To put it simply, the debate on conditions for quality journalism in Sweden has never centred on the issue of newsroom democracy. one of the main explanations for this is the Swedish Constitution, which places all legal responsibility for newspaper content in the hands of the editor-in-chief (appointed as responsible by the owner, in accordance with the press laws). It is always the editor-in-chief who pays fines or goes to jail if editorial content is deemed illegal by a court of law; this is thought to make it more difficult for external forces to intimidate reporters. Hence no newsrooms in Sweden have internal rules for electing their editor-in-chief. Instead editors-in-chief are all appointed by the owners and the board of the newspaper. The same general rules in these processes are applied to broadcast media.
However, the minimal influence from journalists regarding the appointment of editor-in-chief does not mean that they lack influence on other editorial matters. Daily news selection and news value processes are transparent, and the framing of political issues openly discussed in the newsrooms.
National media interviews indicate a mixture of ways to enhance impartiality and quality in framing and reporting political issues. The public broadcasters, one of the morning dailies and one of the afternoon papers have written rules (in one case reporters have to sign a four-page quality contract); none has institutionalized sanctions, partly because of the Swedish press laws.
Regional media interviews confirmed a perceived great opportunity for single journalists to make their voices heard on news decisions, and this was particularly true for journalists specialized in specific fields. The influence of journalists was stressed even more in the interviews with representatives of public service media, and was described as “scary” by the interviewee at Sveriges Radio Västernorrland.
