Every spring and fall, the Swedish state announces its budget for the coming months. At

the most recent of these occasions, the presentation caused complete press pandemonium.

The tabloids had a field day, seemingly criticizing the government with unusual ferocity

and precision. From a wide range of issues they selected only a few and analyzed them

through one perspective only – a negative one.

Was this always the case? Or did the papers respond differently than normal to this newly

elected set of politics, due to its conservative character?

We chose eight articles from Aftonbladet and Expressen, half of which written in 2007,

and the remainder from 1995 in order to compare somewhat equal measures made, but by

ideologically opposed parties.

After thorough examinations our suspicions were proved wrong. As it turned out, opinions

aside, the rulers always find themselves in the media line of fire. There are no hidden

agendas - or unjust biases.

But we still marvelled at our results. When it comes to this kind of journalism, simplifying

models of explanation are used – deliberately or not – making sure that all acts are

described in the worst conceivable manner. Arguments about far stretching effects are

neglected, making the democratic decisions appear as dramatic and short sighted as

possible.

The image of reality that reaches the public is unbalanced and severely distorted, and this,

we are sure, will have a serious impact on society in the long run.