Supplementary provisions to the EU Media Freedom Act

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Free media and a diversity in news flow and analyses are in many ways crucial for us as citizens to be able to participate and be able to act in democratic societies.

In Sweden, freedom of speech has been free for over 250 years, but in recent years, many of these self-evident starting points have come to be questioned from an external perspective. Recurring reports and events within both the EU and the rest of the world have shown that freedom of speech has in many ways come to be restricted or that attempts to do so have been made. Therefore, there is reason for a media regulation, which has now been developed at the EU level and adapted for Swedish conditions in the proposal we have before us. Already in 2021, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, noted in her speech on the state of the EU the need for a common European regulation to guarantee the independence of the media.

Alarming trends that can be highlighted in recent years are worsened conditions for media and journalists within certain EU countries. Freedom of the press has been weakened, and journalists have been wiretapped and monitored. Public service's independent missions have been subjected to suspicion and, in some countries, also to various attempts at political steering.

The European Media Freedom Act entered into force in May 2024 and establishes common rules for a well-functioning internal market for media services while ensuring that the independence and diversity of media services are protected. Member States may adopt more detailed or stricter rules in certain areas, provided that they establish a higher level of protection for media diversity or editorial independence and are compatible with Union law.

This is the background to the report KU12 Supplementary provisions to the EU Media Freedom Act which the Committee on the Constitution is now presenting. The proposal means that the provisions required to comply with the Media Freedom Act can be applied and take effect in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and against the motions.

In the best of worlds, perhaps no supplements or detailed rules would be needed, but that is not the spirit of the times or the world we live in right now. The starting point for the EU Commission has been to develop a regulation that shall strengthen diversity and editorial independence within the EU. It shall also promote citizens' participation, counter disinformation, and guarantee the protection of journalists and their sources. In the recitals to the Media Freedom Act, it is stated that the definition of a media service should particularly include TV or radio broadcasts, audiovisual media services on demand, audio podcasts, and press publications.

Mr. Speaker! It also appears that the definition of providers of media services shall cover a broad spectrum of professional media actors, including freelancers. This means that the media freedom ordinance targets many actors who today are not subject to either regulation or supervision. Among others, manufacturers, developers and importers of devices, user interfaces, will be affected, furthermore providers of very large online platforms and video-sharing platforms as well as also in some respects media services from countries outside the EU.

The Media Freedom Act will also largely affect the Media Authority, which is given the supervisory responsibility for a number of articles in the regulation. The Media Authority will play a key role in this context and also participate in the work of a new European board for media services. With the regulation, the national media rules are harmonized to create a minimum level so that media companies can operate within the EU on the same terms. That, Mr. Speaker, can be a reasonable prerequisite in the in many ways boundless media world that we are a part of.

Media companies are granted not only rights to conduct independent activities but also obligations. Transparency is also required from providers of audience measurement systems, and requirements are set in the regulation that media companies shall make information about themselves public. The information shall be kept updated and be direct and easily accessible for the media users.

The following information shall be included: legal names and contact details, names of direct or indirect owners, names of ultimate beneficial owners, the total annual amount of public funds for state advertising awarded to them, as well as the total annual amount of advertising revenue from public authorities or entities in third countries. To guarantee transparency in media ownership, a national database shall be created where the above information shall be disclosed, so that users can easily find the ownership information of the media in one place.

The proposal includes that the Media Authority is given the responsibility to create and administer this database. There shall also be routines for how online platforms act when they remove content from these media companies. The reasons for this are that very large online platforms are identified in the regulation as important gateways for users to the media content. It is therefore important that we as users should be able to form an opinion on whether the media content comes from a credible source.

Mr. Speaker! Two motions have been submitted by the Sweden Democrats. They concern the forms of supervision and what is described as administrative burden. The committee notes that it appears directly from the Freedom of the Press Act that assessments of media concentration shall be made. The Media Authority's powers are furthermore already limited by provisions in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. The committee also notes that the obligation to provide information does not mean that any new data needs to be collected, but only that data that has already been made accessible shall be provided – hence the reasons why the motions are rejected.

A number of referral bodies have responded, and some have objections from various aspects. I note that the fact that this regulation is being developed is generally received in a well-intentioned manner. One example is Tidningsutgivarna. They certainly have some critical views on individual areas, but they emphasize the importance of establishing a floor, a minimum level, for a decent freedom of the press.

The Institute for Human Rights emphasizes that free and independent media are of crucial importance for human rights and that states have a responsibility to prevent undue media dominance or concentration that could be harmful to a diversity of sources and opinions.

Mr. Speaker! These are overarching conclusions worth noting, and they are the basis for why we have stood behind the report that is now being presented. I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I notice that the gallery is now filling with listeners as the Sverigedemokraternas speakers go up to the rostrum.

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation number 1.

Sweden today has one of the world's strongest protections for freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Through our Freedom of the Press Act and Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, we have for a long time secured an independent media landscape where power is scrutinized and democracy is strengthened. It is therefore with caution that we must approach the government's bill on supplementary provisions to the EU Media Freedom Act. Even though the purpose of the bill is good, to protect free media and strengthen diversity, the proposal in its current form risks leading to the opposite effect.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, there are no clear guarantees that our constitutional laws will take precedence when the EU's Media Freedom Act is applied in Sweden. It is not only the Sweden Democrats who see this deficiency. Referral bodies such as the Swedish Union of Journalists, Uppsala University, and the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhets- och integritetsskyddsnämnden) have expressed similar concerns. If the precedence of the constitution is not explicitly established, the door is opened to legal uncertainty, and in the worst case, one of the cornerstones of our democracy, namely our freedom of expression, will be impaired.

Secondly, the government proposes that references to the EU regulation shall be dynamic. This means that every future amendment made to the EU regulation will automatically take effect in Swedish law without the Riksdag being given the opportunity to take a position on this change. Decisions at the EU level are implemented in Sweden without the representatives of the Swedish people, the members of the Riksdag, being given the opportunity to oppose this.

For the third, the bill gives Mediemyndigheten an extensive and far-reaching mandate to collect data and make assessments of how the media market affects the media's diversity and independence.

This means that the authority, even if it is not allowed to make decisions to prohibit or restrict a business constellation, still gains a special influence through its statements, which in practice can affect media actors' opportunities to establish themselves and develop their operations. According to the bill, these assessments shall admittedly be transparent and objective, but we believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obvious risk that this opens up for a development where the state is indirectly given a priority of interpretation when it comes to what constitutes sufficient diversity within the media landscape.

In a free and open society, it should not be the state or an authority that decides what counts as sufficient balance or breadth of opinion in news reporting. When an authority is given such broad powers to comment on the internal structure and content of the media, there is a risk that this will affect news reporting.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats believe in a free market, without the influence of EU regulations or domestic regulations. We therefore view seriously that the bill opens for state intervention in matters concerning the media's internal affairs and argue that this threatens rather than strengthens editorial independence.

We shall safeguard a free media climate. We shall safeguard small media actors' opportunities to survive and produce qualitative reports. It is precisely these voices on the media map that often contribute to broadening the perspectives in the public debate.

New administrative requirements are something that is manageable for the large media corporations, which have structures to handle new processes that take up a lot of resources. But for smaller media, the administrative requirements introduced with this law will hit particularly hard. What we do not want is for a few large actors to have a monopoly on news dissemination in Sweden. I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who want it that way, that is to say a return to how it once was, before citizens had access to information and news in the way they have today thanks to the technological revolution that the internet has brought.

Mr. Speaker! All that I have now mentioned points to a worrying development. A few weeks ago, the Riksdag took the unfortunate decision to change how the Riksdag shall be able to carry out constitutional amendments. For some reason, it was of great importance for all the Riksdag's parties except the Sverigedemokraterna to change the procedure that has functioned so well for so many years, where a majority of the country's elected members of parliament shall be able to carry out important constitutional amendments that protect Sweden and its inhabitants. Now we shall, Mr. Speaker, instead have a system where a minority of the country's elected representatives shall be able to block important reforms that a majority of the Swedish people want to carry out.

We also know that the EU is currently working on a shield which, according to what has been said, shall protect the inhabitants against certain types of information. Which information is to be shut out remains to be seen. This highlights even more the importance of us safeguarding and standing up for a free and open media climate.

The Sweden Democrats share the ambition to safeguard freedom of the press, but we believe that the government's proposal does not fulfill this goal. On the contrary, it risks weakening Swedish freedom of the press. Therefore, we want to see a number of changes. We want to protect small, free media from being overwhelmed by bureaucratic measures, administration, and control. We oppose dynamic references and directives from Brussels because we believe that the Riksdag's, that is, the Swedish people's, extended arm should have full control over all future changes in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! If we are serious about defending freedom of speech, we must dare to stand up even against proposals that in good faith threaten that very freedom. The starting point is the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. Sweden shall not compromise regarding the precedence of the Swedish constitutional laws. For, Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is not measured by what is said, but by what is permitted to be said.

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The government is now proposing a new law that complements the EU's Media Freedom Act. The purpose is to make it possible to apply the regulation effectively here in Sweden. The new law concerns, among other things, the obligation to provide information for media companies, how we should assess media concentrations, and the Media Authority's supervision and powers. It is therefore technical, but it is also principled. It is ultimately about something much larger: Swedish press freedom, freedom of expression, and who should actually decide on our media policy.

The EU's Media Freedom Act was adopted in the spring of 2024. There were good reasons for that. The purpose was to create a common internal market for media services and to protect independence and diversity. These are important goals and, I believe, goals that we all agree on.

But since the regulation applies directly in the member states, the government's legislative proposal now concerns filling in the parts where Sweden itself must decide how the supervision shall take place and how the rules shall be applied nationally. It is in those parts that there are some very important principles that it is good to be clear about.

The first is that the Swedish constitution stands firm. Sweden already has one of the world's strongest protections for freedom of the press and freedom of expression, through the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. It must be crystal clear that EU rules must never erode that protection. The Commission shall not have influence over Swedish media policy. It shall fundamentally be a national matter.

Secondly, the government's proposal means that future changes to the EU regulation will automatically become applicable in Swedish law. In the new law, the same words and expressions shall mean the same thing as in the EU regulation. Therefore, it must state clearly in the law that the terms have the same meaning.

When referring to EU rules, it can be done in two ways. A static reference means that one refers to the EU rule as it looked at a certain point in time. If the EU later changes the rule, the Swedish law must also be changed to keep up. There is also something called dynamic reference. That means that one refers to the legal act in the version that applies right now. In that case, the Swedish law normally does not need to be changed when the EU legal act is updated.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the Media Authority's mandate must be clearly delimited. The proposal gives the authority a broad mandate to review and assess media concentrations. The intention is to protect diversity, and that intention is naturally good. But we must be vigilant. An authority that is given much influence risks, however well-intentioned it may be, to indirectly influence editorial independence. Supervision must never become a tool to influence content.

Finally: We must protect the small actors. The administrative requirements that accompany this law can hit smaller and alternative media hard. They do not have the same resources as the larger corporations. If we are not careful, we risk reducing this diversity instead of strengthening it. The regulation must be proportionate, and it must take into account the different circumstances within the industry.

Mr. Speaker! Free and independent media are a cornerstone of our democracy. They must be protected, not regulated away. We must stand up for the free press. The EU's Media Freedom Act shall be applied in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our constitutionally protected freedom of expression. That is how we preserve an open society, with free media and a strong democracy.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is about the EU Media Freedom Act, which was adopted one and a half years ago, and about certain complementary rules that are proposed to be gathered in a new law. The idea behind this is fundamentally to protect the diversity and independence of the media. In order to create the conditions for the Media Freedom Act in Sweden, some specific rules are proposed to make the fulfillment of the law more effective.

Let us begin with ownership in the media market. The proposal includes, among other things, a registration of media companies' ownership conditions and any changes in these. It is a response to the Media Freedom Convention's requirements on member states to ensure citizens a diversity of editorially independent content.

On Sweden's part, a register is therefore proposed at the Media Authority, to which the media companies themselves report ownership and organizational structure and, naturally, also any changes that may occur. The media companies shall also indicate where the interested party can find this information, for example on the media company's website.

Mr. Speaker! Why is this then important? Well, it has to do with an increasing concentration of media ownership, not only in Sweden and Europe but also globally. The proposal presented in the bill gives the Media Authority a supervisory responsibility for the media companies, which in turn are required to report ownership conditions to the Media Authority.

To gain an understanding of both the scope and consequences of increasing ownership concentration, the Swedish Competition Authority provided funding to two researchers at Jönköping University for a closer investigation. Both researchers, Mart Ots and Marcel Graz, used AI to analyze 2 million articles published in Swedish media between 2014 and 2022. During that period, more than half of these media outlets changed owners, and the number of owners became significantly lower.

Such a concentration of ownership always attracts attention from competition authorities. It often affects consumers in the form of price increases, and specifically regarding media, there is also a concern that the debate will narrow, that the views expressed will become fewer, and that the corridor of opinion will become narrower. This is not good for the free formation of opinion, which we safeguard in the first chapter of the Instrument of Government.

But, Mr. Speaker, the researchers emphasize that this should not be interpreted as the journalistic quality of the individual newspapers decreasing. On the contrary, it turned out that the savings made through reduced local newsrooms were at least partly invested in the remaining newsrooms, which, with some economies of scale, could actually produce better material.

It should nevertheless be added that the reported investigation is not the only one and that the results vary considerably, not least regarding the quality. The concern that exists, not only for a diminishing local coverage but also for the editorial quality, remains in many cases, even internationally.

In summary, it can be said that the most common perception of ownership dominance is that it is less favorable for readers, viewers, and listeners because it leads to a decreasing breadth regarding news and how they are described, and to a narrower formation of opinion.

This, Mr. Speaker, must nevertheless be said time and again in a time when democracy is in decline in many countries. A world-leading researcher in the field is Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor at New York University, who writes about strongmen over the last 120 years. She reminds us, among other things, of the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, who until a few years ago built his entire political empire on a very large ownership of media companies.

With this in mind, and many other examples that cannot be contained here, I think we should strike a chord in the brook and not in the river, as the old expression goes.

The concern that has been expressed by the Sweden Democrats regarding the risk that the Media Authority's mandate will be expanded and that the administrative task for companies to update their information risks becoming an extra burden on the already heavy load, I still think is of less importance than the value of protecting diversity regarding both ownership and local content.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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