Increased transparency in the ownership of radio and television companies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns increasing transparency in the ownership of radio and television companies to strengthen citizens' opportunities to assess content and credibility 1 2 3 4. S considers the legislative change urgent to counter disinformation and propaganda in democracy 1. C welcomes the proposal but argues that the supervision and sanction system is too vague and calls for a security policy review function for foreign direct investments in Swedish media companies 2. C also wants a rapid follow-up on the effect of the legislation 2. SD considers the proposal a welcome update that gives users access to relevant information with a marginal administrative burden 3. M emphasizes the importance of source criticism against disinformation and wants to be able to follow up on ownership structures 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ida Karkiainen (S)
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.
Who or which interests are the senders of a certain piece of information? That is one of our time's perhaps most important consumer information issues. But it is also one of the most difficult.
Increased transparency in the ownership of radio and television companies
The media landscape has changed at a rapid pace in recent years, and the development shows no signs of slowing down. Therefore, it is even more urgent that we citizens receive information, or can find out information, about which interests stand behind different media services.
Media services are of great importance for the public's opportunities to obtain information and form a well-founded opinion on various conditions and events in society, everything from local events to international issues. The one who owns a provider of media services has great opportunities to influence what type of content and information is conveyed. However, it does not always appear clearly who stands behind the content that is disseminated.
Providing information about who owns a provider of media services in a simple way can give us citizens who use these services the opportunity to assess the content and the credibility of the service. In the long run, such information can mean that the conditions for freedom of expression and free formation of opinion are strengthened because users are given opportunities and conditions to form an opinion about the content itself.
In 2020, the previous government judged in the bill *A modernized radio and TV act* that there could be reasons to consider introducing requirements for providers of media services to provide information about their ownership structure, including also ultimate owners. This was linked to requirements that EU directives in the area impose. It is these proposals that we are discussing in today's debate. The proposals mean that more providers of media services shall provide information to recipients and that the scope of the information to be provided is expanded compared to what applies today.
What tasks is it then that it is about? Yes, it is about basic information such as the name of the person who owns the supplier and whether this person is part of a group or in a close cooperation with other companies or organizations, that is to say information about the ownership structure. In addition to this, the owner's organization number should also be stated, where applicable.
Is it sufficient? That is open to discussion. If the supplier has a complex ownership structure, it would still be difficult for the user to assess who has the decisive influence in a media service provider. In such a situation, however, the information can provide the user with information about which possible actors stand behind the information, which ultimately increases the possibilities to evaluate the content.
It should be in the interest of all serious media services to be able to and want to easily provide this type of information.
Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has, in its reservation in the matter, stated that the proposals regarding supervision and sanctions are vaguely formulated and that they therefore want a follow-up on how the legislation turns out. That is a reasonable point of view. Evaluating how legislation turns out is, however, something that we constantly do and constantly return to. We believe that this can be satisfied without a motion in the area, but it is, as said, a reasonable point of view. We shall at least have reason to return politically if the results of the legislation are unsatisfactory.
Mr. Speaker! In the extensive information society we live in, where both disinformation and propaganda can easily and quickly gain a foothold, transparency is required for us citizens to be able to assess the sender's potential intentions or interests. It is an important part of democracy. Therefore, this legislative amendment is urgent.
Malin Björk (C)
Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a media landscape in rapid change. In this landscape, the average media consumer takes in information via a multitude of different channels, in contrast to in my childhood, when in addition to the written word, state television and state radio were predominant as sources of information about events in the world.
In a landscape such as the one we have today, with an enormous number of different senders, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know who or which parties stand behind a certain message. At the same time, it is the case that the picture we create of the world and the state of affairs in it largely depends on which sources we use in our information gathering. In order to be able to form a well-founded perception of how things stand and what is happening in society at large, it is important to be able to identify the source in order to correctly evaluate the information.
Overall, it is highly important to give the media consumer an actual opportunity to find out who is behind a message, and in a way that is as simple as possible. It is precisely this that the report we are now discussing aims for: that the person listening to a radio broadcast or watching a TV broadcast should be able to easily find out who is behind it. With the legislative changes now being adopted, providers of media services will be obliged to provide information about ownership conditions. This information shall be provided in a way that is as simple as possible, so that the user of a service can assess the content and the credibility of the service.
Mr. Speaker! The information that the supplier is to provide is partly the name of the person who owns the supplier, and partly information on the ownership structure, which concerns whether the owner is part of a group or in a close cooperation with other companies or organizations, as Ida Karkiainen said. At the same time, a sanction provision is introduced for the supplier that does not comply with the law. In such cases, the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority may require the supplier, under penalty of a fine, to provide the necessary information about the owner.
Centerpartiet welcomes the proposal but considers the proposed system, with a supervisory authority and a sanctions system, to be very vague. We lack a review function for transfers, where the supplier thus gets new owners, and for foreign direct investments in Swedish media companies, which can also affect the ownership conditions.
It has been known for some time that foreign powers have strategic interests in influencing Swedish debate and, in the long run, our country's freedom of action. Therefore, it is important to seek to raise the thresholds for such influence operations in order to prevent them, naturally with respect for the fundamental laws. Our assessment is that the EU Commission's framework for the screening of foreign direct investments that can affect security and public order provides room for this.
We therefore consider that a security policy review function should be established urgently also for foreign direct investments in Swedish media companies, not for the purpose of stopping foreign ownership in Swedish media, but for the purpose of being better equipped against activities that can constitute a threat to Swedish democracy, for example if foreign direct investments risk affecting the possibility of free and independent media throughout Sweden.
Given the security situation, it is also important to follow up on whether the legislative changes we are now adopting actually work and achieve the intended effect. Such a follow-up should be initiated shortly after the proposals have entered into force so that it will be possible to quickly see what may need to be addressed.
I therefore move for approval of the reservation under point 2.
Victoria Tiblom (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.
We are now considering the Committee on the Constitution's report KU13, which proposes increased transparency regarding the ownership of radio and television companies. The bill implies, among other things, that it is not only program companies that broadcast television and providers of pay-TV that shall provide the requested information, but all providers of media services.
The media landscape is constantly changing. Therefore, our existing laws also need to be updated to keep pace with developments as much as possible. This bill is a welcome change and update.
The number of providers of media services has increased significantly over the last decade, and it is important to ensure that recipients have access to relevant information. The one who owns a provider of media services has great opportunities to influence what type of information and content is conveyed. That the user gets access to information about the ownership conditions implies an opportunity to assess the content and the credibility of the service.
The Government's assessment is that the proposal only entails a marginal increase in the administrative burden for the parties involved, which is also an important point. It should be simple and smooth, both for media providers and for recipients.
The referral bodies that have been given the opportunity to comment, for example JO, the Chancellor of Justice, the Authority for Press, Radio and Television and providers of media services, have not had any comments on the proposal.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we can do nothing other than agree with the Committee on the Constitution's proposal to adopt the Government's proposal to a law on amendment of the Radio and Television Act and a law on amendment of the Act on Electronic Commerce and Other Information Society Services.
Lars Engsund (M)
Mr. Speaker! Fabricated news, lies and conspiracy theories, that is to say fake news, or disinformation, as it is called in Swedish, have unfortunately become a powerful political weapon. We were, for example, reminded of this in connection with Russian media's reporting on the war in Ukraine. Another example is various media's reporting on the cause and effect of the covid pandemic.
I want to be able to trust our media. I want to be able to be critical of sources. I want to be able to follow up on who stands behind the media companies in terms of ownership and ownership structure. It is for me an important part of the source criticism of the messages conveyed by the media.
Increased transparency in the ownership of radio and television companies
In recent years, the media landscape has undergone major changes. Today, there is a vast array of different media services that we as users can access. The various types of radio and television companies that exist are of great importance for the public's opportunity to receive information and form a well-founded opinion on various conditions and events in society, for example through news broadcasts and fact programs. It can be information about everything from local events to world news.
Mr. Speaker! Whoever owns a provider of media services has great opportunities to influence what type of content and information is conveyed. There are therefore good reasons for information about who owns a provider and its ownership structure to be accessible. This gives us users a better opportunity to assess the content and the credibility of the conveyed messages.
I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
(Decisions were made under § 19.)
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.