Ilja Janitskin – crisis of Finnish journalism or crisis created by Finnish journalism?

Arrest warrant for Ilja is issued. Ilja must be arrested. Ilja must be discussed.

Who Ilja? Everyone knows. Everyone who? Everyone actual.

Why? Has Ilja significance in society? If yes, why?

Who has given Ilja his significance – audience or Ilja’s endless, loudly speaking enemies in the big media?

(header PIC: screenshot from Finnish Facebook group “Close the borders!”
headline: “Refugees think tolerant trots are whor*s” – MV-MAGAZINE)

The contest, the course and the topic of public discussion are still, at the time of new media, defined mostly by elite journalists working under big commercial media houses. Officially recognized “real journalists”, awarded by their employer troupe are telling us which media to trust and which not. Especially the tag Janitskin’s MV-magazine – at times arena for serious overreactions –  created has been useful tool for representatives of finnish big media to discredit all alternative (news) media collecting and sharing information independently as “lie media”. Who has given  to commercial media houses’ star journalists the power to create the public meaning of what is “reliable” information and what’s not?

When investigating the motive is recommendable to start where the profit lies. If pondering the only interesting social aspect of Ilja – motives of his actions – we need to ask who has benefitted most of his actions. So called “immigration critics” whose public demonstrations at last weeks has shown their power of twenty at some town square sides? Rather comes to one’s mind that pro-EU/NATO “unerring front of decent people” leaded by big media and public figures from famed authors to politicians from both sides of opposition line. They are here to judge Ilja Janitskin and his supporters and they demand more available means for public authorities to quell any  “extremism” in Finland.

Main image-building theme of this “decent front” is anti-racism – easy way to swell the front with people who really believe, or want others to believe, that this way they work for solidarity. Standardizing anti-racism as main stream trend has furthered the division of Finnish people to “Ilja’s racists” and “tolerant EUropeans”. Divide et impera, and the media attention stays out of TTIP and CETA free exploitation deals and their effects to finnish agriculture or cracking friendship between U.S. and Saudi-Arabia. Thus, exploding oil price in the western near future.

The situation springs some funnily paradoxical phenomena like when youth from true finns – governing party connected with neo-nazism – working (distributing promotional whistles) actively in grand anti-racist demo. Elsewhere our secretary of defense Jussi Niinistö recently defined hiphop artist Paleface as “extremist” as he had publicly said white Mannerheim was war criminal. In our society, right now, journalist elite is propagating not only political agendas but more rights for officials to suppress freedom of speech by labeling anything as “extremism”.

Missed the paradox? Our “watchdogs” have positioned to support policymakers to suppress basic rights of a citizen if (s)he happens to be.. – let’s say for instance student who speaks against EU (fan of Ilja so “extreme right”) and NATO (fan of Putin so fan of Ilja so “extreme right” again) and supports overriding the power of present S(o)S government and the president, whom have sold their land, water and souls (clearly anarchist so “violent extremist threat”).

How long before our haughty government with support of “the decent front” decides to ban symbols of activist group Anonymous, who honors no national laws and so is easily labelled as “extremism”? How long before they ban Wikileaks’ material? Snowden’s face? Existence of Anonymous and many other counter flow movements created and swelled by new media is almost totally dependant of distribution (sharing) of information and symbolics. Prohibition like now promoted is probably one of the most wet dreams our elite dreams – at least additional resources for internet police were found immediately.

When considering what sort of agendas and parties behind those have benefitted most of actions of Ilja Janitskin, it’s justifiable to ask: Is the normalised narrative of Ilja as opportunistic info warrior of East propagating Fixit really that convincing? Are Ilja’s bonus checks written in rubles or dollars? Is Ilja nothing more than “useful idiot” for real power players to use and a lucky beanstalk for Finnish elite journalism?

Oletko joutunut Naton trolliarmeijan uhriksi? Kerro kokemuksesi.

Vastaukset otsikon kysymykseen olisivat yhtä yllätyksettömiä kuin kysyttäessä Suomen uutistoimittajilta, toteutuuko objektiivisuuden ihanne heidän ammattikentällään.

Otsikon kysymystä ei tulla näkemään Ylen sivuilla. Yle ei myöskään tule uutisoimaan, miten Yhdysvaltain presidentti edistää uusliberalistista talouskolonialismia Lännen keskuspankkihegemoniaa vastustaviin päämiehiin kohdistetuin verisin interventioin sekä kansalaisoikeuksia ja ympäristöä uhkaavien vapaakauppasopimuksien avulla. Tällainen uutisointi olisi suorastaan pöyristyttävää.

Venäjän presidenttiä on suomalaisessakin mediassa käsitelty milloin despoottina, milloin karhunratsastajana ja milloin koko Euroopan valtaamista suunnittelevana emperoorina – eikä kukaan pöyristy. Ylen nettisivuilta löytyi aikoinaan otsikon mukainen kysely Venäjän trolliarmeijan uhreista. Tällaisesta journalismista pöyristyneet leimattiin nopeasti MV-lehden sivuhaaraksi, foliohatuiksi ja väkivaltaisiksi valehtelijoiksi – heitä voi tirkistellä edelleen ironisesti nimetyssä Facebook-ryhmässä “Venäjän trolliarmeija”.

Mitä hyötyä on vallan vahtikoirista, jos ne uskaltavat haistella ja haukkua vain Idän vallanpitäjiä? Kuka piru näitä meidän omia vatuloitsijoita ruotisi? Kuka tutkiva journalisti paljastaisi Nato-trollit? Lieneekö kukaan niin sinisilmäinen, että kuvittelisi Venäjän olevan maailman ainoa suurvalta, joka käyttää uutta mediaa propagandansa levittämiseen – tai kuten trendikkäästi nykyisin ilmaistaan: käy infosotaa.