Criticism of SVT after attention-grabbing scenes in Married at First Sight XL

The second episode of "Married at First Sight XL" has already been raged a lot, and rightly so, where the newlywed Urban explains to his wife Olivia that it is haram for the woman he has a relationship with to even think about another man, and that he cannot accept that married people have friends of the opposite sex with whom they spend time together. "Sorry, but how the hell can this be public service television entertainment?" thundered Malin Ullgren here at DN Kultur, and there are many of us who are upset and wondering the same thing.

It can be argued that the positive side effect of SVT showing what it can sound like when a man leans back and pushes a woman down second by second, is that for a week we talked about destructive relationships and controlling partners.

Sure, it's good to make visible what exists but is treated as if it's invisible, but it's still unacceptable to let this unpleasant dinner scene go on and pass without being directly or closely related to it being problematized by the program's psychologists and relationship experts for what it is: A display of the kind of social control and restriction of private life space that, according to any basic course in relationship violence, can be defined as psychological violence.

The biggest problem is thus not Urban's views, but SVT's cynical and unethical use of dramaturgy and editing techniques.

The biggest problem is thus not Urban's views, but SVT's cynical and unethical use of dramaturgy and editing techniques. But "GVFÖ" is not fiction where in one scene you can egg the viewer with an exciting cliffhanger before the next episode - real relationships are taking place here that are witnessed by a large audience.

Then it is an ethical problem that one of the marriages looks like it is already at risk of developing into a destructive one.

Then it is a problem that SVT is so lax about one of the professional ethical rules for journalists, that of "Showing special consideration towards unfamiliar interviewees." What consideration and what responsibility is shown to unaccustomed television participants?

The episode has given rise to 70 reports to the Review Board, but SVT takes the criticism in stride. Linn Svalö, executive producer at SVT, writes in an email to Expressen "that an opinion may be expressed does not mean that SVT shares or normalizes it." Well, I would say - to some extent it means that it is normalized when there is no action on what is said or done. And I wonder if it can happen because it is about the relationship between men and women. Could the production team have left the same dinner scene uncommented by the experts in four episodes about any views other than sexist, say racist?

It is excellent that Anna Bennich, one of the experts in the program, in TV4's "Nyhetsmorgon" last Saturday expressed criticism against Urban's statement, but above all against her own client SVT, which portrays the dynamic between the couple and in the specific dinner situation as psychological violence: "And then to wait until episode six when we comment on this issue in general, I think that is problematic," she notes. I think it is also sensationalist and undignified, both towards the couples and experts who are on the programme. and those who watch it.