Response to interpellation 2025/26:294 on SVT's impartiality and objectivity
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns SVT's impartiality and objectivity. M considers that the public service companies have a high and stable level of trust 1. M emphasizes that requirements for impartiality are fundamental and that the government has decided on an independent research study to shed light on the conditions 1 2. M argues that public service should be perceived as a company independent of party politics 2 and that the new conditions safeguard independence 3. M considers that insight and openness can strengthen legitimacy 3. M refers to the review board as the body that examines content 1 4. M argues that it is central that the public can report all publications to the review board 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me whether I or the government have conducted any analysis of how well SVT fulfills its mandate to be impartial and objective and what the result of the analysis shows in that case. For the case where the analysis shows that there is reason to question SVT's impartiality and objectivity, Elsa Widding has further asked me whether I or the government have attempted to remedy this and, if so, in what way.
The mandates for public service are regulated through provisions in the Public Service Act and conditions in the government's decisions on public service mandates for each respective company. In October 2025, the Riksdag decided on the proposals in the bill A Public Service Act and guidelines for the operations 2026–2033. In December 2025, the public service mandates for SR, SVT and UR were decided. The mandates and the conditions that are set apply from this year and for eight years forward. They are designed based on the proposals in the bill.
That the public service companies' programming shall be conducted impartially and objectively, and that the requirements can be followed up and audited, is a central and fundamental prerequisite for public service. The requirements have existed since the broadcasts began over a hundred years ago and now appear directly in the law. The requirement for impartiality and objectivity applies regardless of what form the content takes – for example, audio, image, or text – and regardless of how the content is broadcast or provided.
It is not the government, but the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority that subsequently examines whether the content in programs follows the rules that exist for the programs. The Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority also has the task of annually following up and assessing whether the public service companies fulfill their mandates.
The public service companies have a high and stable trust in the population. At the same time, the development of the media market has led to a changed position for traditional media. Differences in trust for traditional media also include the public service companies.
In the public service proposition, the government therefore assesses that, in addition to the review board's reviews and annual follow-ups on how the assignments are fulfilled, there are also reasons to conduct a research study to illuminate the condition of impartiality in an overall and knowledge-oriented manner – this for the purpose of strengthening the operation's legitimacy and high level of trust. The government intends to return regarding the more specific forms of the study.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! There is, therefore, no will on the part of this government to change SVT. That was very disappointing.
The Minister claims that the public service companies have high and stable trust in the population. That is a false statement. The voters, i.e., approximately 50 percent, who vote for the left-wing parties naturally have high and stable trust in SVT because their own political views align with the views and narratives that SVT has expressed for decades. That 80 percent of this group has high trust is rather a confirmation of how biased SVT constantly acts.
The question of trust in SVT is therefore not at all about those voters who have left-wing political views, but about those who have other political views and who actually constitute 50 percent of the voters. Among these, only about 40 percent have trust in SVT, that is, less than half compared to those who have left-wing political views. 60 percent in this group have no trust, and the group only gets larger. It is therefore this situation that must be considered and which leads to many demanding that SVT and public service be changed radically, or alternatively be abolished.
One must also remember that both left-wing and right-wing voters for decades have only received SVT's reporting and therefore have not realized how biased it actually is. Had they received information without SVT's filtering of reality, significantly more would likely have realized how biased SVT acts and thus lost confidence in them.
That the Minister for Culture refers to the Review Board is almost a bit funny. Is there a single Swede who does not know how extremely biased the Review Board is? How many citizens does the minister even have the energy to contact the Review Board about regarding all the incorrect and biased information that SVT broadcasts daily? It would be almost a full-time job.
I hope that the Minister truly understands how extremely important this issue is for the citizens and for democracy in our country. SVT is a very important actor that the citizens get information and knowledge from every day. In every important issue, however, only one perspective is served, and the one who questions that perspective is cancelled immediately. It is therefore absolutely crucial that the voters get access to several perspectives on the same issue so that they can in that way make their own and well-founded decisions, something that is also completely fundamental for a functioning democracy.
In the autumn, I therefore proposed in a motion that SVT should be divided into two independent channels, one with an explicit left-wing political profile and one with an explicit right-wing political profile. It is obviously not a perfect solution, I am fully aware of that, but it is a solution that would make a big difference and which is feasible.
The competition between these two would likely reduce the democratic deficit that Sweden is currently affected by. The viewers would get two slightly different perspectives on the same issue and in that way be able to form their own understanding and perception regarding many important issues that one does not receive information about today.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Even though public trust in public service is high and stable according to the SOM survey, a polarization and a politicization in trust has emerged in recent times. Certain groups in society perceive that the program offerings are biased in favor of certain interests or political opinions.
I believe that meeting these differences in trust with increased polarization in the form of outspoken political profiles is the wrong way to go. In order for public service to enjoy broad trust among the public, it is important, among other things, that public service is perceived as a non-partisan, independent company.
The requirements for impartiality and objectivity, which now appear directly in the law as a result of the new broadcasting license, are therefore essential for public trust. These have been a fundamental prerequisite for public service ever since the broadcasts began more than a hundred years ago and continue to be so today. It is precisely for that reason that we in the bill have decided on an independent research study that shall, in an overall and knowledge-oriented manner, shed light on the condition of impartiality. This can, in turn, further strengthen the operation's legitimacy and high level of trust among the public.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! Everything sounds very good, but we nevertheless have a reality to contend with. SVT's mandate is to be objective and impartial, but it is a well-known fact that this is not the case.
Not least on the climate issue, SVT has for many years engaged in spreading pure disinformation, and in its reporting, it has distanced itself very far from the science presented by the UN's climate panel IPCC. For example, the UN's climate panel said in 2013 that the world was heading towards a tripling of emissions, from approximately 40 gigatons to 120 gigatons by the year 2100. At the latest reporting occasion, the same climate panel said that the world is not heading towards 120 but towards 10 – that is, from 40 down to 10 – until the year 2100.
Has anyone heard SVT mention a single word about this very positive news regarding the climate? The climate crisis suddenly disappeared, but SVT's reporting is constantly escalating. The consequence is an entire generation of frightened children, and adults for that matter, who support the most absurd political proposals – which are fueled by public service. This applies not least to the discussion about the climate goals, which absolutely do not do any good for our country but only destroy our competitiveness and erode the welfare.
We in Sweden stand, as the minister knows, for 0.1 percent of the world's emissions, and we are then to risk destroying our economy while people are trying to convince the population that China and the rest of the world will follow suit. This is also a perspective that SVT is unable to account for in a serious way. This is just one example; there are as many as you can count.
In the same way, SVT spread disinformation during covid. They joined in on the lies and spread propaganda that the untested covid-19 vaccine preparations were safe and effective. Today, the vast majority know that was not the case, and many were fully aware even then. This applies in particular to all those who read beforehand in Pfizer's own data, which actually proves that they knew of an extremely high degree of miscarriage, because Pfizer included pregnant women in these experiments. It was clearly stated there that the injections were totally ineffective against covid-19 as well as life-threatening, that is to say, the opposite of what SVT spread to the population. It is very serious.
Today, many bitterly regret having taken part in the false information that has had devastating consequences for public health. There are as many examples as one can count of how public service spreads pure disinformation and one-sided information to the population.
The mass protests within the EU have become commonplace, but SVT reports on them almost not at all. Not so long ago, over 1 million people were out on the streets in London protesting against digital IDs and against how the new control society driven by Agenda 2030 aims to increase control over the individual and eliminate human rights – of which freedom of speech is a very central part. SVT reports, at most, that a number of far-right individuals participate in the protests.
Where is the objectivity and impartiality in this? Where is the evidence that those who are protesting are far-right? It is an epithet that SVT completely arbitrarily sticks on almost everyone who is considered to have a different political opinion than the one that applies within SVT.
The total lack of impartiality leads to more and more citizens wanting SVT to be shut down. In any case, people do not want to be forced via their taxes to pay for the operations of SVT and Sveriges Radio, which they believe have strongly contributed to many of the serious problems that Sweden has today. Instead, they obtain information and knowledge from elsewhere, for example from alternative media and international media.
Now public service must actually stop with all the lies and become more fact-oriented. That is what politics must demand.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I thought this debate was about public service, not about specific issues concerning, for example, climate or vaccines. If the member feels this is a major concern, there is always the possibility to appeal to the review board, which in turn can make an impartial assessment of both the claims and the content. That is the procedure we have in Sweden, and it is the procedure I refer the member to.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! It is exactly that order that does not work, and it is that which we are standing here and debating today.
Many in Sweden see SVT and Sveriges Radio as a political opponent engaged in political activism and indoctrination, that is to say, not as an objective channel with a mandate to scrutinize power – far from it. The criticism against SVT has increased in recent years, and the review board actually appears increasingly ridiculous. Despite bourgeois governments, which should have a more critical view of SVT's lack of objectivity and impartiality, nothing has improved.
The Social Democrats now want to provide constitutional protection for public service. If constitutional protection is to be relevant, it must surely be about protecting a public service that serves the interests of the entire population, because it cannot be that only the left-wing bloc's interests are to be protected and which the minister stands here defending?
It is high time to let two independent channels with different political profiles and equal funding compete for viewers when it comes to both news and current affairs programs as well as the rest of the program offerings. The proposal to split SVT into two independent channels, one with an explicitly left-wing political profile and one with an explicitly right-wing political profile, should be able to be implemented quite quickly and easily.
If no radical change occurs regarding SVT's biased actions, more and more people will demand that their tax funding of the company cease and that one returns to the previous voluntary license fee – alternatively that SVT and public service be abolished. And it still cannot be reasonable to continue forcing all citizens to finance an SVT that so many no longer want via the tax bill.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that the member and I have very different views of the public service companies' mandate and also of the public's trust in the same.
I naturally agree that trust needs to increase in certain groups. We were in agreement, both in the bill that the government laid before the Riksdag and which the Riksdag passed, and in the parliamentary committee that worked out the content of the bill that the government subsequently presented, that more needs to be done. In addition, we have agreed on, among other things, the investigation to look at precisely impartiality. We know, after all, that it is central to have an independent public service that enjoys a high level of trust among the public.
We are pleased that we have the new terms in place. They safeguard the independence and integrity of the public service companies but also task public service with focusing more on its core activities. These decisions create conditions for continuity and clarity for public service, and furthermore, a long-term and stable funding of public service is secured. The new terms are also technology-neutral and cover all content from public service regardless of how it is distributed. This means that the possibility to scrutinize content has increased, which is also important for the public's trust in public service.
It is also central that the public can, from the turn of the year, report all publications from the public service companies to the review board. Transparency and openness regarding how the public service companies conduct their operations can also contribute to further strengthening their legitimacy and high trust figures.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.