yle.fi

Hae yle.fi:stä

A-tuubi

A-tuubi

BULLETIN

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen and the Centre Party’s parliamentary group have demanded from YLE more specific information concerning the allegations made in YLE TV2’s programme Silminnäkijä (Eye Witness) on Monday 28 September 2009. The programme dealt with the activity of the centre-oriented youth housing foundation Nuorisosäätiö. The Centre Party has demanded further details to ensure public interest and to guarantee legal protection to the Prime Minister.

As we have said, the programme represented normal investigative journalism on a topical subject. The broadcasting time – early autumn – had been fixed in spring. At that time it was not known that the debate on campaign funding would lead to a number of new disclosures or that the Government would issue a report on the matter. The date of the Government report was only revealed when the broadcasting date had been fixed. For reasons of political expediency we cannot withhold or postpone programmes taking into account the stage of decision making at any given time.

Source protection is a cornerstone of free press. It allows the media to disclose socially important information when the source, for any reason, cannot speak in public. In Western society, citizens should be free to tell the media about socially significant matters even namelessly. The duty of the media is to assess the reliability of the source. This has been done even in this case. YLE Current Affairs trusts the source.

The purpose of source protection is to back up one of the main responsibilities of free press, which is to monitor the doings of those in power. Free press, independent of economic or political pressure, is a prerequisite for democracy.

In certain situations, the right to source protection can be broken in legal proceedings. The media cannot be pressed to abandon the source’s right to protection.

When a journalist comes across socially important material, the significance and reliability of the information will be assessed, and the media must then be free to publicize it. Failing to do so, we would help undermine our own independence. Right to the protection of source is an essential tool for journalists. To dull the tool just because the matter has to do with the top of the political elite, is not possible. And the timing cannot be affected by outsiders.

We have been asked and demanded, in the name of public interest, to reveal what kind of building supplies are in question. After reconsideration, without breaking the source’s right to protection we can give the following additional details:

It was high-quality specially planed timber, not a lot of unbarked birch, as has been referred to. The price of the lot was significant, beyond the supervisor’s authorization to accept deliveries. The construction company’s supervisor was in charge of several sites at the same time, including responsibility for some material purchases. The bill – accepted by the supervisor and forwarded for payment – was returned by the accounts ledger clerk. The bill should be accepted by someone at a higher level. At this stage the destination of the goods was revealed, and the bill was then approved at a higher level.

The destination of the goods was other than that specified in the bill. The approval of a bill which failed to comply with the real course of events is something that would put the persons involved into a difficult situation. Few citizens, after so many years, would expose themselves and risk their careers in this type of issue, which of course has required social courage.

Finally we would continue to stress that the main purpose of the programme was not to tell about the lot of timber. The main purpose was to open up the mechanism by which houses have been built. This was a detail of the issue, but of course socially significant. It would be easier for everyone not to need reporting on disagreeable issues. But then this would not be a free democracy.

30 September 2009

Jyrki Richt
Head of YLE Current Affairs
YLE