Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0347/03472.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 33KB | 619 lines

$Unique_ID{COW03472}
$Pretitle{441}
$Title{Sweden
Mass Media in Sweden}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Swedish Institute}
$Affiliation{Swedish Embassy, Washington DC}
$Subject{press
radio
swedish
act
television
public
sweden
newspapers
media
video}
$Date{1990}
$Log{Paper, September 23, 1885*0347201.scf
Table 1.*0347201.tab
Table 2.*0347202.tab
}
Country:     Sweden
Book:        Fact Sheets on Sweden
Author:      Swedish Institute
Affiliation: Swedish Embassy, Washington DC
Date:        1990

Mass Media in Sweden

[See Paper, September 23, 1885: Courtesy Swedish Embassy, Washington DC.]

     The 1980s have been a period marked by growth for the mass media in
Sweden. The dailies have continued to develop advanced technology and many
have increased their number of editions. Television has under gone a
reorganization and new radio channels have been established. The number of
film-goers has started to rise. The expansion of new media has continued, home
video at the predicted rate, teletext faster than expected and cable
television at a slower pace than was predicted. At the end of the 1980s, the
question of whether to introduce commercial advertising on television has
become topical as a result of a number of Government commissions.

- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA

     Sweden seems to have been the first country in the world to establish
freedom of the press. In 1766, Parliament adopted a Freedom of the Press Act
as a part of the Constitution. More recently, similar legislation has been
passed for radio and television without becoming Constitutional Law.

     After the promulgation of the first Press Act, the last decades of the
18th century witnessed a relapse into repression and censorship, but since the
constitutional reform of 1809, freedom of the press has prevailed. The present
Freedom of the Press Act dates from 1949, with several subsequent amendments.

     As part of the Constitution, this Act is protected by special safeguards.
Thus, to gain legal force, any amendment or abrogation of the Act must be
confirmed by two successive parliaments, with general elections taking place
between first and second readings.

Unique safeguards

     In Sweden, as in some other democracies, public censorship of the press
as well as other serious restrictions on publishing and distribution of
printed matter are explicitly forbidden. However, the Swedish lawmakers set
out to safeguard press freedom by an elaborate combination of measures.

     Foremost among these is the institution of the responsible publisher. Any
periodical appearing four times a year or more must appoint a responsible
publisher, who alone is answerable for the contents of the publication. He
alone can be held accountable for any violation of the Freedom of the Press
Act.

     The responsible publisher is appointed by the owner of the publication.
He must be a resident of Sweden (an amendment, effective as of 1978, extended
eligibility to foreign nationals domiciled in Sweden), and neither a minor nor
an undischarged bankrupt.

     The responsible publisher may appoint a substitute and is required to do
so should he be prevented from fulfilling his duties. Only in the unlikely
event that neither of them could be taken to account would it be possible to
prosecute someone else for violations of press law. In such exigencies, the
Act provides a "chain of responsibility", according to which the legal
responsibility is transferred to the owner of the paper. If for some reason
even the owner should be unassailable, the printer is held accountable. As
a last resort, the distributor may be held responsible-a provision that
applies mainly to actionable matter in foreign publications imported to
Sweden, as in such cases the prior links of the chain are not subject to
Swedish law.

     Only in the matter of damages can there be a question of shared
responsibility. To make sure that an injured party obtains any damages awarded
him while at the same time protecting the publisher from personal hardship,
the court may decide that both owner and publisher are to be held accountable
for the payment of damages.

Sources protected

     With the introduction of a publisher with sole responsibility, the
lawmakers have deliberately created a scapegoat for all violations of the
Freedom of the Press Act. By providing a person who-with his chain of
substitutes-can always be held responsible for any transgression, they have
quite intentionally exonerated the actual culprit. In fact, the law explicitly
prohibits the investigation or disclosure of newspapermen's sources. It
follows that a person who contributes to a newspaper as a reporter or
informant is not only protected against legal action, being unassailable, but
his identity becomes immaterial and thus inadmissible as a point of law.

     It should be noted that this protection is extended even to State and
municipal employees, who are thus free to give information to newspapers and
other media without fear of legal repercussions or extra-legal pressures and
intimidation.

     The rationale for such extreme protection of media sources is that the
mass media-the "Third Estate"-need the fullest possible in sight into the
operations of society and thus should have the conduct of the other two
estates-Parliament and Government-under surveillance.

     That the impunity of informants might induce some of them to "leak"
irresponsible, harmful or even untruthful statements to the media is not
considered too damaging. The law may protect the informant but does not
exonerate the crime.

Anonymity and its limits

     There are, of course, some exceptions to the general rule of impunity and
anonymity of sources. If State employees, including military personnel, inform
media of matters that could be detrimental to the security of the State, this
could warrant legal action against informants (though the media would
certainly hesitate to disclose them). The same applies when an official
violates professional secrecy, but only in special cases prescribed by law.

     Similarly, the protection of anonymity may be overruled in a criminal
case which does not involve the freedom of the press, and where the court
finds that the disclosure of a source is called for by an overriding public or
private interest.

     Recent amendments have reinforced the protection of sources and the
anonymity of informants. However, protection is withheld in cases where the
gathering or divulging of information constitutes or involves high treason,
espionage or other related, serious crimes.

Access to public documents

     Another remarkable feature of the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act is the
principle of free access to public documents. This, too, is an expression of
the lawmakers' intent to support the media in the role of public watchdog.

     The principle that every Swedish citizen should have access to vortually
all documents kept by State or municipal agencies was introduced as early as
1766 in the first Freedom of the Press Act. It was unique then and has been
adopted by few other countries even today.

     The principle gives anyone-actually even aliens-the right to turn to a
State or municipal agency and ask to be shown any document kept in their
files, regardless of whether the document concerns him personally or not.
Officials are legally required to comply and even to supply copies of the
document requested, if this is feasible.

     This right is of great importance to anyone concerned by any proceedings,
lawsuits and the like involving public agencies. But it is equally essential
to journalists seeking information about what is going on behind the walls of
officialdom. Their search for the facts is clearly facilitated by the right of
Swedish officials to give oral information concerning their activities.

     The right of access is jealously guarded, not only by the media
themselves, but also by the Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO). Traditionally, the
JO has considered it one of his major duti