In her blog, journalist and non-fiction writer Kristiina Markkanen calls for Finland to play a stronger role in global journalistic solidarity efforts.
Journalists nearly choked on their morning coffee a couple of weeks ago when Laura Saarikoski, Executive Director of the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation, reported on social media that Finland ranks only 19th in a new index measuring press freedom.
The issue was also discussed on the editorial page of Helsingin Sanomat. There were a few other reactions as well.
We have grown accustomed to the idea that Finland is a model country for freedom of speech. In the annual index published by Reporters Without Borders, we were most recently ranked fifth.
At the end of October during the International Press Institute’s 75th anniversary celebrations, a brand-new index, The International Media Freedom Support Index was unveiled. The index measures how countries promote freedom of speech beyond their own borders.
Do we speak out in favor of freedom of speech in international forums? Do we issue emergency visas to journalists who are forced to flee their home countries? And how much money do we spend on promoting freedom of speech globally?
Finland ranked 19th in these areas. – Not very flattering.
The introduction of this index is highly commendable. It seems only natural that if we support freedom of speech and protect journalists at home, we should also take responsibility on a global scale.
But since the results were surprising, especially for Finland, I asked the authors of the study about the data they had used. The research behind the IMFS was conducted by British researchers from the university of East Anglia and City St. Georges's, University of London.
The data was obtained from the OECD’s DAC statistics, which record, among other things, the official funds allocated by member countries to development cooperation, known as ODA funds. The entries are made by area of responsibility, and the countries themselves are responsible for how they report their activities.
In Finland, organizations categorize their activities by sector in their annual reports, and these sectors can be “just about anything.” I received comments like this from representatives of various organizations when I brought up the issue. DAC entries have not necessarily been very precise, and it is sometimes difficult to decide under which category to classify the expenses of projects that include many different activities.
Martin Scott, Professor of Media and Global Development at the University of East Anglia, who led the project, told me that the industries included in the IMFS index were 15153 Media & Free Flow of Information and 22030 Radio/television/print media.
By analyzing these figures, researchers found that in 2023 and 2024, Finland spent over 1.1 million euros on safeguarding media freedom around the world—an amount that was more than 500% higher than what Finland had pledged to spend. It was reported that Finland is working to promote freedom of speech in countries such as Somalia and Mozambique.
It seemed like the information wasn't quite correct.
Vikes, for example, is engaged in freedom of speech work in Somalia, but also in many other countries; it currently allocates a large portion of its budget of just under two million euros to promoting freedom of speech, particularly in Central America, Tanzania, and Uganda. We support an independent film school in military-ruled Myanmar and also work with journalists with immigrant and refugee backgrounds in Finland.
In other words, much of our own work did not seem to be reflected in the IMFS statistics.
When I looked into our own statistics, I found that the DAC codes used by Vikes included, among others, code 15170, which stands for “Women’s Rights Organizations.” Our “Women in the Media” project in East Africa was categorized not under media projects, but under support for women’s organizations. Some of our projects were reported under the general code 99810, which does not specify any particular sector.
There are surely other similar errors in the statistics of other organizations and countries as well.
I was unable to determine the reason for the 500 percent increase in funding, but it is quite clear that this is some kind of statistical anomaly. The matter requires further investigation.
The amoiunt spent by Finland —whether it’s plus or minus a million or something along those lines—pales in comparison to international figures. For example, according to the index, Sweden supports African rural radio stations with 50 million. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia excel in the protection of refugee journalists.
Still, I wouldn’t get hung up on money or how we fared compared to our neighbors; rather, I would look at how we fared in relation to ourselves, to the work we believe in, and which we have believed we do well.
It should be noted that spending was just one category in which we scored (remarkably) low. We also did not fare much better in terms of how we discuss freedom of speech around the world. Freedom of speech does not play a significant role in our international diplomacy. – That certainly needs to change!
Vikes is a solidarity foundation for journalists. Solidarity means journalists working together and supporting one another. That is why Vikes has already begun collaborating with our partners—other advocates for freedom of speech—in Finland.
We need action, not just words. Three points!
Finland must establish an emergency visa to enable the protection of journalists.
Finland must develop a program to support the reception and integration of human rights activists and refugee journalists.
Finland must defend freedom of speech more vigorously on the global stage.
Kristiina Markkanen
The author is a journalist and non-fiction writer who works as a global education specialist at Vikes.
