In this essay I compare four newspapers´coverage of the Geijer Case in 1977 and the Littorin Case in 2010. The newspapers are Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter, Expressen and Svenska Dagbladet. The study is a comparative quantitative content analysis. According to Swedish media research, the Swedish media system changed - on several levels - in the years between the two political scandals. The printing press was commercialized as well as depoliticized. The profession of journalism was further professionalized which liberated the journalist. Politics adapted to the media and journalistic writing changed; media researchers tend to claim that certain so-called media logic narrative techniques took root during this time in political newspaper writing. These techniques are applied in order to reduce the amount of information and to attract readers´ attention. Media researchers have claimed that the techniques are predominately applied in today´s political writing. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether the press coverage of the two scandals verify this claim. In other words, if the coverage of the latter affair to a higher extent is shaped by media logic story telling. In the essay I ask if the narrative techniques intensification and personalization/stereotypization are more often manifested in the coverage of the latter affair. If it proves to be the case, I intend to explain why from the results of my content analysis. Aided by a questionnaire borrowed from a media researcher, I have analysed 58 articles from the four aforementioned newspapers. The vast majority of the articles are editorial ones. Regarding the narrative technique intensification, the results are consistent: intensification is more frequently applied during the latter affair. Regarding the inter-related, thus fused, techniques personalization and stereotypization, however, the analysed coverage of the latter affair do not always show that the techniques are comparatively more frequently applied. As for the majority of the indicators where the latter affair has been established as decidedly more intensified and personalized, I have arrived at the conclusion that the differences depend chiefly on the nature of the scandals (its prerequisites and courses of events) and the main characters (their actions, crisis management and contributions to personalization).

Denna studie undersöker mediers rapportering kring två svenska politiska skandaler. Den första skandalen, Geijeraffären, inträffade 1977 och den andra, Miljöpartiets skandaler, inträffade 2016. Studien kommer granska artiklar, både ledarartiklar och nyhetsartiklar, från tidningarna Aftonbladet och Dagens Nyheter. Studiens syfte är att undersöka om hur medier skriver om politiska skandaler och att undersöka om mediers rapportering har ändrats över tid och på vilket sätt det i så fall har förändrats. Studiens tillvägagångssätt är att med hjälp av en kvalitativ innehållsanalys fånga upp textens latenta och manifesta budskap, och metoden används för att se likheter och skillnader. De teoretiska ramverk som används är gestaltningsteorin och dagordningsteorin, studien hamnar under forskningsfälten politisk kommunikation och politiska skandaler. I resultatet går det att se många likheter i rapporteringen mellan de två åren, men från resultatet har det återfunnits fler skillnader än likheter. Den största skillnaden som uppmärksammats är angående hur politikerna under 1977 lyckades tysta ner medierna och förflytta skulden från sig själva till media, vilket är något som inte gick att se 2016. En annan skillnad som går att läsa utifrån resultatet är att politikern från skandalen 2016 fick avgå, medan en liknande konsekvens aldrig inträffade under 1977. En likhet i resultatet från de båda åren är att skandalerna förstoras med hjälp av negativa ord, dessutom blir de anklagade politikerna gestaltade på ett negativt sätt och de framställs som dåliga. Rapporteringen är genomgående kritisk och granskande under båda åren. / This study strives to see media’s reporting on two Swedish political scandals. The first scandal, the Geijer affair, occurred in 1977 and the second, Miljöpartiet’s crisis, occurred in 2016. The study will examine articles, both editorial articles and news articles, from the newspapers Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter. The study aims to examine how media writes about political scandals and it also strives to examine if media´s reporting has changed over time and if so, how it has changed. The study uses a qualitative content analysis as an approach in order to capture the texts latent and manifest message, and the method is used in order to see similarities and differences. The theoretical frameworks that is used for the study is framing and agenda setting, the study falls under the research fields of political communication and political scandals. In the result there are a lot of similarities regarding the reporting from the two years. However, more differences than similarieties have been found in the result. The main difference was the fact that during 1977 the politicians managed to silence the media and they were able to transfer the blame from themselves and put in on the media instead, which was not possible in 2016. Another difference that can be read from the result is that the politician from the scandal in 2016 had to resign, a similar consequence did not occur in 1977. One similaritie between the two years was how media magnifies the scandals using negative words, furthermore the accused politicans are illustrated in a negative way and portrayed as bad people. The reporting is consistently critical and scrutinizing during both years.