No news is good news? Making the Finnish public image of Russia
Abstract
Finland and the Russian Federation share significant overlaps in history. With the exception of a couple of conflicts, the relationship between the two is commonly described as friendly. With a common border of more than 1,300 km, Finland has always been closely tied to its eastern neighbor. Despite the physical proximity, the Cold War era closure of the border increased the mental distance between the two sides, and fostered an image of the other colored largely by attitudinal stereotypes. For a long time, the tightly secured border was deemed as a necessary construction, which allowed cross-border flows and influence to be managed and filtered. The resulting ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality etched in the minds of many has proven to be far more deeply rooted and harder to erase than the political border per se. In an attempt to trace the development of the portrayed image of Russia, this article analyzes the opinion columns featured in the main Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat during 1990–2010. The analysis suggests that little effort has been made to improve the popular geopolitical image of Russia. While understanding the potential of having Russia as a neighbor, many Finns continue to actively reconfirm the elements in the neighbor, which should be let go in order move beyond stereotypes. This tendency is only reinforced by the load of the language used, which seems to inhibit people from critically evaluating the opinions and views that they hold.
The Finnish Freedom of Speech: An Illusion?
As Finland experienced a long and complex history of “oppression” by Russia, it is interesting to explore whether the history is reflected in the way journalists shape the existing ideology and image of Russia. According to the literature the Finnish history of “domination” by Russia and the former Soviet Union, is reflected in the existing journalistic content on Russia. Moreover, over the last five years Finland holds the number one position worldwide on the Press Freedom Index this in contrast to Russia, who is ranking 148th on index. This was different during the Soviet Union era when Finland exerted self-censorship. Considering the history of self-censorship, it is interesting to explore to what extent Finnish journalists are able to maintain their high level of freedom regarding the coverage on Russia. Accordingly, the aim of this research is to examine how journalists position themselves in reference to Russia. In order to examine this, the following main research question was designed: What is the position of Finnish journalists when it comes to reporting on Russia? In exploring the research question, a qualitative interview study was conducted among 18 Finnish journalists from 12 different newspapers that are based in Helsinki. Although Finland has the freest media environment worldwide and Finnish journalists claim to feel free in writing about Russia, the findings of the research show that in some way they are restricted in their reporting on Russia. It appears that Finnish journalists do approach Russian sources in a different way than they approach sources from other countries. They approach the Russian sources more carefully. This is reflected in their writing on Russia. Finnish journalists feel they carry an extra load when writing about Russia. Some journalists even choose to write anonymously to guarantee their privacy to prevent themselves from becoming a victim of the Russia cyber-war (i.e. Russian troll attacks) or the restrictions (i.e. being denied to get a Russian visa). The journalists feel they take a risk by reporting on Russia, as they can become victims of the Russian restrictions. Nevertheless, the cyber-war does not stop Finnish journalists from writing critically about Russia.
Continents of Liberty: Emerson and Gerald Vizenor’s Chair of Tears
Ralph Waldo Emerson protested what came to be known as the Trail of Tears in a public letter to President Martin Van Buren in 1838. Th e Cherokee Nation, he argued, had been cheated by a “sham treaty” (Emerson, “Letter” 50), the will of the people ignored, and a false acquiescence to removal written into law. In making a passionate appeal to the highest “chair” of the land, Emerson underscored the great political and moral stakes involved: