live today in a time where disinformation often travels faster than serious news, where foreign repressive states such as China, Russia, and Qatar wish us ill, and where domestic interests that thrive on division and separatism use disinformation to achieve their goals. One example is the campaign against the Swedish social services.

In this time, serious journalism and public service have an enormously important task and place to fill. Our common resistance, in fact, requires a vital media industry that accommodates different voices and perspectives, where the common denominator is high-quality journalism. With the media support that will soon be in place, it will be able to be secured.

Today's news providers must continue to build a strong democracy. Exercising one's right to vote is the ultimate democratic act, but being able to form an opinion on social issues and critically evaluate news and social information is crucial to being able to utilize that democratic right.

We politicians therefore have a duty to create contemporary conditions to secure the diversity of media that a democracy needs. As a liberal, I am therefore proud to be part of getting a modern media support in place.

Mr. Speaker! It is often said that the church stands in the middle of the village. But today, it is perhaps more correct to say that the newspaper stands at the center of a strong society. If there is a strong newspaper, there is a strong local debate, there is a strong municipality.

Studies in the USA show the importance of a vibrant local press. When newspapers have been closed down, local engagement and the local community have been negatively affected.

The support that the government proposes therefore has a great focus on local and regional news journalism. Many local newspapers have been hit hard when advertising revenues decreased and subscribers disappeared. Some have been forced to close down. Others are fighting for their existence. The new support will secure local news reporting. It is important. Local and regional news reporting has fundamental importance for democracy, but it is also important for strengthening the local community. Local politics needs to be monitored and scrutinized by local media that understand the issues, know the readers, and know what consequences both individual decisions and larger trends can have.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to particularly emphasize the importance of media diversity. Many of the question marks that the opposition has raised in the debate will be clarified when the regulation and the authorities' provisions are presented. Which individual media outlets will receive support is not for us politicians to decide – it is up to the media support board to decide. We Liberals are proud of the new structure with members primarily from the legal profession and the rule that one may not be active in party politics, whether at local or regional level or at the national level. This ensures an arm's length distance, which others have requested many times.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight Sweden's proud tradition of a diversity of newspapers. Through previous media support, newspapers that have not been able to compete entirely on their own strength have been able to contribute perspectives and diversity. High-quality general news media are absolutely crucial. Smaller, nationwide, socio-political newspapers are also of great importance. These have previously received support, and it must be ensured that they receive it in the future as well.

Finally, I also want to say that I welcome the inquiry that the government has now commissioned, which concerns reviewing the situation of journals – an inquiry that has been tasked with assessing the need for time-limited support for journals that conduct in-depth social and news journalism in order to facilitate their adaptation to the new digital market conditions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! From the Left Party, we have so many proposals in today's committee report that we need two speakers to manage to tell everyone about everything.

I thought to begin with focus on the possibility of making objective decisions in the allocation of a new media subsidy. It is central that such an important subsidy, which for many newspapers is crucial for continued operations, is predictable and does not risk being characterized by political currents. The exact economic level will be difficult to predict, as many speakers before me have stated. But what needs to become clear is how one qualifies. It must be possible to establish clear assessment criteria that all companies can adhere to.

A point of writing that can cause difficulties regarding this is that of the new democracy criterion, which previous speakers have also touched upon. In the government's proposal, it states that media support can be paid out to news media that do not significantly act against the foundations of the democratic system of government. What does "significantly" mean, is my question. Is it allowed to do it a little bit, sometimes? What does that mean? In every fifth publication, or in one publication a year? And what does it mean to act against the foundations? Can one, for example, advocate on the editorial page for a society governed in a completely different way than today's society?

We in Vänsterpartiet, just like many others, have felt that it is difficult to provide state support to far-right media. We have asked ourselves: Should taxpayers really help to finance forces that want to overthrow today's democratic order? But to introduce a democratic condition is truly to open Pandora's box. It is difficult to predict the effects of changing important principles regarding freedom of the press and freedom of expression that have applied for a very long time.

This concern is also seen in several of the referral responses. My colleague Jessica Wetterling, for example, highlighted the Journalist Association's objections. But also other organizations, authorities, and universities state in their referral responses that the issue has not been problematized sufficiently either in the investigation underlying the bill or in the government's proposal. Publicistklubben, for example, argues that it will be very difficult to make an objective and non-political assessment in the media support committee. The Journalist Association raises important arguments regarding free formation of opinion and freedom of the press.

There are already boundaries set in the Freedom of the Press Act, and violations can be tested in court. It will, I believe, be very strange to introduce a parallel track with its own set of rules through the media support board's review. It becomes particularly problematic when one does not simultaneously introduce an opportunity to appeal. If one is failed in this process and branded as an undemocratic newspaper, one has no possibility to appeal, and it will be difficult to obtain redress.

From the Left Party's side, we argue that this implies important departures from an order that has functioned well. We also argue that it would have been much more important with a proposal to try to address actors who spread hate propaganda, by closing the loophole in the legislation that allows one today to publish statements but escape prosecution for hate speech against a group by taking down the publications within two weeks. There, one could have done real good instead of introducing the democracy condition.

I will also take the opportunity to mention some of the additional reservations we have from the Left Party's side.

We have looked at the issue of periodical support. The investigation that Robert Hannah raised earlier is a step in the right direction, but it speaks of a rather limited support. We would like to see a permanent and long-term support for the periodicals. There is currently a small support for cultural periodicals, but it is very oversubscribed. We would like to see that a collective approach is taken regarding both the periodicals that have news journalism and the cultural periodicals, and ensure that it becomes a long-term support.

I also want to raise the issue of minority languages, which has not been talked about very much today. In the regulations that are proposed, certain exceptions are made for news media in minority languages. We think that one should also look at the possibilities for editorial offices to operate across national borders, as we know that both Sami and Meänkieli are spoken across national borders. It is important for an editorial office to be able to act in a Nordic market, so to speak. Here we would also like to see an investigation.

I also want to point out that the funding issue could be resolved. Many within the industry are worried that the money will not be enough for all purposes, all parts, all local newspapers and so on. We in Vänsterpartiet have simply budgeted for a higher amount. Now that the free newspapers have entered the system and there are many uncertainties, we need to inject money. In our budget, there are therefore 500 million more than the government has allocated. We see that this is a way to solve some of these difficulties.

I sit on a committee that works with the public service issue, so I want to briefly mention the democracy condition even in that context. There is a comparison in the bill with the democratic provisions that exist in the regulations of public service. I do not want to anticipate the discussions we have there, but I still want to convey to the audience that there is some difference between setting broadcasting conditions for our jointly owned companies, Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio, and Utbildningsradion, and, as is done in this ordinance, reviewing and assessing the content in private news media. I still think we could agree that these are somewhat different things. One cannot directly draw parallels between a democracy condition in the broadcasting license for public service and a democracy condition in this system.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must also say something about the Sverigedemokraterna's opening statement. I was very alarmed when I listened to Victoria Tiblom. The grounds for a new media subsidy that Sverigedemokraterna raise are very worrying. It actually sounded as if one wants to get rid of a number of newspapers that have a red editorial page. It is perhaps not so unexpected that Sverigedemokraterna are critical of red politics, but I still think it is surprising that one so openly here in the chamber argues for a reduced diversity of opinions within the press.

If all the secondary newspapers in the seven, I believe it was, locations listed here were to disappear and, furthermore, a number of the national smaller left-wing newspapers would have difficulty continuing, we would get a total dominance of right-wing newspapers - newspapers with a right-wing profile on the editorial page. It is truly alarming that SD says they want to see a system that actually risks worsening the formation of free opinion.

From Vänsterpartiet, we mean that if one seriously stands up for democracy, one must also make room for opinions that one does not personally share. That freedom must exist, both in the media and, of course, here in the chamber of the Riksdag.

A sustainable media support for the whole country

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)