The Swedish TV4 series ”Doktrinen” portrays a fictionalized version of the newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN), engaging in practices that are far removed from the actual journalistic standards of the real DN. The series depicts the paper using unethical methods like bribing sources for information, publishing sensitive information without prior notification to the involved parties, and violating privacy through intrusive photography. These practices contradict DN’s commitment to ethical journalism, which includes verifying information from multiple sources, allowing subjects the opportunity to respond before publication, and respecting individual privacy. ”Doktrinen” serves primarily as entertainment and doesn’t reflect the reality of journalistic practices. A more accurate portrayal of journalistic failings and their consequences can be found in the SVT documentary ”Det svenska styckmordet” (The Swedish Murder Case).
”Det svenska styckmordet” examines the notorious 1980s murder case, highlighting the devastating impact of media coverage on the lives of the two acquitted suspects, Teet Härm and Thomas Allgén. Härm endured decades of isolation due to public hostility fueled by media portrayals, while Allgén suffered financial ruin and a significant decline in quality of life. The documentary exposes the complicity of the media in amplifying a narrative of guilt, even after their acquittal. This case demonstrates the power of media narratives to shape public perception and inflict irreparable damage on individuals, even in the absence of legal conviction. The documentary serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of responsible reporting and the potential for media to contribute to injustice.
The documentary highlights the Kafkaesque nature of the legal proceedings and underscores the need for state mechanisms to provide redress to victims of such miscarriages of justice. The media played a critical role in shaping the narrative, collaborating with law enforcement to portray Härm and Allgén as monstrous figures. At a time when public discourse centered on issues like drugs, prostitution, and power, the media’s portrayal contributed significantly to the public condemnation of the two men. Instead of acting as a critical voice and questioning the prevailing narrative, the media, including DN, intensified the public outcry, thereby failing to fulfil its role as a check on institutional power. This highlights the importance of media vigilance and the potential for groupthink to lead to miscarriages of justice.
The 1999 book ”Döden är en man” (Death is a Man) by Per Lindeberg offered a belated critical examination of the case, challenging the dominant narrative years after the initial frenzy. This late intervention underscores the importance of continuous critical evaluation within journalism and the need to challenge official narratives, even when unpopular. The case of Härm and Allgén serves as a crucial reminder for contemporary journalists to be cautious and to prioritize ethical considerations, particularly in the age of social media, where unverified information spreads rapidly. Preventing similar harm requires fostering a culture of rigorous fact-checking, critical questioning within newsrooms, and careful consideration of the potential impact of published information on individuals.
The recent resignation of Center Party politician Gustav Hemming, following allegations of sexual harassment, exemplifies the importance of journalistic due diligence. Before publishing such sensitive information, journalists must thoroughly verify allegations, corroborate claims with evidence, and resist the temptation to publish based on rumours or unconfirmed reports. As articulated by editor-in-chief Hans Schöier, even when information is factually accurate, its publication must be weighed against the potential for causing undue harm. The concept of ”public interest” necessitates a constant balancing act between the public’s right to know and the protection of individual reputations.
Despite criticisms, Swedish media enjoys relatively high levels of public trust, which have remained stable or even slightly increased over the last decade. This contrasts with the declining trust in media observed in the United States. However, maintaining public trust requires constant vigilance and adherence to ethical principles. A free press is essential for a functioning democracy, and protecting journalistic freedom is not solely the interest of journalists, but concerns everyone’s right to freedom of expression. The recent case of a high-ranking judge reprimanding lower court judges for criticizing working conditions underscores the importance of protecting free speech within all sectors of society. While freedom of expression is a cornerstone of journalistic work, it doesn’t absolve journalists of the responsibility to report ethically and consider the potential impact of their work. The media’s role in both condemning and, eventually, contributing to the exoneration of Härm and Allgén highlights the need for ongoing self-reflection and transparency within the journalistic profession.
