Today I will explain why using unedited printsscreens of newsstories in a video, could destroy or at least potentially seriously damage the carrier of any youtuber. And I will also discuss what Swedens probably most famous reporter, views as his professions greatest betrayal of the swedish public – and we will delve into two cases of modern censorship in sweden and the agenda to decrease media diversity and consumer choice. More broadly I will examine the following claim: is the Swedish  media biased towards favoring generous immigration policies, by in generaly downplaying and giving disproportionatly small attention to negative side effects of immigration – and demonizing critics of generous immigration? This is not an attempt to prove or disprove a conspiracy, but to look for a typ of structural or cultural bias – not a planed one.


The question of this potential bias in media, is often assumed to be a right-wing issue. This assumption is a rather strange one, first of all the volume of immigrants a country decides to accept, is hard to classify convincingly as intrinsically right- or left-wing. Discriminatory immigration-policy based on ideas of preserving racial, ethnic,cultural or religious purity – are uncontroversial placed to the right of the political spectrum. But limiting the number of immigrants based on the idea of keeping wages high or on saving cost that can be put to more direct assistance of the third world such as government aid to poor countries, is hard to call right-wing (even if one belives the economic thinking behind this reasoning to be flawed, being wrong does not make one a right-winger). Swedens former socialist prime minister Olof Palme told our then minister of immigration, that accepting to many immigrants to Sweden would cause misfortune. The self identified ”democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, has stated in an interview that open borders is a right wing proposal[1]


A second assumption, is that if such a bias exists, it is a benign one – a problem that only the anti-immigration or anti-immigrant right should worry about. This assumption of media bias being harmless, is more than strange, it is downright dangerous.


Most media sources in Sweden are either capitalist corporations, or else they are state controlled due to them being a part of our public service. Being a leftist and a socialist in particular, I find the risk of bias in such a structure – worrying and also plausible. Any leftist familiar with the works of Noam Chomsky on media, should share these concerns. We must realize that allowing the media to develop stronger biases in one area, emboldens its dishonest tendencies, through this  mediaowners are taught that they can get away with lies and half truths more generally. If a bias towards generous immigration policies exist, it should be combated on the grounds of principle as well. Honesty is allways worth fighting for. So is there a bias then?

The reporter I alluded to previously, the price wining investigate journalist and host of his own TV-program, Jane Josefsson, claims that colleges of his were fired if they strayed from an expected line of how to portray immigration, and he describes holding onto this one sided way of portraying immigration and all issues related to it, as being our times greatest betrayal by the press of the public. Wikileaks also reports that Swedish media has been censoring news report on the issue of immigration and crimes, for years: [1]

Wikileaks might be dismissed as influenced by Russia, so lets take a look at their source, which is a collection of anonymous swedish journalist speaking out about this censorship. Which is not a government censorship I must emphasis, but one that has taken place within the media itself. One journalist having changed jobs several times, states that all his workplaces invariably  either had an explicit or implicit policy of only discussing and presenting issues related to immigration from one angle.[2]

But can one really rely upon a group of anonymous people, what if the author of the piece just made the hole thing up instead of collecting confessions? We need to look for singed testimonies, if such do exist in none trivial amount then the credibility of these confessions increases, otherwise its believability is weakened. One journalist working for one of Swedens largest newspapers, confessed under her own name, to previoulsy having been part of the enforcement of the so called ”corridor of acceptable opinion” (roughly equivalent to the english concept of ”overton window”) [3], specifically the corridor on the issue of immigration. This confession is far from unique in its nature. And sometimes people don’t come forward but are instead caught read handed. To quote and article from the Spectator, specifically about a number of sexual assaults at a festival – where the ethnicity of the perpetrators and even the incident itself was at first meet with radio silence: ”the police and even journalists covered up the truth […] The police claimed that there were ‘relatively few crimes and arrests considering the number of participants’. Internal reports told a different story. The police were shocked enough by the harassment to try to come up with a strategy to handle the groups of molesters at the festival — a strategy that was evidently unsuccessful. The trouble was that they were trying to deal with a problem but would not speak its name. As Peter Ågren, police chief in central Stockholm, put it: ‘Sometimes we do not dare to say how things really are because we believe it will play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats.’ As we now know, police officers in Stockholm are instructed not to reveal the ethnicity or nationality of any suspects lest they be accused of racism.”[4]

This event indicates that for every signed confession, there might be many hidden cases of bias. Let us return our focus to confessions. A multiple prize winning journalist and previously a host of his own TV-program, besides Jane Josefsson, has witnessed the same process. How he from inside the media saw the mechanisms at work, how criticism of immigration was tied to nazis and other extremist – moderate critics where ignored entierly. One of the higher-ups in a major media company was asked if it was even possible to criticize generous immigration policy from a non racist angle. She answered that if such a criticism is possible, she had not heard it. [5]

A professor of economics, who has put forth such a non racist critique of generous immigration, in the form of economic facts –  has pointed out that while powerful figures in the media denied that a cultural or corporate form of censorship existed, they simultaneously encouraged media actors to ”show courage by not taking part of the debate [with critics of the current immigration policy]” (my translation, all translations from Swedish to english in this text are done by me) . In other words the media denied that they were refusing to give a space for dissent against the mainstream, while at the same time being proud of not engaging dissenters in conversation and thereby robbing them of a meaningful voice. As he points out, journalists and editors would occasionally claim that no such media censorship existed, but at a conference he visited (as well as sometimes openly in writing) they would encourage their colleagues in the press not to give dissenters or their views space in media platforms. Durring a discussion broadcasted on the channel axess tv, two journalist mentioned that they had visited a similar conference in which the discussion about ”keeping the lid on” immigration issues (particularly crime) – and only the two journalists confessing to the discussion on TV, advocated for removing the lid. Durring the same broadcast, a third journalist said that the potential accusation of racism was keeping the mainstream press quite in regards to immigration.

In a book studying thhe media landscape in Sweden, one author cited confessions from reports claiming bias. Yet at the same time the authour, without any proof  except a singel headline, claimed that now things hade changed so drastically that media employees should guard against not being to negative in their reporting. Which sounds like the type of doublethink described above by the professor in economics, a bias is denied (or in this case denied to be ongoing) at the same time as a ceartain conduct of speech is promoted as the proper way of describing reality.

The publisher of the newspaper Expressen, has even openly complained about how much more is ”allowed” to be writen about in the Danish press, on these issues. Their media is open to a degree that she finds ”uncomfortable”. This discussion of not ”allowing” ceartain things to be said, is not some speculative thought experiment. We will return to Expressens experience on this issue.

The journalist Jenny Persson has openly admitted that she wants to write about islamic oppression of women, and she feels that her self censorship on this issue is a ”betrayal”, but states that she can’t write about these things. Because then ”you swedish racist would vote for the Swedish democrats [a right-wing party in Sweden]”.

When a news scoop came out that fabricated evidence for claims of asylum was being produced and sold on the black market – in effecting giving criminals the opportunity to  steal state resources from real refugees, the media employee Thomas Nordegren, admitted to having know about this phenomenon for years. He had been aware for up twenty years even. The reason for not reporting on the issue up until 2017, was according to him the following: ”We [in the media] have been guided by good intentions, to be very carefull […] we resonated that reporting about the importance immigration has on the worsening of school performance, criminality, terrorism and antisemitism and other issues [would be socially harmful]”

A reporter for the Swedish newspaper DN has stated that ”We journalists shouldn’t strengthen racism, and it is obvious that we journalists often beat about the bush about the suburb issues [i.e immigration]”

When the reporter Tim Pool visited Sweden to report about our ”no-go-zones”, he claimed that ”Sweden is one of the most uneasy countries I have ever visited. Several of the people I interviewed were afraid to tell me their opinions – out of fear of losing their job” (this is a retranslation from an Swedish translation of the quote, so the wording is not exact and should be read as a paraphrasing rather than a quote).

Two Swedish journalist who criticized swedish immigration policy, Marika Formgren and Gunnar Sandelin, have also seen serious repercussions for this outspokenness. Both in the field of carrier options, and in their personal life when it comes to losing friends[6]

From outside the media sphere, politicans interacting with the media have also made critical observations of this bias and censorship. Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth former cultural minister for the moderate party, has claimed that the media ”covered up” news stories, particularly news stories that broke the mainstream media narrative on these issues.[7] Her party is right-wing economically, but not right-wing on the issues of immigrantion. It is known for having a former party leader who urged the swedish people to ”open your hearts” towards immigrants, and a current party leader who once advocated open borders. Even further to the left, a former spokesperson off the environmentalist party, claims that a large part of the swedish political and media elit has been lying about the issues relating to immigration. [8]

The journalist and former childs right activist Gunnar Sandelin, claims in one of Swedens leading newspapers that important facts have been ”concealed by both politicans and massmedia[…] We have seen a national cover-up regarding all things related to immigration, asylum and refugee-issues.”[9]

The former university professor in media law, and by now former parliamentary ombudsman Hans-Gunnar Axberger – noted this same phenomena in 1992 (he only blamed the media though, excluding politicans from his condemnation). Yet another journalist has joined this chorus of witnesses to censorship, to quote Nathan Shachar:  ”Sweden is […] a temple of Orthodoxy, in which we in the name of noble ideals bully dissenters […]Subject matters that are lightyears away from racism, such as the protection of victims of honourviolence and statistics about immigration, is a red hot tabu in Sweden. ”[10]

But perhaps this is merely the media adapting to demand? This seems to be a rather unfounded excuse. Surveys indicate that the public views the media as dishonest on the issues of immigration. Research from 2017 found that most respondants (54%) assumes that the media is lying to them about immigration, on no other topic was the public distrust greater. In a studie done on behalf of the European Commission , europeans were asked the following questions ”Would you say that discussion about immigration in the EU is based on facts and reliable data?” 59% of swedes disagreed, in no other european country was the level distrust greater. To quote the journalist Ivar Arpis summary of the opinion polls (which data I will link in the fotnote): ”Consistently a majority or [at times] a plurality of the swedish people has wanted to reduce the number of refugees sweden takes in, this trend has held since the 1990”. Let me also quote the pricewinning journalist Jörgen Huitfeldt on the implications of these facts: ”To operate a group of policies that is dysfunctional in nature, goes against the public will, and differes strongly from other countries policies, should have been difficult”.  And it probably would have been to, had the media not shown such a tremendous bias.

Where does this bias come from? One formative experience for the modern media profession, comes to mind. The chief editor of one swedens largest newspappers, the previously mentioned Expressen,  was fired by the magazines parent companie back in the early 90:es. He was fired for publishing a series of articles in which he trutfully but in an agressive tone reported the majority opinion among Swedes regarding immigration. The basis of the story was an opinion poll, in which a majority of swedish people answered yes to the question of ”Do you think the goverment should actively work to make immigrants with residence permits, return to their home countries”. The newspaper reportad that these findings ”inspired dread”, and described the questions as ”unpleasant”. Despite this, the chief editor had to go.  Even though the newspaper later reported that they had a diffrent opinion towards immigrants,  that they advocated taking care of immigrants and allowing them to stay. Such an experience of the company owner firing even top managment simply for reporting the truth (albait in an alarmist way), has probably left mental scars on the press. The current publishers opinion on what should be ”allowed” to print, should be read in the light of this firing[11]


Some defenders of the media might want to point towards the report which showed that most media coverage about immigration and immigration-issues is from a negative angle. [12] Sad to say, this counterargument doesn’t prove anything. This only indicates that the media bias isn’t universal and insurmountable, without any measurement of how an objective and impartial media would chose to report on the issue (such an completely unbiased media might be impossible by the way) we have nothing to compare to. There might be a huge deficit of negative stories, the amount of negative stories might be one tenth or one hundreth of the amount of stories that would pass by non-biased gatekeepers. The fact that the media doesn’t chose to counter-weight all the negative stories it lets pass, with positive ones, does not disprove a bias in either selection of stories or the potential skewing of the stories that do get published for that matter. They might have been a lot worse in tone and included many excluded facts, if the bias was removed.


So far the case for the existance of a media bias, seems strong. With the groundworks laid out I want to turn our attention towards the worrying future. And that future is best viewed by looking towards the past. There once existed a completely crazy channel on youtube, a channel that was in my opinion far right in its content and deeply dishonest, simply put fake news. This channel was called ”GranskningSverige” (”scrutinizing sweden” in english). GranskningSverige once unironically claimed that Sweden was a secret dictatorship (which we are not, trust me on this one). This channel was taken down, but this take down was the most damaging victory for the side of truth we could have been given.
GranskningSverige was not taken down for its race batting or outrageous lies, it was taken down for including printscreens of newsstories. The swedish newspapper Expressen  contacted google, who owns youtube, and claimed that these printscreens intruded on their ownership of these newsstories. The rights group “Reporters without borders”, have pointed out that this claim is factually wrong, such a use of newspaper printscreens is covered be the citation-right (an exception to the swedish copyright law). But this didn’t matter to google, they removed the channel entirely instead of just the videos in question. [13]


So if you ever use screenshots of newsstories in your videos, this could potentially happen to you. So therefore make sure to edit the footage in some way. Doing so makes it a work of your own, and thereby makes the copyright claim weaker. This however is not guaranteed to work, as google is already interpreting copy right further than its actual reaches.


Right-wing libertarians will defend this arbitrary and selective enforcement of terms of agreement by private corporations, as a healthy or necessary right of capital. They will ask you to imagine yourself as a small business owner, wouldn’t you want to able to remove customers who were annoying you? Isn’t it unreasonable to demand that corporations allow dissent and uncomfortable voices? It’s not like their breaking any laws by taking people of their platform.


I must admit that these libertarians are partly right, corporations are in fact not breaking any laws by removing content that offends their owners or managers. These corporations often award themselves the right of primacy in interpreting there own terms of agreement, as a part of these very same terms. They have thereby given themselves an automatic victory in all ambiguous cases – you and I have consented to them apointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Shouldn’t we just take responsibility for signing crappy contracts? What right-wing libertarians miss however, is that there are potentially serious consequences of treating multi million dollar international corporations that have come to dominate new forms of media, the same way that we treat mom and pop shops.
My comrades on the left might share a similar sentiment to the right-wing libertarians, at least on the issue of ”GranskningSverige”, why should we leftist care? Spreaders of hate were deplatformed, isen’t that a good thing? If actions existed in a social vacuum one could make that case, but the world does’nt work like that. If we allow huge corporations to censor, they will grow accustomed to this power and use it against less deserving voices. For example a feminist critic of marketing was censored and charged a fine, thanks to a copyright claim used by a corporation as an excuse to silence the bloggers criticism of their marketing image. This happened just a few years ago in Sweden, and a similare case has happend to another blogger. On a global scale the Socialist world website is to this day fighting against googles censorship. [14]


In sweden, powerholders of our majormedia firms are pressuring Google and facebook to ”remove hatred and threats” (despite only 0,25 of googles searchresults falling under this category, according to google themselves and no other data has been presented on this issue), and the media powerhouses also wants google to make a distinction between them and alternative newssites. This is obviously Newsspeak for privileging their stories over others, and perhaps even silencing the alternative newssites, seeing as copyright is interpreted to widely today, what is to stop an arbritrary use of the terms “hatread and threats” to be missued in a simulare way. The lead editor of Expressen, Thomas Mattsson, and the former lead editor of the newspaper Aftonbladet, Jan Helin  – has been presuring Google for years to hire a large group of editors, to function as gatekeepers. The author and social commentator Rebecca Weidmo Uvell, points out that this would be the end social media as we know it today in the form of an egalitarian way of spreading information – it would mean the degrading of google into to becoming mearly another variant of the old mediahouses. We would no longer have the option of easily and quickly spreading our opinions and analysises online and have it be found by everyone who googled the issue – instead our ideas would go through a filter. This would be an enormous overkill to fix an overhyped problem, a fix that would end the paradgime shift towards egalitarian and personaly produced content, and once again focus informational power in the hand of capitalist corporations. [15]


But me defending these right-wingers, am I not being a usefull idiot on there behalf? I would strongly disagree to this accusation. As the leftist Noam Chomsky points out, we are either in favor of freedom of speech for our enemies, or for no one at all. [16] I would extend this to freedom from censorship to cover abuses by huge capitalist corporations, not just censorship by states.


What if anything can be done about this? A self-serving suggestion from my part is to ask you to spread this content, as a way of spreading awareness of these issues . I would also suggest creating laws that gives huge tax incentives for sites hosting creators like youtube does, to change their terms of agreements to be more liberal, and to allow impartial non corporate controlled judgment of potential violations against these terms – at least in major cases. Lets exemplify this: if a youtuber is about to lose their channel, youtube should be given a taxbreak compared to competitors, if Googles uses a process of deciding in such cases, that allows for the formation of a quick but fair trial by an independent jury selected randomly from the general public. This might seem far fetched, but in sweden a similare system is already in place in the form of the ”marketingombudsman” (”reklamombudsman” in the original Swedish). The marketingombudsman up holds privately agreed standard of decency in advertisement, and allows advertisers to defend themselves against charges in privately held but independent reviews. This cost the taxpayers relatively little, and at the same times allows a form of fair self-regulation of marketing.


A more direct course of action for the individual viewer, is to let youtube, facebook and similare sites know that you are upset by their censorship, and don’t just let these be words. Breach out to other sites to ensure your content is secure, start a second videocreator account on live leaks as back up if youtube takes your channel down, and in your complaint to youtube let them know that their actions have pushed you to take these precautions, precautions that strengthen their competitor. Similare actions can be employed towards facebook and google (just make sure not to use one of their subsidaries (such as using instagram as a failed attempt to replace facebook, facebook owns instagram)).


All of these are suggestion, I am not a living answer sheet to all of lifes problems, if you have better options I would be genuinely happy to learn about them in the comment section. We must remember that my suggestions are of course short term fixes, the problems described are the results of a deeply dysfunctional economic system – our long term plan must be to replace capitalism. A topic I will be returning to another time.
The statement from Olof Palme can be found in Johansson Heinö, Andreas  (2015) ”Farväl till folkhemmet” Timbro. Page 52.


The statments by Bernie Sanders can be seen in (2015/06/29)”Bernie Sanders: ‘Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal'” Vox. Published on Youtube.



For more about Sanders left leaning support on limited immigration, see one minute into (2013/06/12) ”Sanders: Immigration bill threatens American workers” Washington Post.



The wikileaks statementan be found on:




The reporter who calls this bias ”the medias greatest betrayal” is quoted in Nilsson, Torgny (2008/02/10) ”Janne Josefsson – mannen bakom avslöjandena” Helsingborgs Dagblad.






The minister of immigration that Olof Palme warned about immigration, later wrote honestly that our generous immigration policy was only possible thanks to the difficulties of poor and oppressed people to reach sweden in large numbers, one can wonder if this journey is stil holding back the necessary amount of people to protect the system from collapsing. You can read her comment on this in Leijon, Anna-Greta (1991) ”Alla rosor ska inte tuktas” Tiden






Madon, Sakine (2016/01/16)”Journalists angles in order not to benefit from SD” Expressen.


Originally published under the title of “Journalister vinklar för att inte gynna SD”:



Marteus, Ann-Charlotte (2015/09/12) ”Det är jag som är åsiktskorridoren” Expressen.





Arpi, Ivar (2016/01/16) ”It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men… Sweden’s record is shameful” The Spectator – Australia.




Huitfeldt, Jörgen (2018/02/21) ”Därför frågar jag om invandringen” Kvartal vol.1



Tullberg, Jan (2014, second edition) ”Låsningen – en analys av svensk invandringspolitik” Lyeikon. See chapter 1.


The two journalists in question where Thomas Gür Susanna Popova, the third journalist was Anders Hellner. Source: Holm, Mats (editor.) Popova, Susanna (moderator) (2007/04/29) ”Åsiktsmaskinen” Axess TV. Link:


The editor of Expressen complaining about the openness in Danish media can be read here: Olsson, Karin (2018/05/13) ”SD-väljarna kommer aldrig att bli nöjda” Expressen.


The authour claiming that there is no bias, and simultaneously  telling people how to write about the issue, is Djalaie,Rouzbeh (2016) ”Ett långsamt paradigmskifte i migrationsjournalistiken” in Truedson,Lars (red.) ”Migrationen i medierna – men det får en väl inte prata om?” Institutet för mediestudier.


The confession about self-censorship on the issue of islamic oppression of women, can be read here Persson, Jenny (2012/05/19) ”Människor måste kunna leva tillsammans” HelaGotland.


The confession by Thomas Nordegren can be read in Ganman, Jens och Panshiri, Mustafa  (2018 {second edition}) ”Det lilla landet som kunde”   Vulkan. Se Chapter 9, the header ”Lying by Omission” page 236.

The quote ”We journalists shouldn’t strengthen racism, and it is obvious that we journalists often beat about the bush about the suburb issues [i.e immigration]” is taken from Djalaie,Rouzbeh (2016) ”Ett långsamt paradigmskifte i migrationsjournalistiken” in Truedson,Lars (red.) ”Migrationen i medierna – men det får en väl inte prata om?” Institutet för mediestudier.


The statement from Tim Pool is taken from Ganman, Jens och Panshiri, Mustafa  (2018 {second edition}) ”Det lilla landet som kunde”   Vulkan. Page 120 Chapter 5.

The two journalist who saw serious repercussions for their criticism of our immigration policy, can be read about in Thomas Nordegren can be read in Ganman, Jens och Panshiri, Mustafa  (2018 {second edition}) ”Det lilla landet som kunde”   Vulkan. Se Chapter 9, the header ”R-ordet” page 246-247.


Kleen, Björn af; och Nantel, Anette (2016/03/20) ”Vreden på Östermalm” Dagens Nyheter Fokus.




Tullberg, Jan (2014, andra upplagan) ”Låsningen – en analys av svensk invandringspolitik” Lyeikon.


Schlaug, Birger (1997) ”Svarta Oliver och gröna drömmar – kärle, möten och politik” Norstedt, see the chapter ”Livslögnen”. This chapter can be found on Schlaugs blogg:  [accessed 2018/04/28].



Sandelin, Gunnar (2010/04/07) ”Journalisterna mörklägger sanningen om invandrarna” DN.





Axberger, Hans-Gunnar ”Att lägga verkligheten till rätta”(1992) i Moderna Tider, number 25.


The quote in the video, is translated from the following: ”  Sverige är […] ett rättrogenhetens tempel, där

man i namn av höga ting mobbar oliktänkande. […] Saker som ligger ljusår från rasism, som skydd av hedersoffer och statistik om invandringen, är här glödheta tabun”


It can be read in full i Shachar, Nathan (2013/10/08) ”En yrkeskår i glashus” DN.






Truedson, Lars (2017/05/29) ”Läsarna misstror mediernas rapportering om invandring” DN.


No named author (2012/06) ”Special Eurobarometer 380” Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate-General Home Affairs. Se page 26.


Oscarsson, Henrik Ekengren; och Bergström, Annika (redaktör) (2016) ”SVENSKA TRENDER 1986-2016″ SOM-Institutet. Page 48.



Demker, Marie (2013)”Svensk migrationspolitisk opinion: 1991-2012” SOM-Institutets temaserie.

Page 25.



Santesson, Peter (2016/03/25) ”Allmänhetens uppfattning om invandringen” Demoskop.



The quote from Arpi in its original swedish sounds like this: ”har konsekvent en majoritet eller relativ majoritet av svenskarna velat ta emot färre flyktingar sedan 1990.”

Arpi, Ivar (2015/09/14) ”Folket mot opinionen” SVD.



Stenberg, Ewa ”Mer än hälften av svenskarna vill ta emot färre asylsökande” DN. Link:


Rosén, Hans (2018/04/21) ”Svenskarna har svängt: 4 av 10 vill ha betydligt färre flyktingar”DN.



The quote from Huitfeldt in the original swedish is: “Att under så lång tid föra en politik som uppenbarligen fungerar illa, saknar folkligt stöd och samtidigt skiljer sig så kraftigt från andra länders borde ha varit svårt” and can be found in originalHuitfeldt, Jörgen (2018/02/21) ”Därför frågar jag om invandringen” Kvartal vol.1



For the firing of the cheif editor of expressen, se Johannesson, Kurt (2013{originaly publishe 1998} )”Retorik eller konsten att övertyga” (ISBN 978-91-1305676-0, E-book by Publit)  Norstedts publishing. Page 207-215.


The in academic in the field of massmedia, Lennart Weibull., has commented that the article that got the editor fired, was not hostile towards immigrants – but a case of missplaced ironi. The article was even mild, compared to what still happens in british press – see Byttner, Karl-Johan  (2013/11/05) ”Medieprofessorn: ”Går inte att jämföra med Expressens Kör ut dem” Resumé.



An article from 2006 reports that the story from expressen ”continues to be a  blemish on the reputation” of the magazine (”löpsedeln är fortfarande en fläck på Expressens rykte” in the original swedish. A many year reputational damage, for reporting the truth ”Granberg, Mats (2006/01/04) ”Konsten att göra ett löp” NT.








Södering, Eigil (2018/02/05) ”Nej, svenska medier mörkar inte problem med invandringen” ETC.





Lundqvist, Jonathan ()2018/03/12) ”Jonathan Lundqvist: Ska vi verkligen ge bort makten över vem som får höras till amerikanska företag?” DN.





Gunnarsson, Tomas (a.k.a ”Genusfotografen”) ”Så här blev jag censurerad och 15 000 kronor fattigare” Link:

[accessed 2018/05/01]

Dameon, Andre (2017/09/19) ”Google intensifies censorship of left-wing websites” World Socialist Web Site.



Gunnarsson, Tomas (2013/01/30) ”Genusfotografen: Lagen stoppar debatten om danska fiskporren” Aftonbladet.



Another swedish blogger was silenced in a similare fashion Andersson, Marie Emma (2012/02/11)”DN skickar advokater på bloggare – på grund av skärmdump” Ájour.





“[Thomas Mattssonm Expressens chefredaktör:] Vi var en rad mediechefer som alla hade samma erfarenheter av stora sociala medier-plattformar: nämligen att de inte snabbt nog rensar bort hot och hat […] och att de inte lyckas göra skillnad mellan seriösa journalistiska aktörer och så kallade alternativmedier […] Enligt Farshad Shadloo [kommunikationsansvarig på Google i Norden] är 0,25 procent av den trafik som kommer från Google hatfyllt eller en typ av material som anses stötande och att de jobbar aktivt för att få bukt med problemen.”


The quote above is from Rågsjö-Thorell, Andreas; Nilsson, Thomas  (2017/06/04) ”Mediechefer i bråk med Google” Resume




Regarding the pressure on Google to hire editors see Uvell, Rebecca Weidmo (2018/03/14) ”Fire inte the Hole, Yttrandefriheten” on her site


Se cites among others Lundquist, Hanna (2018/03/07) ”Mattsson: ”Anställ 200 redaktörer, Google!” Journalisten.





“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

Quoted from Achbar,Mark; Wintonick, Peter (1992: Documentary) ”Manufacturing Consent: Noam

Chomsky and the Media “


Can be read on the films IMDB-page: