Response to interpellation 2025/26:541 on public service
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M emphasizes that the public service companies are independent and that the government must not interfere in journalistic decisions as it violates the constitutionally protected editorial independence 1 2 3. M considers impartiality and objectivity to be fundamental for trust and that new technology-neutral conditions have increased the possibility of scrutinizing content 1 2. M argues that through new broadcasting licenses, the citizens' right to impartial reporting is ensured and legitimacy is maintained 4. M also intends to conduct a research study to shed light on the condition of impartiality 1 2 4. SD claims that news reporting is often politically biased and that editorial choices are made based on skin color 5 6. SD argues that legitimacy is eroded when news coverage appears tailored 7.
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! Tobias Andersson has asked me how I intend to work to ensure that public service conducts an objective and non-political news coverage.
The mandates for public service are regulated through provisions in the Act (2025:986) on public service and conditions in the government's decisions on public service mandates for each company. The current public service mandates apply from this year and for eight years forward.
That the news monitoring and other programming activities of the public service companies shall be carried out impartially and objectively is a central and fundamental prerequisite for public service. These requirements have existed since the broadcasts began over a hundred years ago and are now explicitly stated in the public service act. The requirement that the programming activities shall be carried out impartially and objectively is also technology-neutral since the turn of the year and covers all content, i.e., text, audio, and moving images, from public service regardless of how it is distributed.
The new technology-neutral conditions mean that the possibility to follow up and review content has been expanded. This is important for the public's trust in public service. It is not the government, but the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority that subsequently examines whether 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 missions in accordance with the conditions that have been set.
The public service companies are independent media companies, and it is not my or the government's business to interfere in how the operations are conducted or what editorial decisions are made. Such attempts would be an infringement on the constitutionally protected editorial independence and would contravene the principles for the governance of public service established by the Riksdag. It would also risk damaging the company's independence and thereby the public's trust in public service.
The Government has, in the public service bill (prop. 2024/25:166), judged that there are grounds to carry out a research study to, in addition to the review board's reviews and annual follow-ups, illuminate the condition of impartiality in an overall and knowledge-oriented manner. The purpose of such a study is to strengthen the organization's legitimacy and high level of trust. The Government intends to return regarding the more specific forms of just that study.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for his/her speech.
When the drug-influenced and professional criminal George Floyd died during a police intervention in the USA, it immediately became world news. When the 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak died during a police intervention in Great Britain, the Swedish news coverage was completely absent. Only when a conviction against the murderer had been reached, the video clips from the body cameras had been spread, and Great Britain's Prime Minister had spoken out, did Swedish media dare to begin reporting somewhat cautiously about what had occurred.
George Floyd and Henry Nowak uttered the same words shortly before their deaths. Since we are to speak Swedish in the chamber, I shall translate. They said: "I can't breathe." Despite that similarity, there is however a part that distinguishes both cases – not least the reason why the reactions and the news coverage have been so fundamentally different.
I would think that the simple answer is that George Floyd was dark-skinned and the police were white, while Henry Nowak was white and his murderer was of an immigrant background. Henry Nowak did not fit into the narrative that perhaps both individual journalists and editorial boards want to feed the population with. At the same time, George Floyd fit perfectly into that narrative, if one only omitted the fact that he was under the influence of drugs and was a multiple convict.
Many journalists certainly identify as anti-racists and perhaps do not believe in reverse racism, Swedish-hostility and so on, why they do not even reflect on the bias and racism that can be discerned in their reporting – or omitted reporting.
It is about the type of racism against whites that Henry Nowak became aware of when the police arrested him because he was accused of being a racist by his murderer. It says something about both the individual police officers and the system within which they operate when a white teenager is immediately arrested solely based on the allegation that he is a racist.
When the now deceased Henry Nowak tried to tell the police that he had been stabbed, he heard the police say: I don't think you have been, buddy. The last thing he heard was his rights being read out to him.
It has probably turned the stomachs of many who have seen these video clips. The parallels to, and differences with, George Floyd's death are obvious, but the news coverage is fundamentally different. When I wrote this interpellation, Sveriges Radio had not reported anything, while SVT had an article published six months after Henry Nowak was murdered.
The Minister mentions in their response that the independence and public trust in public service risk being eroded if the government has opinions on the journalistic decisions. So be it – but I also want to assert that the legitimacy of public service risks being eroded when its news coverage appears biased and tailored. When it is possible to read on social media for days or weeks about an internationally monitored event, such as the murder of Henry Nowak, before public service makes a half-forced attempt to report anything about it, one loses relevance.
Credibility is also eroded when one seems to tailor their news coverage based on skin color and political preferences. How do we strengthen the objectivity of public service?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Just as I was mentioning, impartiality and objectivity are completely fundamental for public service to function and enjoy the public's trust. This is also one of the reasons why we from the political side – I as minister and the government – should not interfere in public service's activities and definitely not in the journalistic decisions. We have, after all, regulated in one of our constitutional laws, the Freedom of the Press Act, that this shall take place via a review board, which may look at whether one fulfills its mandates when it comes to impartiality and objectivity.
It is clearly stated that anyone is free to make reports to the review board. It also has, as I mentioned earlier, the task of following up on this on an annual basis. We also have, from the government's side, through the new proposition that came into effect for public service on January 1 this year, further reinforced the need to look at this with impartiality by announcing this study, where they will look more closely at precisely impartiality and objectivity.
There are, therefore, things we can do from the government's side, and we have also, through the new bill, done things to more clearly demonstrate the need for impartiality and objectivity and how this, as the member pointed out, is linked to the high level of trust. These two things are truly crucial for us to have a public service that both here and now, but also in the future, delivers information and news that the public trusts and can rely on.
We do, therefore, some things, but we do not go in and judge the journalistic decisions. This is for the review board to do in accordance with what this chamber decided when the proposition was adopted.
It is clear that one will always be able to have a discussion about news media in general, naturally, and about what is reported and what is not. There may also be a need to broaden the public's trust. We know that trust for public service is lower in certain groups. It is also important that from the public service side, work is done broadly to enjoy a high level of trust in many groups in society, preferably in all groups in society.
This is a task that lies with the public service companies and is also what must be done in accordance with the broadcasting license. But it is naturally a secondary task, and therefore it is good that there is a review board where everyone can turn with a report, if one thinks that something has occurred that is not in line with the license that public service has received and which one therefore thinks potentially violates impartiality or objectivity.
Some things we do from a political standpoint. Other things must be scrutinized in other ways. Most important is probably that the possibility for scrutiny exists and that we have also clarified that public service is technology-neutral so that all material can now be scrutinized. This should be seen in light of both the fact that one can make a report to the Review Board if one thinks something has occurred, and that we constantly need to ensure that public service has renewed and increased trust among the public. Accordingly, I also believe that the study which we are to commission according to the proposition will become important for the continued work.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank you for the answer from the Minister for Culture.
I would like to begin by stating that it is difficult for the review committee to review something that has not been published. That is somewhat my point. We are not to comment on the individual editorial decisions that have been made, but choosing not to publish something is also, in some sense, an editorial decision. That is where my point lies.
I would also like to go as far as to assert that public services' news reporting in my world is many times so politically biased that one who retrieves all their information from there risks getting a directly incorrect picture of reality. The example I gave in my previous speech also indicates that different editorial choices are made based on the skin color of the perpetrator and the victim respectively.
There is another example from this week on this theme. Two days ago, a report was released in the British parliament. Simplified, it can be translated as the report on rape gangs. It recounts parts of perhaps the biggest scandal in modern times in a Western country, namely the extensive and systematic abuses and rapes that have taken place all over Great Britain for decades. The victims have been British girls, while the perpetrators have almost exclusively been men with immigrant backgrounds from Muslim countries.
This resulted, as is evident both in this report and in previous reporting, in that the fear in society of being called a racist weighed more heavily than the will to save and protect the victims. Entire cities knew that this was happening. The parents tried to save their daughters, but the police took no action because they did not want to be called racists. Social workers responsible for the children's safety knew about it but did nothing because they did not want to be called racists. Journalists knew about it but refrained from writing about it and revealing it because they did not want to be called racists.
In the end, this nevertheless became so extensive, so politically relevant, and so widely known that it was revealed. And now, for several years, one has been able to follow the reports that have come out after this – as mentioned, one has come every week until now.
Now, the Minister may wonder what I want to achieve with this observation. I am not blaming public service for not being the first to report on this. But the fact that they have not reported on it since then, during the years when it has been reported on or now this week when this report came out, I find to be remarkable.
Social media is being filled with information about the horrific events described in the report. It appears, among other things – I translate and quote – that the demographic and cultural motives were clear. Perpetrators from Pakistan and with other Muslim backgrounds had a honor- and shame-based code of conduct according to which non-Muslim girls, mainly white working-class girls, were treated as property available for sexual exploitation.
At least 250,000 young, white British women have during these decades been victims of assaults committed almost exclusively by Muslim men. They have been forced to convert to Islam. They have been raped and gang-raped. They have been tortured in the most horrific ways. They have been branded with the letter M as in Mohammed and much more.
This can be read about in a report in the British parliament this week. Public service has not reported a single word about it. Then the follow-up question is: If it had been 250,000 immigrant girls in Britain who had been raped and exploited by British racists over decades, would public service have chosen not to write about that then?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I cannot make an individual assessment of what has been chosen to be published or not published. Neither I nor any other minister in the government should question that type of journalistic decision. Even not publishing is a journalistic decision, as the member himself said. Furthermore, there may be other reasons to consider why something is not published. I will leave that unsaid.
What I think is a pity is if one reduces this discussion to only being about "racism or not." I believe we have come further than that in Sweden. I believe we have done it by our four parties having cooperated during this parliamentary term and moved the discussion about what Sweden should be, which Sweden we want to build for the future, and which questions are okay to talk about and which are not. I assess that we today have a completely different conversation climate and a different situation when it comes to approaching the difficult questions.
Questions about ethnicity and racism can be part of an explanation in certain contexts. But I do not believe it is as simple as that we can explain entire models with it. We have come further in Sweden. We are clear – if one has come to Sweden, one should adopt the customs of the place one comes to. There are values, laws, and rules in Sweden that we believe one should comply with and follow when one is here. We have worked hard to present language requirements. Citizenship should mean something. We work for the common values that have built Sweden. I perceive that we are somewhere else today compared to where we were four or eight years ago in this discussion in Sweden.
I do not take responsibility for either the media houses' editorial decisions or the media-ethical debate. But my view is that we as a society have moved this discussion and debate. It is not as sensitive as before to talk about issues that have to do with people's backgrounds. It can be about ethnicity, racism, or for that matter, antisemitism. All types of crimes committed and value conflicts that occur, I think we have become better at talking about and highlighting, even in Swedish society.
To move the discussion a bit more towards Sweden, which we do have responsibility for, my view is, at least, that the measures that we in the governing parties have made during this mandate period together with Sverigedemokraterna have contributed to balancing the picture of what is okay to talk about in a society and what is not. But the media's responsibility for this, they must bear themselves.
It is positive that we have such a broad media market in Sweden. We have a strong public service, and we must continue to have that. But we also have free commercial media. These different media naturally become enormously important in relation to one another in order to bring in different voices, different ways of thinking, and different journalism. In this way, citizens can receive different types of information and informative segments and thereby form their own opinions.
I leave the journalistic decisions as they are, as I said. I do believe, however, that the discussion today is different in Sweden than it is in many other places in Europe, because I believe that the things we have done have moved the discussion so that it can be about other things.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! The Minister is right to broaden the debate and also include the commercial news channels and the newsrooms. I want to assert that they have, in many ways, handled this type of issue in precisely the same way as public service. Then there are other examples – free and independent channels such as Riks and so on do a better job and also scrutinize that which some consider uncomfortable.
My point remains. I am allowed to comment on journalistic decisions – I am not a minister. However, I have not done so. But I believe that the two examples I gave have been handled differently depending on what skin color the victim and the perpetrator respectively have.
When George Floyd died under the influence of drugs during a police interrogation, it was reported in one way. When Henry Nowak was hacked to death by a person with an immigrant background and himself was imprisoned by the police and died during that process, it was reported in another way – hardly at all. When at least 250,000 white girls over decades have been used as sex slaves by Muslim men, it is not reported. My point in my previous speech was that if it had been 250,000 women or girls in the UK with a background in Africa who had been subjected to equivalent abuse by British racists, public service would likely not have published anything other than exactly this since it was revealed.
It is a problem for the legitimacy of public services that it is so obvious that one has a narrative to follow. Journalistic decisions are made depending on the skin color of the victim and the perpetrator. It provokes me immensely, Madam Speaker.
With that said, I naturally want to wish the Minister for Culture a happy Midsummer. We will perhaps see each other in Almedalen and in the election campaign.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, I am glad that we have the new broadcasting license in place and that the regulations in it and in the new public service mandates are very clear. The absolutely clearest thing in that is the requirement for objectivity and impartiality. That is the overriding requirement that we place on public service.
There are various reasons for this, and I will mention the two most important ones. When a part of our common resources is allocated to public service, people in Sweden also deserve to receive reporting that is impartial and objective. That is one reason. The second reason is that it is important for public service's own legitimacy, so that it can continue to enjoy a high level of trust. This is how it has been for over 100 years. It will continue to be important for at least 100 years forward, I hope.
We have tried to look at how we can work with the groups that have lower trust in public service. It is about working with a broader perspective on reviews and working with precisely objectivity and impartiality. In that regard, we have also presented the plan for a research study as part of the new broadcasting license, which I believe is important. The study will hopefully provide certain results that one can state correspond to either one's fears or one's hopes, and which make it possible to see what there is to be done in different parts.
There are reasons to continue the work. One should not lean back and be satisfied. But I think we have strong legislation. We have just adopted a broadcasting license that is, if possible, even clearer regarding public service's mandate. I believe we will be given every opportunity to follow this even in the future.
With that said, I wish the member a happy Midsummer and hope for some time off soon.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.