Understanding Sweden
-
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
-
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
If yo uequate "corporate TV" with "freedom", you haven't watched many (or - more likely - you are hooked on an absurd meaning of "free". Not absurd as such, but it's not understandable that you give this "free" so much value) Do you have any idea how the swedish publicly funded TV was run?I don't, so I reserve any judgement.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
BS. The reason why Sweden has been rules by same party is mostly due to the fact that we were untouched by WWII and have plenty of natural resources. This meant that post-WWII the swedish economy was doing extremely well. This wealth was "invested" into a *very* generous social-security system. When the rest of Europe caught up (or rather was rebuilt and their population in "productive" age got back to normal) it all went downhill. The politicians turned a blind eye to this fact which resulted in our current situation. According to the current polls there will be a change of power after the next election (2006), hopefully we will se some changes then (before it is to late). Regarding TV3 (not TR3) it's just cheap reality-shows and american tv-series. Mostly crap imho. AND you need cable or satelite-dish to see it. Not really an alternative. TV4, which is available to all viewers, are atleast somewhat better... And suddenly you realize / Nothing here is what it seems / You are beyond the looking glass / Like Alice and the red queen Red Queen, Funker Vogt
-
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
I agree with what Stefan said. TV3 is the low water mark of television. They show old movies, crappy news (5 minutes jingle more or less), and bad reality shows. And on top of that, they rerun it as often as possible. TV3 is the tv channel for the truly intellectually challenged. SVT (SVensk Television - state owned TV network), is incredibly dull, except for when they aired the Star Trek series. SVT is however very balanced. It airs tv shows from every part of the world, from a wide variety of categories. The news broadcasts are not spun in any direction. Political debates are balanced, as all parties get their say. The only beef I have with SVT is how it is run and financed. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
If yo uequate "corporate TV" with "freedom", you haven't watched many (or - more likely - you are hooked on an absurd meaning of "free". Not absurd as such, but it's not understandable that you give this "free" so much value) Do you have any idea how the swedish publicly funded TV was run?I don't, so I reserve any judgement.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenFreedom of press and freedom of speech is freedom from violation of this right by criminals AND by the state. So yes, one central television depending on goverment funds collected with threat of legal action against those who do not pay is Orwellian. They only agreed to competition in 1992. Demands were there before but the Swedish government decided to pursue "internal diversity" policy (translation: no external competititon). The fact that they eventually agreed to share the waves show that the capacity was always there, what was missing was the political will (to allow anyone else to practice their freedom of speech). And it does not really matter how some people think public TV was run. Knowing several European examples I have no illusions that it was any less of a leftist ideology fortress; the problem was in preventing different voices from being heard in Sweden; that's limiting freedom of speech. I just wanted to point out that they started liberalizing the media market quite late and that having only government television available for decades and one party in power introduces certain bias to the society; later you can use stigmas from the past that were engendered into young people (for example, marxist stigmas about "corporations" such as you used) to control political space in forseeable time. Sweden will have really difficult time reforming because of these patterns of thought. Definitely more difficult then if there was a "corporate television" as you call it (some off us understand this as an expression of free speech) there for decades that would critize goverment from liberal point of view and would prevent one sided ideology to be uncritically accepted as system of values. Tomaz
-
I agree with what Stefan said. TV3 is the low water mark of television. They show old movies, crappy news (5 minutes jingle more or less), and bad reality shows. And on top of that, they rerun it as often as possible. TV3 is the tv channel for the truly intellectually challenged. SVT (SVensk Television - state owned TV network), is incredibly dull, except for when they aired the Star Trek series. SVT is however very balanced. It airs tv shows from every part of the world, from a wide variety of categories. The news broadcasts are not spun in any direction. Political debates are balanced, as all parties get their say. The only beef I have with SVT is how it is run and financed. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Where did I say it was right? -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
BS. The reason why Sweden has been rules by same party is mostly due to the fact that we were untouched by WWII and have plenty of natural resources. This meant that post-WWII the swedish economy was doing extremely well. This wealth was "invested" into a *very* generous social-security system. When the rest of Europe caught up (or rather was rebuilt and their population in "productive" age got back to normal) it all went downhill. The politicians turned a blind eye to this fact which resulted in our current situation. According to the current polls there will be a change of power after the next election (2006), hopefully we will se some changes then (before it is to late). Regarding TV3 (not TR3) it's just cheap reality-shows and american tv-series. Mostly crap imho. AND you need cable or satelite-dish to see it. Not really an alternative. TV4, which is available to all viewers, are atleast somewhat better... And suddenly you realize / Nothing here is what it seems / You are beyond the looking glass / Like Alice and the red queen Red Queen, Funker Vogt
I totaly agree with this point of view. But it would be more difficult to pull this out have you had more media choice. Social problems don't appear out of nowhere, they accumulate; critical media helps with early detection. Critical media can also demand proof (results) of ideological policies, even when public appears to like them. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Where did I say it was right? -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
Well, do you agree with me then? Tomaz
-
Well, do you agree with me then? Tomaz
How could I disagree with facts? I don't agree with the picture you're trying to draw of SVT. It's not the commie version of Fox, it's just that it's run (government) by a bunch of morons. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
This is an interesting piece of information, which helps to understand why and how it could happen that Swedes were ruled by the same left political party 62 out of 70 years. The "model democracy" as the left calls it has in fact liberalized electronic media space only some 15 years ago, trailing even some of former communist countries. There was only goverment (so called "public") television available before; nothing else. First competition to goverment television (TR3) actually had to air into Sweden via satellite, and from London in 1987. And only in the early 90ties, during short change of political power, was first commercial television allowed to join the national terrestrial broadcasting network. Tomaz
So, why isn't it the same with Denmark? I think you confuse state owned with government controlled. I guess the Swedish structure is quite much like the Danish. And that means that if there was just the slightest hint of governmental influence on the programs, the opposition would be on it instantly. The state owned channels are controlled by some rules that ensures a broad perspective. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
The Danish national television isn't Government controlled, and I strongly suspect that the Swedish is not either. Simply because the channel(s) are funded the way they are does not mean they spew biased pro-government propaganda to its viewers. If anything, these channels can afford to be much more objective and unbiased then similar private funded channels who have to take into account the opinions of their sponsers and advertisment companies. These are public service channels, and not subjected to the whims of various owners. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
So, why isn't it the same with Denmark? I think you confuse state owned with government controlled. I guess the Swedish structure is quite much like the Danish. And that means that if there was just the slightest hint of governmental influence on the programs, the opposition would be on it instantly. The state owned channels are controlled by some rules that ensures a broad perspective. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
I agree. One can be in agreement with the way the channels are funded or not, however - the channels ensure much more open debate because their foundation can't be removed over night if they offend one of their primary backers. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
So nothing wrong with having only one (government) source of information and having government being lead by the same social democratic political party for decades? Yep, that's the point of view I expect from you. p.s. What if it was the same situation with one single private media? Tomaz
-
I totaly agree with this point of view. But it would be more difficult to pull this out have you had more media choice. Social problems don't appear out of nowhere, they accumulate; critical media helps with early detection. Critical media can also demand proof (results) of ideological policies, even when public appears to like them. Tomaz
-
That's exactly what I am talking about. The danger that public media is exploited by the state and lobbies. Public media then becomes a media that promotes one ideology but is paid by all citizen, even those who do not agree. This is interference of state in the democratic process; it means using taxpayer money to assure unfair political advantage of certain views. Italian system is beautiful example of this. It is also an environment where duopoly grew out of public television monopoly; this situation is similar throughout Europe. It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right, such as in Berlusconi's case. And that is the reason that leftists talk so much about Italy and so little about other places though very same duopoly exists in Sweden. Natural position of public media is for the big goverment and the nanny state because that is the ideology on which public media is founded. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with opinion that wise welfareists have to help the "public" understand the world that they themselves are not capable of. Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. It is media to "prevent market failure" so behind it is belief in fictional "market failure". It is media to prevent "capitalist domination of media" so behind it is the ideology that there is something inherently wrong with freedom of speech of people who are more productive then average. Public media will not always support specific goverment, but it will always support specific policy. It will attack governments that do not pursuit this policy and use gloves with goverment that does. Tomaz
-
How could I disagree with facts? I don't agree with the picture you're trying to draw of SVT. It's not the commie version of Fox, it's just that it's run (government) by a bunch of morons. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. From my experience there are easy ways to spot bias in European public media. This is through polls about themes that polarize public. If dominant majority shares one opinion then this is clear sign of brainwashing. For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. Similar questions could be asked about neoliberalism, neoconservativism and other topics. Negative opinions about these soft topics by huge majority of people would be clear sign of brainwashing and bias. One could always say that this are opinions about events abroad but that public television is not biased when reporting about internal events. But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. What happens in internal debates is that every classical liberal solution is opposed with slogans, such as "Europe is not America", which simply use results of such propaganda to stop non-socialist reforms. So anti-Americanism on public media is a sign of internal bias. p.s. In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Tomaz
-
The Danish national television isn't Government controlled, and I strongly suspect that the Swedish is not either. Simply because the channel(s) are funded the way they are does not mean they spew biased pro-government propaganda to its viewers. If anything, these channels can afford to be much more objective and unbiased then similar private funded channels who have to take into account the opinions of their sponsers and advertisment companies. These are public service channels, and not subjected to the whims of various owners. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
I can't see how these channels would be able to afford more objectivity. After all they are controlled by people who have their own interests (for example, keeping the control over public media) and I see no reason to doubt some people (those that create their own televisions) more then other (elites of public media). Typically these are non-market (political and academia) elites which are inherently biased and anti-market. This is fundamental bias of public television. Tomaz
-
I agree. One can be in agreement with the way the channels are funded or not, however - the channels ensure much more open debate because their foundation can't be removed over night if they offend one of their primary backers. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Private media will compete for mainstream viewer until market shares stabilize. Then they'll start moving into niche markets fulfilling the needs of minorities. This is clearly visible in United States where shows with bad viewership, that would be cancelled ten years ago are kept on the air. Public television does not need to do this. Since it has no market controls and its funding is independent (of reaching and satisfying the viewer) if can only do good allocation coincidentally. There is another trouble with public television. Public television is a major player in every Euro country. Potential competitor has to compete with TV which is commonly well funded from independent sources and does not need to care about the viewers. If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. It is very common in Europe for a state to only have two major players - public television(s) and one private television. Tomaz
-
I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. From my experience there are easy ways to spot bias in European public media. This is through polls about themes that polarize public. If dominant majority shares one opinion then this is clear sign of brainwashing. For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. Similar questions could be asked about neoliberalism, neoconservativism and other topics. Negative opinions about these soft topics by huge majority of people would be clear sign of brainwashing and bias. One could always say that this are opinions about events abroad but that public television is not biased when reporting about internal events. But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. What happens in internal debates is that every classical liberal solution is opposed with slogans, such as "Europe is not America", which simply use results of such propaganda to stop non-socialist reforms. So anti-Americanism on public media is a sign of internal bias. p.s. In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. I have no idea what it's like in Germany and Slovenia, but I assure you that SVT isn't pushing a socialistic agenda. Around the riksdag (swedish name for parliament), are several bodies whose job is to supervise the government, and instutitions under direct government control. These are lead mostly by the opposition, and I can tell you right now that, should SVT misbehave and do the sitting government's bidding, war would ensure in at least one of these bodies. Tomaž Štih wrote: For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. All polls are made by several independent groups, of which only one is appointed by the government. I follow these often, as I like to see what the current political climate is. (Favorable right now. If there's an election tomorrow, there will be a change of powers). These polls are almost always statistically close to eachother. I suppose when they differ, they've managed to sample radically different populations. But I have yet to see any "there is only one party!"-pattern. I've only witnessed the decline of the left... Tomaž Štih wrote: But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. You know, I have yet to see an anti-american report in the media (state owned or not). Well, sure, there are left wing as well as right wing media, who like to spin things. But the serious news media, don't go about pitching the US as the ultimate decadence. I would say Sweden is quite US-friendly. But on another note, I've seen reporters in various media favoring the Palestines in the West Bank/Gaza conflict. That said, I've yet to see anyone accepting terrorism. Tomaž Štih wrote: In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Protests occur frequently. From both sides. And it heats up exponentially closer to election day. I don't kno