It lies in the nature of the case that it is indeed the right -handed partial leadership writers that screams at most about lack of impartiality in public service. But neither Svenska Dagbladet nor aftonbladet could be published if the state required “impartial” journalism at a fine.

That the unreasonable requirement for supposedly impartiality is directed at public service, SVT and SR, has simple historical causes. When the radio was built up as the state’s information channel to the public just over 100 years ago, the business was regarded as a state government office, much like the judiciary. That courts as well as land surveying and the Patent Office should be impartial in their office was as obvious then as it is today.

It’s that tradition As unfortunatly, it has remained into our time also in terms of an activity from the exercise of office as journalism. Old radio service may in the 1920s have served as a citizen information on weather and wind, cultural education, emergency news service and minutes of Finnkampen and international matches in football. But that handling is only distant related to today’s journalism.

The reason why the requirement for “impartiality” delayed so long is largely that it was seen how the Nazis in germany transformed the radio into propaganda instruments.

That opportunity remains, which, above all, the dictatorship of our time and illiberal half -democracies that Hungary has shown. It is such public service that Swedish Democrats would introduce if they get the chance.While the democratic right would prefer to abolish all public service through privatization so that power over journalism ends up with billionaires that share most of the right’s political views.

The right’s hatred against Public service is based on the simple relationship that SR and SVT convey a daily dose of news and reportage that the right dislikes. It’s as simple as so. Therefore, this constant campaign on “left -wing” in public service. If the right had power over SVT and SR, the palestine genocide would not be allowed to appear as genocide. To exemplify with the recent most excited attacks.

But so straightforward,even Svenska Dagbladet or KD’s most rabid agitators can describe the problem. They hide behind the outdated concept of “impartiality”. But it is a concept that has lost all sensible meaning. All journalism is in some sense biased. Already at the daily editorial process that determines what should and should not be published, a number of biased, in the sense, subjective, decisions are made. The journalist who discovers a social misconduct and wants to reveal it to the public has already taken a stand and made a party decision.

Then he or she can tell about the matter in a truthful or lying way and write honestly or dishonestly.

But that with “impartiality” is already passed in the decision -making process.

Truthful journalism there is, as well as its opposite. But no impartial journalism. Who can relate impartial to a genocide that the latest quarrel is about?

The finesse with a free pressure is that the person who writes dishonestly or incorrectly is at great risk of being corrected, or attacked, in other media. This also applies to radio and TV journalists. When Revelation publishes a fake disclosure on estonia’s downfall, the fad hardly passes unnoticed, although, as in this unfortunate example, the fake was first rewarded with the great Journalist Prize.

The journalist who tells dishonestly gets the harder to get out precisely in public service, not necessarily because the channels are “finer” then other media, but because they are more attentive from both right and left (exceptions exist, I know, especially when it comes to crime journalism).

What the review Board for Radio and Television can determine when the public reports alleged errors or fake is thus the factuality, true or false but hardly impartiality. An overly hard -angled report that compiles a number of true facts so that it becomes false is simply lousy and dishonest journalism.

The concept of impartiality has thus lost all meaning. Except for the right -wing agents who hate public service so that there is too much published that the right does not want to come to general knowledge. It is indeed not more tough than that.