It was not easy for SVT political commentator Mats Knutson to analyze Stefan Löfven’s Sunday speech to the nation right away – and there was not much to analyze either.
He referred to the speech. He told us viewers what Stefan Löfven had just said. And it was rude even though we didn’t ask for a quick price.
I have no idea why Mats Knutson was even asked to analyze something he didn’t have time to think about for a second, but it’s something crunchy, purely journalistic.
“We need to have a comment right after the speech. No matter how badly thought it out. ” And they got it. Since that was the premise, can we assume?
I listened excellent Fredrik Furtenbach on Dagens eco also in P1, was given the same kamikaze journalistic assignment. He did a lot like Mats Knutson.
What would they do?
A quarter of an hour later Mats Knutson was on the Rapport show at 7:30 PM and now he thought: Stefan Löfven gave his “reprimand speech,” Knutson said. It was a “coherent prime minister” and had “grim news”.
We couldn’t hear the same speech.
Sure, we would wash our hands and surely Stefan Löfven looked as coherent and spontaneous as ever, and of course, these are bitter times – where was the news?
I really don’t understand the point of having a political commentator who has no comments, at least if you so explicitly ask for one, as you still have to say you did it in the studio immediately after your speech and fifteen minutes later at Rapport. Mats Knutson is as objective as SVT that references become the only possible journalistic way out.
What did SVT think? Mats Knutson on such an important speech by the Prime Minister? Couldn’t he have earned that trust after 20 years of service?
It is said that there is too much opinion journalism in the public debate. But: If the prime minister gives a pointless speech (which he did) that at the same time contained more clichés than normal annual consumption, and also talked about a Sweden that is no longer there (about “cohesion” and “solidarity” – which disappeared at the same time as Swedish gillestugan), so you could still demand some political courage from one of the country’s most important analysts?
If, in the name of objectivity, he cannot or cannot say something that upsets a single viewer, should someone be brought in who has permission to express an opinion?
What is Mats Knutson’s job to keep the balance?
By definition, you can become a line dancer on SVT, but the excitement will disappear entirely if you just put a string on the floor and ask Knutson to dance along it. No risk.
I also checked Aftonbladet and Expressen internet transmissions. One Aftonbladet analyst said this sounded like a prime minister in a war, and Expressen thought the prime minister’s message was “rebirth”. Nobody cared about the quality of the speech.
If someone asked me, I would say it’s bad theater, no design, no content, just political clichés. Fortunately, no one did. Yes he asked.
I also watched Stefan Löfven’s speech last spring. Similarly. And in the two previous speeches to the nation by Carl Bildt in 1992 and Göran Persson in 2003, the same attempt at a “political encounter”.
For Sweden, said the prime minister. Too bad, I say.
Read more of the chronicles of Johan Croneman