The News from Stockholm – Freedom of the Press Posted by Marcus Cederström on Apr 25, 2010 in Culture
In the past week, a discussion has been brewing in Sweden about freedom of the press. The discussion stems from recent revelations that a right-wing newspaper has received government funding.
Nationell Idag, a newspaper published by Nationaldemokraterna, has been granted about 1.7 million SEK in support for the 2010 calendar year (along with about 700,000 SEK for part of 2009) by Presstödsnämnden.
Presstödsnämnden (Press Subsidies Council) is the government organization in charge of handing out press subsidies to newspapers which meet certain criteria. This includes the overall circulation, subscription numbers, and even price. The Press Subsidies Council does not, however, take into consideration the content of any of the newspapers, but instead uses the aforementioned criteria when making decisions.
Because of the political views of Nationaldemokraterna, a group that bases its political platform on fear and xenophobia, uproar has followed. And rightfully so. The subsidies handed out by Presstödsnämnden are supported by the tax payer, the majority of who do not support the political extremism of Nationaldemokraterna.
The granting of the money to the newspaper has led to a far reaching discussion. About freedom of the press. About the use of tax payer money. About what constitutes mångfalden på dagstidningsmarknaden (diversity in the newspaper sector). Even about economic competition. In the wake of it all, the laws governing Presstödsnämnden are coming under scrutiny and Nationell Idag is receiving more press than they could have printed themselves.
Some are arguing that Presstödsnämnden must continue to act as it has in order to support the many different opinions of the Swedish press. That by not examining the content, but instead granting money based on the letter of the law, they are ensuring a diversity of opinions. Others argue that the government subsidies give fringe groups a platform to yell from. That tax money should be used to support what many deem to be hate speech.
What do you think? Where should freedom of the press end? Or should it end?
Build vocabulary, practice pronunciation, and more with Transparent Language Online. Available anytime, anywhere, on any device.
About the Author: Marcus Cederström
Marcus Cederström has been writing for the Transparent Swedish Blog since 2009. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Scandinavian Studies from the University of Oregon, a Master's Degree in Scandinavian Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and a PhD in Scandinavian Studies and Folklore from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He has taught Swedish for several years and still spells things wrong. So, if you see something, say something.
Comments:
MagdA:
Give them a chance. The leftwing press has stupified Swedes during decades.
LC in Seattle:
These subsidies are interesting, since several months ago a few US politicians floated the idea of granting US newspapers an exemption from paying some of the taxes other businesses pay. Most newspapers of all political orientation opposed the idea, because as soon as they accept special treatment from the government (just tax relief, not a cash subsidy), their readers will not be able to trust whether they report on everything the government does, or just what puts the government in a good light.
Newspapers here are even wary of accepting donations from private sources, lest their news coverage be viewed as dictated by the donors. One news director wrote: “If the government becomes the money bags for journalism, journalism will become the bag man for the government.” (some idiom for you)
I wonder why the different attitudes on whether the press should enjoy government support. The US government has often tried to hide information from the people, so many here regard it with a dose of skepticism. If the Swedish government doesn’t have a history of cover-ups, then perhaps Swedes are satisfied that their government is sufficiently transparent that an independent media isn’t necessary.
Nic Fletcher:
I’m surprised there aren’t more comments already… and somewhat surprised at the comments.
I understand the logic of providing subsidies for the press… many smaller towns / cities have daily or weekly newspapers, and to provide some form of grant to help them in a digital age makes logical sense (just as tax breaks given to companies in areas with high unemployment, etc.). But there are two fundamental issues at stake here:
1) Sponsorship of the press by a government undermines the whole concept of a free press. So much so, in my opinion, that it overrides the logic of providing grants.
2) The world changes. Tastes change. People’s habits change. So, while it is sad that some newspapers are struggling, this is part of human life. It is for the press to work out how to survive in our new digital age, not for the government to keep the old going.
As for the comment on Freedom of the Press: As much as I absolutely detest ND and everything they stand for, I do believe in freedom of speech and press. If we ban a political party, a newspaper, for simply stating their views, then we create significant risks for our democracy as whole. But, morally, there is NO WAY a tax-funded subsidy should support any political party… let alone something as nasty as the ND.
As for the first comment above… maybe the left wing press *has* stupidfied (?) Swedes over decades… but that can never ever ever justify giving racism a chance. Never!
LC in Seattle:
I too am surprised at the lack of comments. Maybe everybody’s busy this week?
There is a clear difference between allowing people to speak and write terrible things, and paying them to do so. Unfortunately, these subsidies blur that distinction. Are there any major newspapers that don’t apply for these subsidies? I presume they aren’t required to, although it would be hard to compete with ones that do. I didn’t see any newspapers I’m familiar with that weren’t on the list taking distribution support, although several weren’t taking operations support.
Some years back an artist received money from the US government for immersing a crucifix in a glass of urine. Many taxpayers were outraged, not because the artist was allowed to do that, but because they were forced to pay him for it. Some of the artist’s supporters claimed it would be censorship to deny him government funding, as apparently artists receive tax subsidies as a matter of course.
Similarly, is it censorship to oppose tax subsidies for Nationell Idag, as long as the critics are not attempting to suppress publication? If subsidies are routine for newspapers in Sweden as they are for artists in the US, then Nationell Idag, like the artist with the crucifix, has a colorable argument that to deny subsidies is to censor.
I think the best solution is to allow all and subsidize none. That way nobody can cry censorship, when all the taxpayers want to do is stop their money from supporting causes they disagree with.
Md.Habibur Rahman:
Freedom of press may be going end up,As it has taken place in Bangladesh! Two days before The Government has arbitrarily Shut down A National Private Television Channel namely “Channel 1”.WHy ? Because The news it broadcasts doesn’t comply with the choice of the Existing Government .
Habib
Marcus Cederström:
@MagdA – both the extreme left and extreme right have been receiving these subsidies.
@LC – I think it is a legitimate concern when government money is being used to fund something as important and as public as the mass media
@Nic – agreed. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is essential to a working democracy, however, that freedom is put into question if tax payer money is being used to fund fringe groups. If those fringe groups want to spread their message then it should be done on their own dime. Or krona.
@LC – true, I think what we saw with this though was a call to look into the entire idea of subsidies. I am of the opinion that they should be eliminated completely, because, as you say, to provide subsidies but to deny one group those subsidies would reek of censorship.
@Md – that is one of the fears when the government starts getting too close to the press.