Indeed, when the anti-NATO perspective was set out, for example, in articles on 24, 25 and 27 April Erkki Tuomioja, Anna Kontula and Hassan Kaafi Halane the condition of each article was a lack of support or criticism from the person’s point of view. To the alleged opposition of the Somali community, they added the condition that such communities be exposed to major conspiracy theories. Such negative conditions were not proven in NATO-positive articles.
About 7% of the articles reported increased military spending, and this does not include the purchase of military aircraft from the United States. Another interesting feature was the surveys conducted by Yle or corporate-sponsored groups that seek to show popular support for NATO membership. The objectivity of both is called into question.
Yle also said that one of its own journalists was behind another citizens’ initiative calling for NATO membership. Yle’s mandate, I understand, was impartiality in reporting and not influencing in creating your own news agenda?
Emotions at stake at the University of Helsinki: Media authority and public trust (2019-2020) research showed that Finnish media had a greater influence on political decisions and opinions. Given that, according to the University of Oxford and the Reuters Institute, Finns trust the media more than any other nation, it is worth raising questions about the impartiality and professionalism of reporting today.
But why doesn’t this happen? Could it be professors Lehtonen and Sajaavara pointed out in his landmark article – Silent Finn that this is a national feature. Why is there a lack of critical awareness of the consequences of NATO membership? Perhaps Yle’s simplified evidence confirms the basic principles of Klein’s shock doctrine and the influence of hidden parties? What is happening with the relentless and accelerated pursuit of NATO membership certainly includes all the hallmarks of intrigue-inspired intrigue. The sharp documentary 2005’s “Our Brand is Crisis,” which looked at the impact on another country’s domestic politics, may provide clues. The hint is in the title.
Irving Janis promoted the concept of “group thinking”, in which a group of people will submit to the need to follow a consensus, leading to inactive decisions. If the cultural features of Finnish silent communication are taken into account, the possibility of false stability leading to cataclysmic consequences increases. This is happening in Ukraine.
I have been comforted in the UK by having a team of investigative journalists out there who are demanding an accountant. Indeed, citizens are proud to ask questions that sometimes come up as personalities of chaos. But maybe democracy is chaotic or at least it should be.
But asking questions from Finnish decision-makers is a health warning. I remember in the TEKERI union, which was formed years ago, foreign teachers were fired because they dared to question leadership in the private and public education sectors. It still happens and you ask questions, you become a “disruptor”. Sipilägate comes to mind.
For those journalists who want to think outside the box, you may want to ask: Why is Ukraine still paying its debts to Western banks, even though it is at war? Where have the votes of the Finnish opposition been given such a paradigmatic change in foreign policy? Does this level of observance and submission indicate the functioning of democracy or a lack of democracy? Why do Finns pray for Western commandments when, for more than 70 years, they have successfully created their own internationally acclaimed prehistory?
There is a template for doing Yle and it is the BBC. It used to be seen as a model for journalistic honesty and professionalism, but now it is despised by the great British because of its London-centric agenda and lack of balanced reporting. It is only a matter of time before they lose public finances and their suppliers have to face market realities. However, Yle is protected by direct taxation and feels impermeable to unwanted changes. That’s what the BBC believed. The only saving thing for Yle is that by default, the audience goes to consensus on group thinking instead of critical awareness. But when group thinking prevails, it destroys the organization or society it infects… sooner or later.
Factor: Graham Wood
Graham Wood has been a lecturer at the University of Helsinki for more than thirty years. He earned an Executive MBA from Aalto and a PhD from the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, where he studied conflict and collective violence. He is also a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK.
This is the “View” column. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The Helsinki Times. This column has not been revised, and HT is not responsible for any inaccurate or misleading statements in this article.
Source: The Nordic Page