Photo Siavash Pournouri

Söderberg Journalist Award 2008 to Inger Arenander

The Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg Foundations have decided to award Inger Arenander the 2008 Söderberg Journalist Prize. The Ekot domestic political commentator is always well read and has a reserved but sharp eye. She receives the prize for her overall journalistic efforts, which correspond well with her own statements about good news analysis.

This is not the first time Inger Arenander has been recognized for her journalistic achievements. Twenty years ago, in 1988, she was awarded the Grand Prize for Journalism and she has received a couple of other awards since then. Nevertheless, she was surprised when the Söderberg Foundation contacted her to tell her the good news.
- "At first I didn't understand what it was all about. Then I thought someone was joking, as usual.

Had you heard of the prize before?
- No, I hadn't actually. But now I've done a bit of research and I understand that it's former prize winners and people from the universities who choose the winner, so you wonder who decided that I should get it.

What does an award like this mean?
- Of course, it's always nice to receive an award. It means that there are those who listen and think that what I do is good, so much so that I deserve an award. So of course it makes you happy. Otherwise it's a pretty unglamorous job. But fun.

The citation says, among other things, that you have received the award for living up to your own statements about good news analysis. What is good news analysis in your opinion?
- It's knowing what you're talking about, knowing the facts. If you take party politics for example, you first have to know what the parties involved stand for and why they think the way they do. You should know how they relate to each other and what they think their policies will lead to. The analysis should be based on knowledge and insight and presented in a factual and understandable way.

Having so much knowledge about an area must reasonably mean that you also have an opinion. How do you try to remain as impartial as possible?
- Yes, of course I have my own opinions, and it's impossible to be completely objective on any issue. But the more I learn, the harder it is to see everything in black and white, and it becomes easier to understand why people think the way they do. At the same time, it is inevitable that I make a selection based on what I think is important and know something about. It's not possible to be completely objective, but it is possible to be fair.

Should you still strive to be as objective as possible, or is it better to accept that it's not possible and be overtly subjective instead?
- It depends on what your choice is. It is actually fairer to be explicitly subjective, and you can be if you are an editorial writer or columnist, for example. But my role is not to think, but to be as factual as possible, to allow both sides to be heard, and not to pick and choose what doesn't fit.

Do you ever feel that you let your own opinions shine through too much?
- No, I don't go around thinking that no one will notice what I think. However, I can often feel that I should have made another phone call or that I should have found out more, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Things move so fast and you can't find out everything and read everything, no matter how much ambition you have. But I think about it a lot.

Is there much good journalism in Sweden today?
- Yes, I think so but, at the risk of sounding whiny, less and less. Really good journalism takes time. You have to read a lot yourself, talk to a lot of people, maybe digest the information for a while. It's a process that we don't always have time for today. Then there is less and less space. For example, I always know much more than I have time to say on air, but there is no time to include everything. And compared to when I started, there is less and less time. More and more often, journalists are summarizing what has been said, rather than letting people speak to the point themselves.

Do journalists take up more space now than they did before?
- Not generally, but there are clearly more people who have an analytical role, more people who write about what they think. And it can be interesting to read, but it's not as clear as it was when I started. But at the same time, the information is much more accessible now and you can actually read everything yourself instead, so it's a bit double.

Do you think this can be a difficult balancing act for the average media consumer?
- No, but I think fewer and fewer people will subscribe to a daily newspaper, and get that information from the internet instead. At the same time, I think there is a growing interest in specialty newspapers.

But it's not just the media environment that has changed since Inger began her journalism career over twenty years ago.The way the outside world deals with them has also evolved, not least in politics.
- "More and more often when you communicate with politicians, there is someone in between who wants to control the issues and the information. Politicians have advisors who have said what they think should be said and everything is much more controlled. Information is controlled in a different way. So in that way it has changed a lot. There is a whole new awareness of how things should be presented and the pace has increased. Every statement has to be answered with another one and once it starts, it moves very fast. There is also a trend for politicians to try to bypass the media and reach their voters directly, as is common in the US, for example. So there is a big difference.

Does this complicate your work?
- Yes, it does. I want to be able to talk directly to the source, not to some intermediary. You miss so much when you don't see the person and hear their word choice and phrasing. All the things that are said between the lines. Even if politicians are very good at just saying what they want to say, it still gives you extra information to talk to them directly.

There is often talk about information leaking out from different parties, but it often feels like the "leaks" are actually very deliberate. How do you handle the information you receive from the political parties?
- You have to use your judgment, and that's part of the rules of the game. Then you have to check, ask yourself why this information is coming right now? Is it correct or not? If it is, you have to ask yourself whether you want to help spread it, whether it is sufficiently interesting news. It is important to examine all information critically to determine whether it is relevant or not.

Inger can barely remember why she became a journalist anymore, but she doesn't seem to have regretted it. She has always enjoyed writing, she says, and speaks warmly of a varied profession that suits a curious soul. Working as a journalist also involves a lot of traveling, interesting meetings and constantly new challenges. And she likes challenges, especially when we get to the politicians she prefers to interview. They are not necessarily the ones who give the straightest answers or are the easiest to deal with. Favorites include Carl Bildt, Gudrun Schyman and Olof Palme.
- "It's fun to interview people who are quick and confident. You never know exactly what's going to happen or what they're going to say, so you can't really prepare, you have to be ready to go full throttle. It's a lot of fun.

It sounds like it could be quite a tough and difficult interview.
- Yes, but I don't see it as a contradiction. Carl Bildt is quite difficult to interview, but it's the fact that it's not predictable that makes it fun, that at any moment there could be a counterattack or something completely unexpected.

Are there any specific interviews that stand out if you look back?
- I've been doing this for a long time now, so it's hard to say anything specific. But the first interview with Olof Palme maybe, it was the first time I interviewed a prime minister and it was really cool of course.

What does it take to be a good journalist?
- Curiosity, that's most important. Then you can't be lazy either, but above all I think curiosity is important.

Do you have any journalistic role models?
- One that I enjoy reading is Maureen Dowd who writes for the New York Times. She's something of a favorite, because she writes so well. In general, I like to read journalists who write well and know a lot about what they write about, it's a good foundation. Then I worked for a long time here at Ekot with Thomas Hempel, before he left, and he was a kind of role model. He was incredibly knowledgeable, completely fearless and terribly childish. And curious. A good combination. So, Thomas Hempel I would say.

Thank you very much for your time and congratulations!
- Thank you very much.

Inger Arenander
Saturday interviews and election watches Inger Maria Arenander was born on May 24, 1955. Since 1984 she has worked at Swedish Radio. Previously, she also worked at Dagens Industri and the now defunct Stockholmstidningen. In 1988 she was awarded the Grand Journalist Prize together with her colleague Thomas Hempel for their party leader hearings. Inger Arenander has hosted Ekot's Saturday interview and Ekot's election watch (1994 and 2002). Since 2002 she has been a domestic political commentator on Ekot.