Nordic neighbors in pandemic crisis: the communication battle between Sweden and Norway

Abstract

This essay is focusing how the strategic communication about the COVID-19 pandemic created tensions between Sweden and Norway, nations that from an outside view are very much alike when it comes to political, economic and cultural aspects. Both countries, together with Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, belong to the Nordic region, with a common history, plenty of collaboration forms and high levels of trade exchange, as well as a common high level of trust in society and governments. In the essay secondary data (news media content and national statistics) is used to describe and analyze how the communication battle between Norway and Sweden developed. It is concluded that it is possible to see the handling of the pandemic, and the strategic communication about this, as part of a grand and negative narrative about Sweden's societal development since the 1990s. Sweden has in some aspects become a negative international projection surface for many countries. From a public diplomacy approach the pandemic led to constant international comparisons, providing states both risks and opportunities. Drawing comparisons between states risks alienating certain publics, opens one to attacks from other countries and may harm a nation’s image.

Untitled

“…In essence, this study transcends mere observation; it offers empirical insights into the complex landscape of diplomatic communication (Ayhan & Sevin, 2022;Bjola, 2021;Falkheimer & Raknes, 2021). It is a significant stride forward in understanding, harnessing, and improving leadership communication during times of crisis.…”

“…The rise of social media platforms, including Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram, has expanded the reach of mass communication, resulting in greater internationalization and convergence in the social, political, economic, and cultural spheres (Scacco & Coe, 2016;Scacco et al, 2018;Tulis, 2017). This digital transformation has significant implications for public diplomacy and how leaders communicate with domestic and international audiences (Bjola, 2021;Falkheimer, 2021;Pamment et al, 2023;Papanikos, 2022).…”

The multiple construction of place of Songzhuang Art District in Beijing from the perspective of media geography

“…地方体验， 并生产出特定的地方感 [11,13,[17][18][19][20][21] 。而无论 媒介对地方的表征是被创造、 被完善还是被颠覆的 地理知识， 都会反过来影响人对现实世界的感知、 参与和行动。例如， Falkheimer [22] 认为媒介中地方 品牌化超越了旅游经济本身， 使地方品牌成为吸引 企业和居民的磁铁； Domosh [23] 甚至直接表明 "在地 方和它们的想象之间没有必然的因果关系" ； 在线 社交网站、 旅游博客和流行媒体也会改变旅行者感 知、 适应和再现地点的方式 [24] 。 国内地理学者在实证研究上比较不同媒介行 动者对同一地方的表征， 体现出媒介在地方建构上 的多元性与矛盾性。例如： 尹铎等 [25] 发现外媒将鄂 尔多斯康巴什新区描绘成 "鬼城" 和不健康的居住 空间， 但地方政府将其重新塑造为休闲、 自在、 具有 良好生态环境的 "家" 与地方； 蔡晓梅等 [26] 指出， 丽 江旅游地是一个被建构起来的意象， 《丽江欢迎你》 的旅游宣传片提供了不同于西方和国内媒体的 "我 者" 视角， 重塑了丽江的 "自我" 形象； 安宁等 [27] 针对 广州报业对广州非裔社区的话语表征研究表明媒 介对地方的建构具有时间上的演变性和空间上的 多尺度性。安宁等 [28] 以东方主义为理论基础， 说明 美国 《时代》 杂志对中国消极的地理想象反映了西 方的话语霸权和政治意图； 而中国网络媒体对 "东 突暴恐" 事件的文本表征背后则是政府利用媒体作 为宣传工具以及将媒体与受众同时视为地理知识的 生产场所， 以合法化 "反恐" 的政策与活动 [29] 。纪录片 中的食物景观对地方社会记忆的表征和塑造 [30] 、 电影 中空间文化与景观符号对地方的营造 [31] 也受到国 内学者的关注。另外， 国内传播学者也进行了很多 有借鉴价值的相关实证研究， 并且他们超前于国内 地理学者的地方在于向短视频等当下流行的新型 电子媒介投入了大量关注的目光， 并且将日益革新 的媒介技术本身的特征也纳入到媒介地方性生产 机制的探讨之中。短视频使任何空间都有被分享 和连接的可能性， 其表征的虚拟空间具有分散化、 碎片化和流动性特征， 与现实空间共同构成了生产 地方感的异质性空间 [32] ， 与真实地方形成了互相补 充的 "媒介地方" [2] 。短视频中的身份表达、 地方认 同、 数字地方感和城市刻板印象的再生产也是国内 传播学者的热点研究内容 [33][34][35][36] [39] 。国家和地方政府 利用政策、 规划等权威话语和在媒介传播领域的优 势地位生产出一种关于宋庄的强大的地理想象， 并 将其服务于宋庄的地方形象塑造和发展战略转型。 3.1.1 合法化： 从地方画家村到 "中国宋庄" 亚当斯 [11] 从建构主义的角度指出： "一个在今 间中的数字可见性(digital visibility) [43][44] 。 "意义地 来的大型展览" [46] 。陈晓峰 [47]…”

Norwegian Rural Vigilantism during COVID-19: Self-Protection against a Perceived Urban Threat

“…People commonly reside in primary homes in urban areas while owning secondary homes -vacation homes, holiday houses or cabins -in rural areas. Socially distancing at rural, private properties was a valuable asset for preventing a rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus at the start of the pandemic, along with other preexisting conditions of the Norwegian welfare state, such as universal health coverage (Saunes et al 2021); frequent governmental crisis communication and strategic diplomacy (Falkheimer and Raknes, 2022); track-and-trace systems for measuring social distancing (Sandvik, 2020), and access to medical equipment and capacities for testing, treatment and isolation (Baniamin et al, 2020). The measures were not found to affect the overall "high trust" in authorities to any notable degree (Helsingen et al 2020).…”