Media|According to the journalist’s instructions, the journalist cannot publish information about his conversations freely, even when their confidentiality has not been specifically agreed upon.
Iltalehten corresponding editor-in-chief Perttu Kauppinen has not been read by the paper’s political editor Lauri Nurmen ex-prime minister’s shocking news book from Sanna Marin (sd). In Kauppinen’s opinion, it should be remembered that even at Iltalehti it is self-evident to everyone that source protection is adhered to, that does not mean that all conversations journalists have in their work are matters behind source protection.
There was a discussion about the matter when Marin messaged on Wednesday after the contents of the book became public that he had not been asked for permission to quote private conversations or given the opportunity to check the quotes, as is normal journalistic practice.
“My understanding is that when Nurmi had these conversations, he didn’t have these kinds of confidential, separately agreed ‘this is just background’ conversations, but he talked to these people in a different way.”
So he hasn’t specifically said that this is a background conversation?
“Yes”, specifically.
According to the journalist’s instructions, the interviewee has the right to know whether the conversation is intended to be published or only as background material and in what context his statement is used. Based on this instruction, a journalist cannot publish information about their conversations freely, even when their confidentiality has not been specifically agreed upon.
Background discussions are not reported as such. The information obtained in the background discussion can be reported if it is obtained from elsewhere or if the reporting is agreed with the person.
Marin also said in his message that based on the news, the book contains incorrect interpretations and false information about him and what he said. Also the president Sauli Niinistö and was prime minister before Marini Antti Rinne (sd) have denied the information in the book.
”
“It is a difficult situation if the author of the book could not later refer to the situations he has been in.”
Turf according to Marin has told him these things specifically so that Nurmi could someday tell about them as part of the history writing.
“I write down the direct quotes during the call and decide that I would tell about Marini’s criticism of the president if I were to write a book about him or the events after his prime ministership and Sauli Niinistö’s presidential term had ended,” Nurmi writes in the book.
Editor-in-chief Kauppinen cannot accurately answer whether Nurmi had the conversations in the book as Iltalehti’s editor.
“Without a doubt, Nurmi has had these discussions when he was Iltalehti’s editor. In that sense, maybe it doesn’t matter whether he was on our talk show when he got this information or when he was spending his free time with politicians. Yes, the journalist’s social role is always on. For example, the prime minister would hardly discuss such matters with him if he were not the editor of this magazine,” Kauppinen says.
According to Kauppinen, from the perspective of the journalist’s instructions, one can consider whether in this case the interviewee’s right to know in which context his statements will be used has been fulfilled.
“On the other hand, if you think about the book project and the writing of history, it’s a bit awkward if the author of the book couldn’t later refer to the situations he’s been in. In that sense, this uproar goes a bit to the side.”
Kauppinen says that he knew that Nurmi was making a book about Marin, but he says that he has not interfered with the content of the book in any way and did not read it beforehand.
“Nurmi has written quite a few books and does them outside of working hours, so it’s not up to the employer” what he writes in them.
In Kauppinen’s opinion, it is worth noting in the dispute that Marin refuses to specifically identify what incorrect information the book could possibly contain.
“In my opinion, in general, whenever mistakes cannot be identified”, it is perhaps worth approaching the controversy with reservations.
”
“I can’t really know what has been agreed between these people.”
Politics president of the journalists’ association Robert Sundman does not recognize that there are some other conversations with the interviewee or, for example, a politician than those that are intended to be published and those that are intended as background or background material.
“This distribution is also done by the journalist’s instructions. It specifically talks about the fact that the interviewee has the right to know in advance which conversation it is about. Of course, I recognize that in this profession there are a lot of all kinds of discussions between politicians and journalists all the time, but then it would be good to be clear to both”, from which starting points the discussion takes place.
On the other hand, Sundman is also of the opinion that even the journalist has the right to say if he does not want to speak in the background, but wants to comment by name in certain situations.
“However, I think it’s a two-person deal. The problem here is that I really can’t know what has been agreed between these people. That’s what bothers me about this whole conversation in general. As such, it is difficult to comment on this from the outside.”
There has also been talk about whether background discussions can be set to have an expiration date, after which they will be open, i.e. now that Marin is no longer prime minister and Niinistö is no longer the sitting president.
“I don’t recognize that this could be done unilaterally or that such a practice exists in Finland.”