Keywords

Introduction

This chapter is an analysis of RT and Sputnik’s coverage of Sweden with regard to the Covid-19 pandemic. The results of the analysis show how the Russian state media used the pandemic to denigrate Sweden, highlight weaknesses and shortcomings in its social fabric, and expose its leadership as incompetent and the hypocritical self-perception and self-promotion of the Swedish nation as a well-functioning country with trusted institutions and loyal citizens as a myth. This narrative, which was prompted by the pandemic, during which the Swedish authorities embarked on a different path, and to many a controversial strategy, shows how a global crisis might affect disinformation and the construction of harmful narratives. More importantly, however, it demonstrates that the narratives were similar in content and format to the other news themes, which strengthens the thesis about disinformation as everyday practice. Even at times of crisis, the harmful narratives remain the same. We must therefore be cautious about talking in terms of disinformation “campaigns”, which would indicate that the disinformation is temporary and a result of external events.

As with any global crisis, news coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic was key to the very survival of countries’ populations, the projection of national images and to relations between countries, as well as for the international reputation of states, and thus in all respects central to security policy concerns. This was also the case for Sweden. Disinformation in this context might be especially detrimental in that essential information is being distorted and as a consequence is mistrusted by the public. The smearing of public institutions and of the government might reduce the legitimacy of the national leadership and its experts, and thus endanger citizens’ lives. From a longer term perspective, harm might be done to Sweden’s ability to build alliances with other states, remain a trusted international partner, and count on international support if needed—on all of which Sweden’s foreign policy is heavily dependent. Disinformation about Sweden with regard to the Covid-19 pandemic therefore posed severe security challenges, in that it was disseminated during a global and national crisis. As is shown in the analysis, however, this narrative was no different from other less critical crisis situations or longer-term deficiencies in the RT and Sputnik coverage.

The analysis is based on 68 news items in RT and Sputnik published and broadcast in March 1 to May 31, and August 1 to October 31, 2020. The time periods were chosen to cover the outbreak of the pandemic and its progression. These were also the time periods when the management of the crisis was being hotly debated. As the number of people infected fell in the summer months, coverage in July to August is excluded. The analysis resulted in a narrative that could be characterized in four sub-narratives: (a) Sweden lacks proper leadership; (b) Sweden is characterized by conflict; (c) Sweden is the odd one out—incomprehensible to the world; and, finally (d) Sweden is not what it seems hypocritical Sweden. I present and explain the narrative below, demonstrating how these sub-narratives came to expression in the various questions and topics covered from the first infection diagnosis in Sweden into the fall of 2020.

Sweden Lacks Proper Leadership

One of the most significant features of the RT and Sputnik narratives on the Covid-19 pandemic was the depiction of an alarmingly passive leadership at a time of acute crisis. The coverage combined reports of severe criticism of the handling of the national crisis for its lax, disengaged attitude, with the national government almost completely absent, with reports of dramatically increasing mortality rates, and seriously frightening and dark future scenarios. In most of the reports, the narrator takes an anti-establishment perspective and demonstrates the inadequacies of the leadership in various ways, combined with news reports centered on the existential threat that the pandemic poses that are highly dramatic in tone and choice of words (for ex. Sputnik April 5, 2020i, 2020j).

Some articles adopted an apocalyptic tone, using alarmist language in reports that suggested that thousands of people would be infected and die in the coming years with no solution available. This doomsday atmosphere was amplified in a news article in which two professors stated that all options had been exhausted, and that Sweden was facing a tragedy that no one seemed to want or be able to prevent (Sputnik April 10, 2020l). Yngve Gustafsson, Professor of Geriatrics at Umeå University, was quoted saying: “I’m very, very sad. Many people will lose, many lives. …. We will see infinitely worse numbers in the coming weeks”. A statement by Björn Olsen, a professor at Uppsala university and expert on pandemics, gave a similar message using dramatic language: “The pandemic is coming at us like a flood. It’s like a wall of infection… we will see huge increases in the coming weeks….The authorities have failed to understand the severity of the situation”. Olsson also argued that because of the tardiness of the Swedish government’s response, close to 8 million people were expected to be contaminated by the virus and thousands would die.

The deadly threat of the pandemic was given further weight using parallels with the Spanish flu epidemic a century before, and horrific scenarios of the health services prioritizing which patients would be worth saving, all of which were contrasted with the indecisiveness and passivity of the leadership, making it appear irresponsible beyond belief (Sputnik, March 16, 2020b). The problem was thus defined as the government for too long refusing to see the pandemic as a threat to the population and then, once it began to do so, failing to decide on the most appropriate strategy. This means that reports stressed the authorities’ indecisiveness on the question of open or closed borders, who should be allowed to enter Sweden, how large a proportion of the population was infected, and the strategy to adopt to limit the spread of the virus. The government and public health authority actors in the news items were depicted as untrustworthy and ignorant, and also at times as in conflict with medical experts about how to contain the spread of the disease and what measures should be taken (see below). It should be noted that throughout both periods, RT and Sputnik reported the pandemic with regard to Sweden as failed crisis management jeopardizing the lives of Swedish citizens, not as a virus that had spread globally and against which the world’s population lacked immunity.

In the absence of a proper Covid-19-strategy, a number of experts were reported as delivering critiques and sounding the alarm about the increasing spread of the virus (Sputnik, March 20, 2020d). These experts questioned Swedish crisis management and raised concerns about growing divisions in Sweden over how to fight its spread. The stance of Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, who played a leading role in the coverage, was said to conflict in part with views held by other scientific experts.

As the weeks wore on, Sputnik repeated its sub-narrative about the precarious situation in Sweden and the lack of proper leadership in managing the crisis (see e.g. Sputnik March 2, 2020a; Sputnik March 19, 2020c). Following publication in Dagens Nyheter, one of the Swedish daily newspapers, on April 14 of a letter signed by 22 experts expressing concern about the Swedish Covid-19 strategy, the criticism of Tegnell increased.

An article on April 17, 2020, identified a number of problems and conflicts, such as weak leadership, a continuing high death toll, and disputes between scientific experts at Swedish Universities and Tegnell (Sputnik April 17, 2020n). Like several other news stories, the plot had a diffuse structure, but it was made clear that Tegnell had the main role and was being both praised and criticized for his conduct. There was no sequence of events driving the story forward. Instead, the article appeared more like a platform where a number of expert views were quoted that differed from those of Tegnell. Taken together, these statements formed a strong critique and offered alarming scenarios that deviated considerably from those presented by the Public Health Authority. The plot rested on the now familiar sub-narrative of a leadership unable to lead, producing powerless recommendations and refusing to come clean about the use of herd immunity as a strategy.Footnote 1 The plot used alarmist language that reinforced the image of a state in chaos, which was about to break down as a result of the inability of its leadership to act promptly.

The sources for this story were typical of Sputnik news items. These comprised quotes from official representatives of the state and public agencies, and from three researchers, which had been published in Dagens Nyheter, a Swedish newspaper, and in this case also by Norway’s public service broadcaster, NRK. The plot was therefore built around the views and opinions of these actors, but the story was told from the point of view of the researchers, who thus also serve as the narrators of the plot. Drawing on quotes from these three, the plot told how Sweden under the leadership of Tegnell was implementing a strategy that would in all probability lead to the deaths of thousands of people, and no one seemed to be able to stop him. These experts were also deeply concerned about the great divide over how best to fight the virus in Sweden. According to Sputnik: “Despite people dying in large numbers, the authorities stick to the laissez-faire approach. The situation is unbearable” (Sputnik April 17, 2020n; Sputnik April 17, 2020o).

The divisions of opinion were not only between experts, the story reported, but also between ordinary Swedes and experts. People generally appeared to support Tegnell, but numerous scholars were of a different opinion. A professor at Karolinska Institutet, Cecilia Söderberg-Nauclér, is quoted as calling Tegnell’s strategy a “dangerous experiment”. “There is reason”, she continued, “to fear that disaster is lurking around the corner. It will explode in our faces” (Sputnik April 17, 2020n). Furthermore, she claimed that Tegnell was the only one to trust herd immunity to be the only way to put a stop to the spread of the disease. There was no mention in the plot that Tegnell disagreed with the experts, but another professor, Johnny Ludvigsson, was quoted arguing in favor of the Tegnell strategy in the long term.

The differences of opinion between State Epidemiologist Tegnell and several medical researchers presented in the articles on April 17 could be seen as reflecting the role of the mainstream media to serve as a platform for deliberation and the exchange of opinions and ideas. However, the plot’s problem was framed as a crisis situation where the key experts expressed themselves in dramatic phrases such as “ugly death rates” and a disaster that would “explode in our faces”. At the same time, Sweden was in a delicate situation in which it was inappropriate to open up an endless debate, but which instead called for national consensus. The main message of the story—the problem—was that the strategy pursued was likely to lead to thousands of deaths. The views of citizens were not at the center of the plot, but they were referred to as being supportive of Tegnell’s position. At the same time, one of the articles (Sputnik April 17, 2020n) was accompanied by a photograph of an empty street in the Old Town of Stockholm, and the caption indicated that shops and restaurants were closed, making it seem as if Tegnell’s no need to lockdown strategy might be understood in any event.

Throughout, the depictions of a passive Swedish government and public authorities, and the problems and divisions caused by the strategy adopted, contributed to an image of a Sweden in a state of chaos and confusion. A sequence of events in the plots was therefore often conspicuous by its absence. It was not just that the authorities were lax and rarely reported as providing solutions; they lacked a strategy and there were numerous messages and pieces of information pointing in all possible directions to confirm that this was the case. The information provided in a single news item was often contradictory. Disagreements between various experts and politicians revolved around the herd immunity strategy, which was reported as alternately rejected and advocated by the Swedish authorities (see e.g. Sputnik April 5, 2020i; Sputnik May 15, 2020p).

Herd immunity was at times used interchangeably to represent two alternative scenarios: a chosen strategy in which the government was prepared to sacrifice Swedish lives to reach immunity for the wider population; and a state of immunity in the population that eventually arises as the virus takes its natural course and the pandemic subsides. These narrative structures resulted in an image of Swedish decision makers and crisis managers as passive, indecisive, or incompetent. The reports projected sentiments of incomprehension—mainly from foreign actors or from RT and Sputnik journalist narrators—at the lack of crisis management, such as the decision to reject lockdowns, dismay at the risks to which Swedes were being exposed, and the despair mainly of experts because there were no longer any measures to take that could put a stop to the deadly pandemic as it was too late (Sputnik, 2020l April, 10c; See also RT, News with Rich Sanchez, April 2, 2020).

In some of the RT news items, there was outright astonishment at the passivity of Swedish decision makers. To images of Swedes strolling in the streets, shopping and drinking coffee at outdoor cafés, the anchor of a news program informed viewers that whereas most countries had introduced lockdowns, “Sweden’s shops, cafés and primary schools are staying open. There is no lockdown, and the borders are open” (RT News April 2, 2020a 4am broadcast). From this brief mention of Sweden, the anchor moved on to talk about Nepal, saying: “Different approach in Nepal though, police there are keeping their distance while enforcing the lockdown….”. No other links were made between Sweden and Nepal, and there is no further mention of the death toll or preventive measures in either country. One might expect viewers of RT to find it far-fetched to compare these two countries without elaborating on the differences and similarities of their anti-Covid strategies. However, it is typical of the RT news reporting style to leave information out and invite the audience to actively engage with the news content to connect different pieces of information, thereby making sense of the message. In this case one might reflect on the fact that Sweden, a country known to be prosperous, had done so little to protect its population, whereas Nepal, with such few resources, had taken measures.

In a news and current affairs program in the afternoon of the same day (RT News with Rich Sanchez, April 2, 2020 1:30 pm) the Swedish government’s strategy was contrasted with that of Russia. In the introduction, Sanchez says that “Sweden has taken a very laid back approach when it comes to lockdowns and quarantine and social isolation, very different from the rest of the world”. (For more on how Sweden is depicted as the odd one out, see below.) A UK Member of Parliament, George Galloway, is asked to explain this odd strategy and is quoted saying: “the politicians in Sweden will be remembered forever in a good way. If it doesn’t come off, it will be the hanging of them”. He goes on to speak about how few restrictions there are in place:

That’s the policy in Sweden—a famously liberal place but one with many tensions these days over big immigration, big refugee flows and so on. So, there are a lot of stress points, a lot of fractions in Swedish society. The government has taken a very very big risk. (RT News with Rick Sanchez April 2, 2020)

The reference to Sweden being a troubled society because of its liberalism was an oft-repeated refrain in the Sputnik and RT coverage. The heart of the matter spelled reckless government, the consequence of which had also been visible in how it dealt with migration and refugee flows. The government was so keen to defend liberal values, it was argued, that dealing with the pandemic in a proper way had been ruled out. The note on the open borders was part of this narrative and a feature raised in different contexts as a Swedish trademark. It exposed how all doors were open into Sweden, whether for infected people, migrants from all over the world, or Quran burning troublemakers, all of whom added to the anti-liberal narratives of these news media (See for ex Sputnik March 19, 2020c). The credibility of the sub-narrative was strengthened by the fact that the sources were mainstream Swedish media outlets and government officials who had appeared in these outlets.

Sweden Is Characterized by Conflicts

The pandemic coverage was heavily focused on domestic conflicts and disputes, especially between experts and representatives of the government. Although RT and Sputnik gave voice to officials from other European countries who reacted to the Swedish strategy with everything from surprise and wonder to outright dismay, the conflicts over the Covid strategy took place in Sweden. This gave the impression that the image of Sweden as a country of consensus was false, and that its international reputation should be questioned (see below). In much of the coverage, the fact that the controversial Covid strategy differed from that of most countries took center stage and formed the point of contention between people, actors, and political parties in Sweden. This came to the fore especially when coding for the problem or conflict feature of the plots, and when analyzing the roles assigned to the actors.

Some actors, such as the state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, were given a contradictory role in the coverage, at times representing the views of experts while at other times representing those of the public authorities. However, there were few direct quotes from Tegnell. Instead, he was positioned in the news plots as a node against which arguments and problematic situations or incidents were related. Seemingly contradictory standpoints were treated as compatible and the views of Tegnell were left unclear. It was rare for ordinary people to be interviewed, or for individuals to be assigned the role of Swedish citizens. This might seem contradictory to the anti-establishment approach of these news media outlets, but the public’s voice was instead projected by way of critical and emotionally charged tweets from individual accounts. These were translated and inserted into the articles in Sputnik and shown as text on the screen by RT.

One RT piece headlined “Dubious strategy” (RT News June 13, 2020d) reported the strong criticism the government was receiving from the opposition. The plot opened with a statement by the anchor that as a result of the passive government, Sweden found itself in a crisis with a high and increasing death toll. The anchor went on to talk about the political divisions in what was referred to as a precarious situation. Right-wing oppositional leaders Jimmy Åkesson (Sweden Democrat, SD), Ebba Bush (Christian Democrat, KD), and Ulf Kristersson (Conservative party, M) were all quoted as expressing their disapproval. Over reporting by RT staff, the screen displayed quotes by the leaders:

Åkesson: “The government and the public health authority have been given chance after chance to correct their mistakes. Despite this, the delays and the handwringing remain”.

Bush: “The Swedish government has deliberately allowed a large spread of the disease. In a difficult crisis, we will always be leaderless as long as this government is in power”.

Kristersson: “There have been obvious, fundamental failures. We didn’t get protective equipment to care homes in time, although everyone knew that they were the most vulnerable”.

At the end of the story, Kent Ekeroth, a disgraced former SD parliamentarian who had stood trial for minor assault in 2017 and was now a reporter for the far-right news outlet Samhällsnytt, stated in an interview that Sweden had the highest mortality rate “of most countries” and claimed that the Swedish government thought “testing was [is] unnecessary” (RT News June 13, 2020d).

In late March of 2020 a large group of Swedish scientists published a petition calling for a revised strategy with stricter measures in line with international recommendations. This was picked up by Sputnik and used to confirm the divisions and disorder that allegedly existed in Sweden between scientists, decision makers, and responsible officials. Tegnell, it was claimed, was being criticized for defending individual liberties at a time of crisis and resisting a lockdown of society. Tegnell was said to be arguing that the Swedish people must be trusted to take responsibility for their own and their fellow citizens’ health and safety. The scholarly community did not share his opinion. The contrasts between the strategies and the depth of the divisions were made clear by positioning the actor groups as diametrically opposed. The public authorities appeared controversial, dangerous, and at odds as they were not grounding their strategy in scientific knowledge. The chaos in Sweden and the schisms between actors were further reinforced by the article giving the latest death toll, a factual statistic that was followed by a quote from the National Director of Health and Medical care, Björn Eriksson, “the storm is here”, thereby contributing to the sense of urgency and imminent danger. In stark contrast to the image of a Sweden as in chaos with public authorities resisting the provision of proper protection for citizens and jeopardizing peoples’ lives, the photograph (signed AFP) at the top of the article showed a large group of Swedes smiling, laughing, and standing close together waving Swedish flags. The AFP picture was accompanied by the caption: “Swedes waving their flags at the outdoor museum Skansen in Stockholm June 6, 2005, to celebrate the National Day”(Sputnik March 26, 2020e). The picture was thus not a current authentic depiction of the situation in the country, but served the main message of the news story well. The contrast between the footage of happy, cheering flag-waving Swedes and the statement by Eriksson reinforced the image of a society in chaos, deeply divided and with the authorities keeping its population in the dark about the imminent threat to citizens’ lives and wellbeing. The flag-waving Swedes appeared to be celebrating their nation in total ignorance of the ongoing pandemic and the state epidemiologist seemed not to be about to intervene. At the same time, thousands of experts were stressing the seriousness of the situation and warning about the existential threat of Covid-19. Judging from the photograph in particular, it was difficult not to see the cheering Swedes as in the eye of the storm. It seemed that they were unconcerned, or even carefree. The differences in the experiences of the pandemic between the actors in this critical situation were projected as extraordinary but the footage provided some explanation. The public health authority had still not accepted the threat that Covid-19 represented and the population was similarly unperturbed.

Tegnell’s liberal approach was depicted as seen as reckless by the experts (Sputnik March 26, 2020e; See also Sputnik April 15b, 2020; Sputnik April 17, 2020o). The Swedish authorities and the research community had diametrically opposed opinions on how to manage the pandemic. Scientific experts sought to demonstrate the gravity of the situation but were ignored by the authorities, which seemed to turn a blind eye to the problems while keeping the population in the dark.

Conflict Topics

Both Sputnik and RT made much noise about the conflicts centered around the meaning, function, and applicability of herd immunity. However, the pandemic was also framed around other topics. Special emphasis was given to the ways in which the Swedish strategy affected vulnerable elders. Under the headline “Covid-19 Spreading Among Retirement Homes Across Sweden, Elderly Residents ‘Terrified’” (Sputnik April 3, 2020g), Sputnik reported that Sweden had inadequate protection against infection and lacked medical equipment. This was an illustrative example of how RT and Sputnik raised issues that were also widely debated in Sweden, around which they constructed a narrative about irresponsible authorities, confusion with regard to risk and crisis management, and conflicts between actors, but with heightened emotion and drama (See also Sputnik April 3, 2020g; Sputnik March 30, 2020f).

The news item about the spread of the virus to retirement homes centered on the problem of deficient protection against the virus and the lack of healthcare equipment. The virus had spread to retirement homes and Tegnell was quoted as expressing concern, but according to Sputnik he had not done anything to alleviate the situation. He could only admit to failures in protecting the elderly. Sweden was seen as employing not just an incomprehensible liberal and permissive approach, but one with ruthless undertones. Drawing on statements made by medical doctors on Swedish public service television (SVT) and radio (SR), including from a specialist in palliative care and a nurse, these actors were made the narrators of a plot that told of the predicament Sweden was in. They referred to the lack of protective gear for nurses working with the elderly and the prospect of people having to die alone since visits to hospital would have to be prohibited (Sputnik, April 3, 2020g).

In a similar article a few days before, the same attitude to the Swedish Covid-19 strategy was on display in a statement by a highly respected senior professor of clinical bacteriology, Agnes Wold. Her statement, which it was reported was supported by the former chief epidemiologist Johan Giesecke, formed the headline of the article: ‘“Luckily Only Kills Elderly People’: Swedish Doctor’s Coronavirus Take Roasted on Social Media” (Sputnik March 30, 2020f). Appearing on a popular television talk show, Wold was reported to have said: “It’s [the virus] a real pathogen, of course. It kills people and so on. But luckily, it basically kills only elderly people. In fact, we have to be pretty grateful for that”.

Following the quote, the news story nuanced Wold’s stance and reported that the risk of dying from the disease was lower for younger people. However, it was the statement about being fortunate that served as the driver of the plot. Professor Wold’s and Gisecke’s controversial standpoint was strongly criticized by ordinary Swedes on Twitter, expressing emotionally charged opinions in harsh words, and demonstrating the contradictions that existed between Swedish citizens and the authorities: “No, Agnes, we should not be grateful that our loved ones are suffocating to death on ventilators. However, we should be grateful that younger people often do well”, wrote @Memingojoeren, while @Vikingakvinnan wrote: “Agnes Wold has an utterly disgusting view of humanity”. The use of experts in this and other similarly structured news plots tended to lead to polarization and expose cleavages between experts and members of the general public on social media. Moreover, the plot appeared to reveal the cold-hearted cynicism underlying the Swedish strategy.

The confusion around the different positions of various actors was amplified in the article by a concluding statement from the then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, that he did not exclude a scenario in which the government might decide to isolate Stockholm (Sputnik March 30, 2020f). The statement was contrasted with the statements by Wold, Giesecke, and the SPHA’s chief analyst, Lisa Brouwers. This gave the impression that Löfven was detached from and uninvolved in the crisis management. The Swedish government appeared incapable of governing Sweden at a most difficult time. In sum, the narrative of Sweden as a divided country was directly linked to issues about the state authorities’ unreasonably liberal approach, which instead of assisting the public by managing the crisis had led to inhumane crisis management.

This article was in many respects typical of the Sputnik coverage of Covid-19 in Sweden. It took its point of departure from an interview published in the traditional Swedish media featuring a familiar and popular Swede—Pr. Wold. The message of the plot was pointed and sought to capitalize on a controversial expression, the responses to which were emotionally charged in the form of numerous tweets. These exposed not simply divisions between citizens and elites in Sweden, but also differences in views about the Swedish Covid strategy. The tweets were often strongly worded or drastic in content. There would also be more moderate and low-key comments, but these tended to be inserted in less noticeable positions in the plot. As noted above, it was quite difficult to determine which actors opposed one another and what the differences of opinion were. A statement by one actor might be contrasted with an answer to a different question by another actor. The government was rarely present in the Covid coverage, other than in passing. Although Prime Minister Löfven was included as an actor in the article about risk assessment for the elderly, his presence confirmed his absence from the ongoing debates about the pandemic and his statement was disconnected from the rest of the plot. Taken together, the articles contributed to the sub-narrative “Sweden is characterized by conflict” and reinforced the image of Sweden as torn, divided by conflict over absurdly liberal and, at the same time, inhumane crisis response, all of which was proof that the government had lost control of the situation.

The Covid-19 crisis was also linked to other domestic problems by Sputnik, which confirms the prevalence of overlapping narratives. The inability of the Swedish leadership to protect citizens from the virus was for instance connected to questions about immigration and to the climate activist Greta Thunberg. Sputnik reported how migrants created problems for crisis management by being strongly overrepresented among the infected and lacking the ability to protect themselves (see e.g. Sputnik April 15, 2020). At the same time, it was reported that Sweden was continuing to accept new asylum seekers (Sputnik March 19, 2020c). There were no news items reporting on confrontations between groups of Swedes and immigrants. Instead, immigrants featured repeatedly and in different contexts as the cause of problems and dilemmas. Taken together, this gave the impression that Swedish interests were incompatible with those of migrants and asylum seekers (see e.g. Sputnik April 13, 2020m).

Sweden as the Odd One Out: Incomprehensible to the World

This sub-narrative of “Sweden as the odd one out” was mainly derived from coding the positioning of actors, their interrelationships, and how these connected to the sequence of events. The actors were mainly represented by foreign governments, foreign commentators, and officials. Foreign actors were ascribed the agency and Sweden was assigned a more passive, reactionary role. The Swedish position was one of isolation and most, although not all, foreign actors expressed incomprehension with regard to the Swedish Covid-19 strategy.

Almost every article repeated that Sweden had adopted an unconventional approach to tackling the pandemic and that the Swedish authorities maintained this approach despite the steadily increasing number of deaths. Government officials, including Prime Minister Löfven, were portrayed as naive and their attitude as incomprehensible in the face of various disaster scenarios or catastrophic realities already at work. On April 5, 2020, Sputnik reported: “While Italy was drowning in coronavirus cases and the streets of other European countries were left empty […] it seemed like Sweden didn’t even know what Covid-19 was or how dangerous it could be”; “What on earth are they thinking?” (Sputnik, March 30, 2020f). A few days later, Löfven was quoted saying: “we who are adults need to be exactly that: adults” (Sputnik April 5, 2020i), a statement that Swedes were reported as agreeing with and that strengthened the Sputnik sub-narrative of Sweden as the odd one out—a country that the rest of the world did not understand or approved of.

The thoughts and opinions of foreign commentators and authorities on Sweden’s “deviant” strategy were often brought to the fore in Sputnik’s news coverage, and these voices were used to confirm the widespread opposition to the Swedish position. One British journalist, Marcus Stead,Footnote 2 was quoted as saying that the Swedish example was not to be imitated (Sputnik April 17, 2020n). Polish media outlets were reported to be using Sweden as a deterrent or terrifying example and the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, was said to have called the Swedish strategy “Darwinist”, stressing that it would be inconceivable to implement such a policy in Poland (Sputnik May 15, 2020p).

Sweden’s Nordic neighbors were also reported to be taking a stand. Several news reports compared the death tolls in the Nordic countries, concluding that Sweden’s was far higher than the others. Sweden therefore also appeared to be a problem to its closest allies. The Danish border was reported to have been closed to Swedes while remaining open to Norwegians and Germans. Sweden’s high death toll was said to be a consequence of the decision not to impose a lockdown. As a result, Sweden must pay the price by being marginalized from the rest of the world. Together with Belarus, Sweden was said to be the only country that had decided against a lockdown and kept its society open. A Spanish study on herd immunity, which was repeatedly referred to by Sputnik as the underlying basis for the Swedish strategy, was reported to show that it did not provide sufficient protection—at least not in the short run (Sputnik May 15, 2020p).

Nonetheless, Sweden was described as continuing to go its own way, alienating itself from the European family and, it was argued, thereby contributing to international polarization. RT and Sputnik used a variety of factors to explain the measures taken by Sweden, all of which confirmed views of Sweden that marked it as different and deviating from the rest of Europe. Over images of Swedes recklessly socializing in outdoor cafés, foreign experts and Sputnik and RT reporters stated that the authorities were used to trusting in people’s ability to take personal responsibility. Other explanations were linked to the idea that extreme weather conditions in Sweden had hardened the population over time, strengthening its resistance to hardships such as a pandemic. Moreover, Sweden had a long tradition of pursuing an independent foreign policy, had experienced an exceptionally long period of peace, and had chosen to remain outside of NATO, all or which was evidence of the strong urge to act independently and to manage crises on its own. References were made to the critical voice of the legendary Prime Minister Olof Palme who during the Cold War had expressed strong criticism of US foreign policy, Sweden’s foremost Western ally. Using these various aspects of the Swedish political culture and foreign policy tradition to explain Sweden’s Covid-19 response was done in a mixed tone of voice, sometimes humorously ironic, sometimes heavily critical, and sometimes condescending, explaining the strategy as a result of ignorance, and occasionally curiously intrigued.

RT in particular questioned the strategy over and over, and why Sweden was so different from any other country in Europe or the world. Long interviews were broadcast with experts, scholars, and other reporters and commentators from RT and from other European countries, but also Sweden, explaining and discussing the Swedish approach. There was a special emphasis on why Sweden persevered with the measures, or rather lack of measures, especially as the pandemic progressed and the number of deaths rose; and since “Sweden’s death rates are far, far more catastrophically worse than its neighbors” (RT Going Underground, May 6, 2020a). Even though some experts were quoted as saying that it remained to be seen whether in the near or distant future the strategy might turn out for the best, the RT journalists kept stressing incomprehensible Swedish crisis management, which was also in line with RT’s journalistic style as expressed in the channel’s slogan to “question more”. This questioning was at times supported by evaluative statements from internationally renowned sources. The World Health Organization (WHO), for instance, was quoted with reference to the Swedish strategy as having labeled implementation of herd immunity “unethical” (RT News October 13, 2020e). This gave the impression that the criticism was not that of RT or Sputnik but from a highly regarded source.

Swedish isolation from the rest of Europe and the Nordic countries was further stressed in reports about the planning of a multinational military exercise, of which Sweden was in charge. Despite the critical situation in Europe, where most societies were in lockdown, the Swedish Defense Forces were reported to be continuing preparations. While country after country withdrew from participation, Swedish forces argued that this was a time when the armed forces needed to reaffirm its strength. A representative of the Swedish Defense Forces was quoted saying that “when society is in crisis, defense must be at its strongest” (Sputnik April 3, 2020g). Sweden was therefore depicted as abandoned by its allies in military matters due to its Covid-19 strategy, which was weakening Swedish society in more ways than one. The military exercise was also criticized by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, whose representative accused the armed forces in an op-ed in a Swedish daily newspaper of being out of touch with reality. She was quoted as saying that: “The perception of security must be broadened. You can’t throw a grenade at Covid-19, weapons can’t protect us” (Sputnik April 3, 2020g).

The Covid-19 news was connected in several news items about Swedish defense and added to depictions of Sweden’s precarious situation. Another example was a piece in RT about what was called bizarre spending by the defense forces at a time when every krona was needed for managing the pandemic. In an astonished tone, a news anchor announced that: “Despite being overwhelmed with high casualty rates in the pandemic, Sweden’s parliament okayed a massive and record rise in military spending. The defense ministry’s excuse: Russia”. The RT anchor argued that the money was much needed for healthcare and schools. A professor of epidemiology who appeared quite frequently on RT to comment on pandemic-related issues said that he was not surprised at the decision to increase the defense budget. He said that Sweden planned to export arms to Saudi Arabia, so it could continue bombing Yemen, but also suggested that the reason for the preoccupation with military arms and defense matters in the middle of a pandemic was that Sweden intended to investigate “the possibilities of recovering its lost empire in the Baltic area” (RT News December 17, 2020f).

Such conspiratorial comments, which occasionally appeared, seemed to add spice and drama to the news plots. However, the sub-narrative about Sweden as the odd one out was more often reinforced by the use of recurring phrases that were correct in substance but, when contextualized in the narrative, gave a biased view of Sweden, making the country appear to be governed by morally dubious leaders isolated from Europe and the world. In a number of news items, the plot was concluded with one of two standard paragraphs. The phrases in this final paragraph told of the latest death toll and the number of people registered as infected. The figures were connected to the decision by the Swedish authorities not to organize a lockdown, which was repeatedly argued to be strange and controversial, and to have led to high numbers of deaths and massive protests in and outside of Sweden. In some articles, the final paragraph mentioned the economic benefits that Sweden had drawn in comparison with countries that had taken stricter protective measures. A typical concluding paragraph read:

Sweden, which notoriously refused to shut down and has largely pursued a voluntary model of restrictions and even at some point suggested aiming for herd immunity as a goal, has seen over 86,000 COVID-19 cases, resulting in nearly 5,850 deaths, most of them senior citizens. Due to the fact that the scope and death toll of the Swedish outbreak has so far been much higher than those of its Nordic peers combined, Stockholm’s response triggered massive internal and external criticism over the unnecessary ‘death, grief, and suffering’, in the words of Swedish academics who cautioned the world not to follow the nation’s example. (Sputnik September 14, 2020s)

A shorter version, which included the same key points on the Swedish Covid-19 situation, said that:

Sweden’s controversial no-lockdown strategy continues to polarise the global public, with some berating it for ‘unnecessary deaths’ and others crediting it with keeping the economy afloat and avoiding market crashes. (Sputnik November 16, 2020u)

Sweden Is Not What It Seems

The oft-repeated phrases about the deviant Swedish Covid strategy, and the depictions of a Sweden where life seemed unperturbed by the ongoing pandemic, with business as usual despite people dying in their thousands, social unrest dominating society and a country more or less isolated from the rest of the world, all gave the impression that Sputnik was seeking to “bust the myth” that Sweden was a stable and highly respected country where citizens and institutions trusted one another. It was a sub-narrative that described how the Swedish authorities were deceiving their own people, as well as the outside world by concealing the real intentions behind the Covid-19 strategy.

There were, for example, the pictures of crowds in happy gatherings in the midst of the pandemic (Sputnik August 18, 2020r; Sputnik March 26, 2020e) but also depictions of youths caught spitting at healthcare workers and police lined up to protect passengers from assault at railway stations (see e.g. Sputnik April 13, 2020m). Throughout, however, it was reported that Swedish experts continued to insist that Sweden was a high-trust society and that Swedes knew how to take responsibility. Statements were taken out of context and used to show the hypocrisy of the leadership, for example that Sweden’s high death toll was an effect of the decision to prioritize financial profit before the lives and health of the population.(RT News December 28, 2020g, 6 am broadcast) This was never expressed by any of the actors—either public agencies or citizens—but a conclusion drawn by Sputnik, and one that appeared reasonable from statements made in different contexts that had been joined together.

This Swedish hypocrisy was manifest by the creation of an inconsistency in the plot’s sequence of events, which made the unfolding of the plot jarring. This served to illuminate the contrasts between the actual sequence of events and an expected sequence of events based on previous plots and “common knowledge”. Well into the RT and Sputnik coverage of the pandemic, the reason for there not being a lockdown had been reported as due to Swedes trusting their public institutions and being assumed to take personal responsibility to prevent the spread of the virus. However, in a news item about the organization of rave parties in Sweden, it was reported that a group of rave organizers had disobeyed recommendations to limit the gathering of crowds and simply moved their parties outdoors (Sputnik August 18, 2020r). With implicit mockery of the supposedly loyal and responsible Swede, it was reported that the Swedish music scene had gone underground, having fled to the forests so that young people could continue to gather for big parties. Tegnell was quoted as saying that a rave was a typical high-risk activity. Although subdued in tone, the plot closed with the oft-repeated end paragraph that labeled the Swedish strategy a maverick approach, but it also stated that the limit on the number of people allowed at public events had been lowered from 500 to 50. In contrast, the footage showed large numbers of people standing close together, and organizers confirming that there would be outdoor parties all over Sweden, with the headline: “Illegal Raves Blossom in Swedish Forests Amid Covid-19 Festival Ban”. The view that Swedes were safe and sound because of their mentality and the Swedish political culture in which they had been socialized seemed demonstrably hollow.

RT reported in a similar vein about the disparity between the image of Sweden as projected by the establishment and the “real” Sweden. A professor of epidemiology, Ferrada de Noli, who often appeared on RT, confirmed the view that Swedes were not as disciplined as was often claimed. On the contrary, Swedes did not follow recommendations and nor did they trust the authorities, as was also frequently claimed. Questioning these dominant notions about Sweden or treating certain views as established facts in order to question them, RT argued in several news items that the situation in Sweden was not under control and that there was a lack of consensus between experts, the authorities, and citizens. People set their own rules, disagreed about how the situation should be handled or chose not to care about the pandemic at all (RT News April 2, 2020a; RT News April 6, 2020b; RT News April 12, 2020c). This demonstrated that underneath the glossy surface was a much harsher reality that the authorities seemed unwilling to acknowledge, and in some news items Sweden was said to be heading for disaster, which made it appear even more upsetting that the authorities were neglecting to inform citizens.

Both RT and Sputnik made use of a number of concepts to confirm their notion that the government and the public authorities were concealing information from citizens. The frequent use of value-laden words, such as herd immunity, polarization, and “laissez-faire”(for more about polarization and laissez-faire see Chaps. 6 and 8), in confusing and contradictory ways created an image of the Swedish authorities as manipulating and obscuring the truth about the state of the nation.

The concept of herd immunity was often used as an epithet for the Swedish Covid-19 strategy, even though there were few if any statements by the public authorities or experts that this was part of the strategy. In both RT and Sputnik, the concept was connected to words such as “desirability” and “conflicting messaging”, indicating that the authorities had herd immunity as a secret objective. Herd immunity was also ascribed different meanings, which added to the confusion and uncertainty that some reports associated with the Swedish situation. The concept of an actual status of immunity against a disease in a population as opposed to a desired strategy to aim for was not kept distinct in the news coverage. This was also what led to the critical comments from experts and others, such as the Polish politician who was quoted speaking about a Darwinist approach. RT reported about a US author, Mike Davis, who had written a book on the plague of capitalism and Covid-19, in which he alluded to herd immunity being applied in Sweden as a neo-Nazi concept. The host of the show intervened and said that they had invited the Swedish ambassador to London on to the program. There was no mention of why he was not there, but the host went on to say that “Sweden has acknowledged that it had made some mistakes”, adding that it “certainly denies any Nazi activity”. The discussion then moved on to the connections between capitalism and pandemics (RT Documentary September 7, 2020b).

One news item highlighted the discrepancy between estimations of the herd immunity threshold (40–60%) and the proportion of Swedes who had been infected (1%), and concluded that the Swedish population was far from reaching herd immunity. In response to the allegation that Sweden was employing herd immunity as a strategy, Ivar Arpi, a journalist at Svenska Dagbladet, asked: “How many must die for the sake of herd immunity?” (Sputnik May 15, 2020p). In a quote in a Sputnik article published about one month before Arpi posed his question, Tegnell was said to have “resolutely rejected the idea that Sweden’s strategy is building up herd immunity, while insisting that it is the only way of stopping the pandemic” (Sputnik April 6, 2020k). Later in the year, when the spread of the virus was found to be lower in Sweden relative to other European states, Sputnik talked of a return to the concept of herd immunity and suggested this was the cause of the low number of infected Swedes (Sputnik September 21, 2020t). Use of the term herd immunity was a good example of how concepts were used in diffuse and contradictory ways. Polarization was another such term, which was used as synonymous with divisions or differences of opinion but did not name or describe any situations in which established groups confronted each other without considering or paying attention to the views of the other.

Conclusions

The Russian state media RT and Sputnik used the pandemic to denigrate Sweden, highlighted weaknesses and shortcomings in its social fabric, and exposed its leadership as incompetent and the hypocritical self-perception and self-promotion of the Swedish nation as a well-functioning country with trusted institutions and loyal citizens as a myth.

The deviating strategy employed by the Swedish authorities was used to explain Sweden as an odd society different from other European states, criticized by its closest neighbors and EU member states, and with an international image that no longer held true.

The analysis of the Covid-19 crisis as a particular global crisis event adds insights about everyday disinformation. The narratives were similar in content and format to the other news themes, but with the context for the news coverage being a pandemic that threatened peoples’ lives differed in the increased demands for reliable and correct information. This shows what challenges liberal democratic societies face when the provision of accurate and reliable information flows and the defence of the freedom of speech are to be combined with preventing deceptive and harmful information from entering the news media system.