Resisting the Muskification of European Media: Four Suggestions from Sweden.
Christian Christensen offers advice on how European countries can maintain a vibrant news ecology in the face of global threats to free speech, a free press and public service broadcasting.
The following is an English translation of an article published in Dagens ETC
The installation of Donald Trump as the 47th President has resulted in a great deal of debate about the future of the free press and free speech in the US. Such is the global cultural power of the US – news, television, films, music, food, language, consumption – that we are now hearing people, even here in Sweden, ask what impact Trump’s attacks on journalism and free press might have on Swedish media and democracy. Attacks, of course, supported by Silicon Valley giants Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg whose considerable informational and agenda-setting power extends right across Europe.
As Trump enters office for a second time, what warning signals should Sweden – and indeed the rest of Europe – pay attention to in order to maintain and support a vibrant news ecology? When we discuss how to resist the possible “Trumpification” or “Muskification” of Swedish media and politics, what specific areas jump out as important?
There are lots to choose from, but the following strike me as particularly crucial.
1. Keep Public Service Broadcasting Strong and Relevant.
Research has shown that countries with well-funded, independent public service broadcasting systems score higher on democracy indices. Swedish Television and Swedish Radio are by far the most trusted news and media outlets in the country (including among many conservatives) and well ahead of commercial alternatives. Public service broadcasting raises the bar for national journalism and increases citizen appetites for quality news. It also provides a space where people are treated as citizens rather than just consumers. I’ve written previously that weakening or eliminating public service broadcasting would be “democratic suicide.” In the face of Musk and Zuckerberg, I’m convinced of that now more than ever.
2. Continue and Increase Media Subsidies
In 2025, Sweden will give 829 million kroner (€80 million) in state press subsidies to various outlets across the country. It should be more. It’s hard to overstate the importance of this financial support for the country’s media ecology and democracy. Sweden is a relatively small media market, and survival (especially for regional/local media and media targeting linguistic and ethnic minorities) can be difficult or impossible without support. It’s ironic to hear those who complain about “elite, big city media” then turn around and oppose supporting the few remaining media outlets that work at the local level helping to anchor local and regional information and identity. The death of local journalism is first nail in the coffin of all journalism. The death of all journalism is first nail in the coffin of democracy.
3. Protect Against Concentration of Media Ownership
A 2024 report from the Swedish Media Authority noted that, "the Swedish media market is primarily exposed to high competition from large tech companies with foreign ownership" and that these companies "have a significant impact on both Swedes' media consumption and the economy of Swedish media companies." In order for outlets to survive Big Tech draining advertising revenue, we are seeing increasing concentration of ownership in Swedish radio, television, newspapers, and streaming services. But putting more media control into the hands of fewer corporate owners is not healthy for journalism…or democracy. This is another reason why healthy subsidies for national, local, and regional media are so important and why some things are simply too important to leave to the whims of "the free market."
4. Regulate and Tax Social Media Giants
There’s great irony in much of the discourse about how the regulation of social media giants constitutes an attack on “free speech” and the “free market.” Many of the same people who make these arguments also talk about the importance of maintaining “national sovereignty” and reducing the impact of “elites” and “foreigners” on Swedish culture. With that logic, it would seem perfectly natural to want to regulate foreign billionaire social media owners who undermine sovereignty and national economies by spreading disinformation and openly interfering in European elections, while at the same time making massive profits while paying almost nothing in tax.
In 2022, Facebook’s Swedish arm had revenues of 4.4 billion kroner (€400 million). What did it pay in tax that year? 45,000 kroner (€4000). A 20% tax on Facebook’s revenues alone would generate enough money to pay for all the press support in Sweden for an entire year, or it would cover 25% of the entire budget of Swedish Radio. With power comes responsibility. Why should social media billionaires be any different?
Let’s be blunt. Musk and Zuckerberg have no interest in a free press or free speech. Their primary interest, like almost all corporate media owners before them, is in consolidating their own economic power through elimination of both competition and regulation. If you had asked me 20 years ago – long before the current power held by Trump, Musk or Zuckerberg – how to protect journalism and free press in Sweden, I would have written almost exactly the same thing as I am writing here: public service broadcasting, media subsidies, avoid concentration of ownership and maintain regulation and taxation of tech giants.
Of course, these arguments can be dismissed as “leftist” solutions rooted in “Big Government”. But they address many concerns across the political spectrum. These arguments would lead to a more diverse, vibrant media landscape in Sweden. They would lead to more domestic language production of news and information. They would allow local and regional media to survive. They would reduce the power and influence of foreign billionaires (the real “elites”) on domestic politics. And they would force foreign corporations to put tax revenues into the national economy instead of bleeding the ad market dry and taking the profits out of Sweden.
In other words, the “solutions” to protecting a free press from the power of billionaires and authoritarianism are ideas that have been at the heart of Swedish democracy for years, ideas accepted by many on both the left and right.
Sometimes embracing the wisdom of history is both the simplest and most radical solution.
Christian Christensen is Professor of Journalism at Stockholm University.
Let’s face down the smear that regulation is “big government”. One of government’s main duties is to protect its citizens against threats, exploitation and other misuses of power by bad actors. Hence the necessity of regulation imposed by a body given power by the citizenry to act on their behalf. A free for all and self-regulation doesn’t work.
"...Swedish Television and Swedish Radio are by far the most trusted news and media outlets in the country (including among many conservatives) and well ahead of commercial alternatives...." So who would know it's possible for a publicly funded network to win the hearts of the audience. Unfortunately, BBC Scotland for instance is governed by a BBC behemoth totally out of touch. Compare their news output with Channel 4 News