Particularly with regard to distant problems and events, we are all to some degree dependent on various mediators who decide which details we get to see and, accordingly, what kinds of patterns they might form. In everyday life, it is most often the news media which exercise that responsibility, and the key role in the entire process is played by editors-- the individual human beings who regulate the flow of information.
    
Theoretically, these information regulators possess a professional ability to filter the essential from the non-essential, the useful from the insignificant, and thereby supply news consumers with the information they need in order to form their own, accurate picture of the current situation. But it is often difficult to determine whether or not this theory corresponds to reality, since editors exercise a nearly autocratic power and are seldom required to justify their editorial decisions-- not to the less powerful, in any event.
    

For many issues of domestic policy, and essentially all areas of foreign policy, the most powerful force from on high is the United States, whose influence is communicated through various channels to permeate the larger part of news reporting even in Sweden. The evidence for this crucial state of affairs is virtually unlimited; one typical example is presented below. It has to do with a response to a book review in the prominent daily newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, in which the author was criticised for equating certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy with that of the now-defunct Soviet Union.
    

In her review of Björn Kumm's new book, Kalla Kriget ("The Cold War"), in the 14 January 2000 edition of Svenska Dagbladet, Ylva von Gerber objects to the fact that Kumm draws attention to certain unpleasant similarities between the Soviet and United States empires.

"To compare the struggle of the free trade union, Solidarity, against the Gierek regime in Poland with the Sandinistas' revolt against the Somoza regime in Nicaragua is quite absurd," writes von Gerber, "especially in light of the fact that the Sandinistas, when they came to power, quickly established their own form of dictatorship."

It is possible that the comparison is far-fetched-- but rather because the United State's impact on Latin American has been much more horrific and has gone on for a much longer time than the Soviet Union's domination of Central Europe.

It was the Sandinistas who got rid of Somoza and gave the country democracy. According to a broad range of international observers, the national election in 1984 was one of the cleanest ever held in Latin America. The delegation from Great Britain under the leadership of Lord Chitnis reported home to Parliament that there were even "some unusual provisions which must make some parties in this country green with envy. . . . What is happening is that the democratically-elected government of a sovereign nation is being quite unjustifiably harassed and bullied by those who claim to come from 'The home of the brave and the land of the free'."

U.S. efforts to sabotage the 1984 election failed, but it responded with a war of attrition during the next five years including, among other elements, sabotage, terrorism by hired thugs, and economic aggression. In the run-up to the 1989 election, the CIA bribed together a remarkable coalition incorporating everything from Marxist-Leninists to reactionary Catholics; and President Bush let it be known that the plaguing of Nicaragua would continue if its people did not vote for the United States' candidate. And so it was. But even though the 1989 election was a travesty orchestrated by the U.S., the Sandinistas relinquished power. Since then, life for the great majority of the population has gone back to the same old hell.

For U.S. enthusiasts in Sweden and elsewhere, these truths are, of course, hard to swallow. But they need seldom be confronted with them: The United States invests large resources in order to dominate the flow of information, and has many allies around the globe who provide various kind of assistance toward that end. That is precisely why Björn Kumm's new book is so valuable.

The problem for editor Luthersson-- apart from the fact that the response is obviously better supported than the original review-- is that Burke happens to be the author of a history on the subject which includes nearly 550 references. The book has been praised by, among others, a former CIA agent with extensive experience of Latin America, a Nobel Prize recipient and prominent peace activist, and a legendary professor of history with great competence in such matters.

But so it remarkably often goes with the image of the United States in Swedish media. Pure propaganda is passed on without the slightest demand for evidence or possibility of reply, while well-documented facts are rejected as "poorly supported prattle".

It might be argued that an example taken from Svenska Dagbladet has no great significance, since that newspaper has long had a conservative-reactionary profile. But that applies primarily to the editorial page-- which is, indeed, an intellectual disaster area-- whereas the news columns have often displayed a higher quality than other alternatives, and Luthersson's culture section has often boasted of its openness to free debate.

In short and with very few (usually short-lived) exceptions, the information flow's most powerful regulators tend to serve the purposes of the United States. The reasons for this pattern of behaviour are, of course, subject to discussion. But the consequence is that the U.S. is not required to answer for its lengthy history of evil deeds all around the globe, not even in Sweden. This goes a long way to explaining why Sweden has once again become mentally occupied by the superpower across the Atlantic. The implications for Sweden's foreign policy, as well as its other policies, can not be overestimated.