It is in Björn Olsen's "Summer in P1" that the criticism of the media is highlighted. Apart from calling journalists "loyal proselytes" in the sect around the Swedish strategy, they have not acted as the devil's advocate at the daily press conferences, according to Olsen.

Aftonbladet's political editor-in-chief Anders Lindberg does not agree that the media misbehaved. Critical voices have been heard and the newsrooms have reviewed the authorities' actions, he believes.

Lindberg: No right to get what you want

He believes that the Public Health Agency's critics still choose to focus on the media due to an expectation of being heard for their opinions.

- It is not a democratic right to always get what I want, but that I do not get what I want does not mean that the democratic conversation does not work. I think that is a very important difference.

Olof Ehrenkrona, editorial writer at Svenska Dagbladet, agrees that the media has let several opinions be heard, but he is critical of the climate that prevailed during the first month of the pandemic.

- You were not allowed to express yourself critically if you were not an epidemiologist at the Public Health Agency. A pandemic affects the whole society and there are very many who have knowledge that is relevant to fighting a pandemic.

Duplicate messages from authorities

Both agree that the uncertainty during the first trembling weeks of the pandemic led to some form of war journalism. But once the dust has settled, most players behaved well, according to Anders Lindberg. But Olof Ehrenkrona had, among other things, wanted to see more in-depth information about the ethical problems with herd immunity.

- You also got the feeling that the authorities had double messages, very much double messages, without the journalists asking questions and digging in the way we have been used to.