The king seems to be a nice guy and any escapades he should be allowed to keep to himself. Being allowed to meet his men's gang at some point should also be entered as a paragraph in the UN's declaration of human rights. My own men's gang is also about 12 people and we last met in Barcelona, although we didn't have any so-called coffee girls, but were instead robbed by pickpockets.
The problem with the latest so-called scandal shows the paradox that it is impossible to have a governance that does not start from an official and democratically elected person. No normal sane person wants to write about the king's private life because he seems to be a nice guy and because it is not very clean to invade the private sphere. In addition, it gives bad status as a journalist to engage in gossip journalism or as the hyenas themselves would say – they respect the sanctity of privacy. The myth that the king profiles himself as a dove and family man is something that the storytellers in the small kingdom have long told, and the mere suspicion that he would be a so-called hawk causes many to raise their eyebrows. Game theorists can show correlations with benefits of playing the dove but being the hawk and what obvious advantages it brings to those who succeed in the social game.
Different newspapers have chosen different strategies regarding how they should relate to the so-called scandalous book. The newspapers and media are afraid of reprisals and of not being on good terms with the royal house because many people want to read about their lives and few journalists want to risk being boycotted by the court. Tom the old hunter Jan Guillou expresses his support and sympathy for the king and the readers of Aftonbladet have rightly called it a witch hunt because you identify with the king and his family.
Aftonbladet has run the media drive closely followed by Expressen, which has hooked on. In contrast, the state television SVT and TV4 have chosen to be remarkably neutral. SVD was initially completely silent, but later they have tried to downplay the importance of the book in leadership positions and dismiss it as gossip and write sentences like "let's assume they are telling the truth" and dismiss the book with all kinds of gossip on the Internet. Today's industry does not have a single article that touches on the events of the past week.
The cost of negative publicity
But one should probably ask about the media's role in the monarchy. In connection with Victoria's wedding, the Board for the Promotion of Sweden ordered an unscientific investigation where it was shown that the publicity surrounding the wedding was worth 2.7 billion kroner, which, to my great surprise, was trumpeted uncritically in Dagens Industri and other media. I got to take part in how they had done the calculations and the unscientific numbers had made my old economics teachers cry. Dagens Industri has chosen to be completely silent about the scandalous book, and any new calculation of what recent publicity has cost will probably not be published or ordered from any media agency.
Personally, I'm not a fan of government agencies ordering PR material to market themselves, but at the same time I wonder how much recent scandals have cost the Kingdom of Sweden in the form of negative publicity. Although it is sometimes said, a bit cynically, that negative publicity is also positive publicity. It is clear that if the new image of Sweden is about profiling the image of Sweden as if the small country were a Stieg Larsson novel, then it is a successful move.
International media reported on the royal scandal
A selection of newspapers that have reported on the media hysteria surrounding the latest book and which should be in such a cost-benefit report.
ATN news agency
It is interesting that Europe's biggest scandal newspaper the Sun did not write anything, which perhaps says a little about Sweden's importance. However, they have articles about how we protect owls..