In Finland, as in many other states, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a fundamental and human right and part of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (UN, Article 19)
In particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reinforces respecting the freedom and pluralism of media as part of freedom of expression. Press freedom refers to all journalistic activities. In Finland, press freedom is strengthened by the principle of openness of government activities, according to which the authorities’ information is generally public, and the authorities also have an obligation to communicate about matters in their field.
Freedom of expression does not only mean that we can speak freely, but also that we can receive information and opinions without preventive censorship – that is, without anyone preventing us in advance. Free access to information is one of the basic pillars of democracy.
Democracy means that societal decision-making, the management of our common affairs, is transparent and people can evaluate it, even critically. It is also about timing: the processes related to decision-making must be communicated before decisions are made. This gives citizens a genuine opportunity to have an impact on them.
Finland and the other Nordic countries have traditionally been at the forefront of both democratic development and press freedom. Nordic media systems have even been described as media welfare states: citizens have good media literacy and digital skills, news is actively followed regardless of educational background, we have independent national media, and legislation is based on equality in citizens’ communications-related rights.
However, Finland is not without problems either. The role of social media as a news source is also strengthening in relation to traditional media, the power of global platforms is growing and the differentiation and polarisation of media consumption is increasing.
Harassment of journalists is becoming more common: there are cases where crime reports have been made intentionally to harass journalists or they have been targeted on social media. Harassment is a threat to press freedom because it can lead to self-censorship. Journalists should be able to talk about any topic, and interviewees should not be afraid to express their views.
Here, too, the authorities have classified documents in advance, even though the publicity of documents should be the starting point and there should be good grounds for classifying them. We, too, have political influencers who question the role of journalism as one of the institutions protecting democracy. Some of them only communicate directly with their supporters on their own social media and online service accounts. In this way, they are changing the Finnish culture of political publicity: journalists are not given the opportunity to ask specific questions or criticise them.
Journalism monitors the realisation of the separation of powers
Separation of powers into three branches is a key principle of the rule of law. This means that legislative power, executive power and judicial power must be in different hands so that the same people do not hold too much power.
Journalism is called the “fourth estate” based on this separation of powers: the task of journalism in a democracy is to monitor that the separation of powers is realised and to report any abuses to the people. Journalists see their task as acting as a “watchdog” that monitors the words and actions of decision-makers and other wielders of power, makes financial power visible, and reveals any corruption and other grievances when observing them.
A certain tension in the relationship between journalists and the powers that be is healthy. Too close a relationship between journalism and holders of power leads, at worst, to a distorted image of reality among citizens.
Traditionally, the entanglement of state media and political power has been seen as a threat to press freedom and pluralistic journalism. Extreme examples of this are Russian state-owned TV channels.
In the United States, on the other hand, during Trump’s first term, the commercial news channel Fox News and its owner Rubert Murdoch were exceptionally close to the president and his staff. At the same time, Trump was openly hostile to other major news channels, such as MSNBC and, in particular, CNN.
However, journalism is only one channel to reach people. Social media platforms have also played a key role in the interaction between Donald Trump and his supporters, for example. The administration of President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines used social media as a means to distort and manipulate the public’s perception of reality. Nobel Peace Prize laureate journalist Maria Ressa and her news platform Rappler, have been able to prove with their journalism that Duterte had a network of fake and real Facebook accounts that shared disinformation in a coordinated way. Due to her work, Ressa faces serious harassment every day, ranging from fake crime reports to death threats.
In traditional media, journalists, of course, also use their own power by choosing what and how they report and perhaps what they do not report. Journalists watch holders of power, and the public watches journalists. Both need trust to operate. According to the annual Digital News Report by the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute, Finns still trust news and consider journalism important for democracy more than others. However, increasing differentiation in trust depending on political orientation can be seen in Finland as well. In general, trust does not deteriorate, but it becomes differentiated.
Researchers are also concerned that more and more people, especially young people, are saying that they avoid news. Digital News Report calls this phenomenon News Avoidance. According to the study, it seems that news avoidance is not so much about distrust in the news media as it is about people often perceiving news as gloomy, depressing and overloading. This challenge has been taken seriously by editorial teams, and various constructive journalism projects, for example, also emphasise the importance of increasing the coverage of solutions and successes for the public.
“Alternatives” to democracy: dictatorship and authoritarianism
Democracies are open societies. Decision-making is open and citizens are free to evaluate it, even critically. Evaluation requires people to freely receive information about decisions and the processes that led to them to support their views, decisions and choices, and that the use of power becomes visible. This applies to both formal and informal use of power. For example, when a public figure raises issues that they consider important, they use informal power. For example, a celebrity can talk about preventing bullying or a sustainable lifestyle, in which case the audience who listens to them can also end up thinking about their consumption choices. Journalists also try to make visible the structures behind informal use of power, such as a social media influencer’s possible financial ties.
Journalists must bear responsibility for transparency and honesty, while officials must respect the independence of the media. If critical, pluralistic and free media disappear from the country, democracy and the rule of law are also at risk. No wonder that dictators and authoritarian leaders make journalists’ work more difficult.
Democracy literally means the power of the people: it is derived from the Greek words Demos, which means people, and Kratos, which means power. In a dictatorship and an authoritarian state, the people’s fundamental rights are restricted and power is held by a single person or group. In authoritarian countries, press freedom is severely restricted and the work of independent journalists is hampered. In dictatorships, journalists are imprisoned and even murdered for their work. Other means in the “playbook” used by authoritarian leaders include the dissemination of disinformation, the demolition of the separation of powers, and targeting minorities.
According to the EIU Democracy Index, only 45 per cent of the world’s population lives in a democracy, 39 per cent under authoritarian rule, and 15 per cent in “hybrid regimes” such as Hungary, which is sliding increasingly close to authoritarianism, even autocracy, one electoral term after another. The index is based on 60 indicators, which are divided into five groups: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties.
In international democracy comparisons, the United States fell into the category of flawed democracies already years ago. The country’s form of government has begun to be assessed as a plutocracy, meaning a system in which the wealthiest people have the most power. This is reflected, for example, in the multi-million budgets required for election campaigns, which can bind decision-makers to the interests of their funders.
Democracy can accommodate different views
In democracy, people are heard and made heard. Not everyone needs to agree. On the contrary: sometimes joint decisions require even a fierce social debate. Journalism’s task is to promote this. Journalists highlight different perspectives on the same facts. Even the same facts can be interpreted differently and lead to different views. Not all perspectives can be featured in a single article or news item at once. Diversity comes from the whole. A debate is a good thing: in the best case, you can understand what kinds of experiences have given rise to the other person’s view, even if you think differently.
Threats to democracy include social polarisation and hate speech, which reduce public debate and trust in institutions that support democracy, such as journalism. The flood of information and the enormous impact of social media platforms challenge democracy. False claims or misleading content move at a tremendous speed. This means that all users of the media must take greater responsibility for evaluating and disseminating information.