YLE censors Muhammed-cartoons documentary
State owned and operated broadcasting company YLE is censoring the documentary “Bloody Cartoons” (click to watch the trailer), which “analyses the controversy surrounding the publication of caricatures depicting the prophet Muhammad by a Danish newspaper”, Jyllands-Posten…
UPDATE: They changed their minds, TV2 is showing it next Tuesday at 23.00.
The film is part of the world’s largest international documentary project called Why Democracy? In October this year, more than 300 million people around the world will have access to ten documentaries concerning democracy. About 40 TV companies are involved in the project.
Only nine of the films are to be aired by YLE. The decision to shelve Bloody Cartoons is exceptional: even the Al-Arabiya,the second-most popular TV channel in the Middle East, will air the film on November 11th.
Kjær says that in Britain, the BBC pondered whether or not to allow shots showing the controversial cartoons during the airing of the documentary. The BBC decided to show the cartoons, even though it would not do so while the controversy itself was raging.
“Because of our recent history it would have been very important for Finns to see the documentary”, Kjær says, in a reference to Finland’s political balancing act as a neighbour of the Soviet Union, and the self-censorship that occurred in the postwar period.
[...]In the film, Kjær travels around the Middle East showing the controversial cartoons to religious leaders, and to those who took part in the anti-Danish demonstrations that they sparked. It turns out that most of the leaders angered by the cartoons had never actually seen them before.
The idea of the documentary is for Muslims to analyse the pictures themselves. He also meets with people at the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the cartoons.
Wow, “Al-Arabiya” has stronger beliefs in freedom of speech than YLE! How sad. Yet another reason why you shouldn’t pay your TV license fees.
Some 26,000 households in Finland have cancelled their TV licences in response to the switch-over to the digital age. This corresponds to a five million euro loss for the Finnish Broadcasting Company, YLE.
This is ridiculous I agree, Yleisradio should show it uncensored.
However, again, Yle is not “state operated”
I think the whole management of the change to digital tv has been problematic, not just Yle’s fault in this one (but they didn’t help much either). The fact that there are areas in the north that completely lost tv-signals and that the extra repeater transmitters still are not in place in some so called “shadow” areas must be very frustrating for those that live there.
Comment by JG — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
This reminds me:
MAMBO MOHAMMAD
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Yle is not “state operatedâ€Â
C’mon, they get their money from the state, they’re on the payroll. It’s supervised by an Administrative Council appointed by Parliament. The CEO is basically a political position.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
YLE decided to show the documentary after all.
Comment by m — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
When will ‘Sharia’ become ‘The State Law’ in Finland?
Seems it’s not so far…
Comment by Sandun — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
YLE decided to show the documentary after all.
Thanks for the info, m!
Comment by Phil — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
“Because of our recent history it would have been very important for Finns to see the documentaryâ€Â, Kjær says, in a reference to Finland’s political balancing act as a neighbour of the Soviet Union, and the self-censorship that occurred in the postwar period.”
Arrogant piece of shit. What friggin obligation do we have to show some crappy Danish “documentary”.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
#7 Yeah, I agree, that’s right.
Hey Tim, how’s the welfare over there in the evil capitalist US of A? Can you get me some more info on it as I’m planning to go there and work a few hours a week at Wal-Mart and supplement this income with welfare. You seemed to know a lot about ths but forgot to answer last time. Any help now buddy?
Comment by Punter — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
#! JG, how can you say YLE is not State operated? Really, explain it to me please. I see it in much the same way as Phil describes so I would like to be enlightened has to how it’s not State operated.
Comment by Punter — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
So you see YLE in the same way as Phil describes, eh? How has he described it besides in the most general, knowledge-lacking, sophomoric way?
I suppose you realize showing this documentary could result in YLE being bombed by some fanatical maniac out there — then your digiTV would really go black for a while.
Could you live without the idiot box for a year or two, fellows? I hear all your whingeing about the bad transition from analog to digital (which was due to many factors, one of them obviously financial)… So would you applaud an increase in TV license fees to build the bomb-proof wall that needs to be built around the compound in Pasila?
Do you fuckheads remember what those fucking fanatics did when the cartoons were published? Why wouldn’t they be hesitant?
Comment by Dave the Revelator — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
PS: “Phil the Anarchist” has admitted years ago that he pays his TV license regularly and always has done.
Comment by Dave the Revelator — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Settle down Dave. I am just interested to know how JG sees YLE as something other than “State operated.” I didn’t mention anything about whether or not to show the doc as I am not 100% sure of my own opinion yet. Freedom of speech is one thing but at times we may have to be discreet as to how we use it in practice. For exampöe, walking through the streets of Tel Aviv dressed as a Nazi stormtrooper yelling out Nazi slogans may well be within a broad scope of “freedom of speech” however I doubt very much that many of us would support such actions.
You raise a good point but take your easy pills man. I still want to know how YLE is something other than The States bitch
Comment by Punter — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
PS: “Phil the Anarchist†has admitted years ago that he pays his TV license regularly and always has done.
My girlfriend pays it. If I ever checked the mail, I’d throw the bill in the trash.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
“YLE decided to show the documentary after all.”
Good, Freedom of the press is a basic right of modern Civilization.
Comment by Rick — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
There is a difference between state-operated and controlled broadcasters and public service broadcasters, which operate under editorial independence. State operated and controlled broadcasters operate as essentially government departments or under editorial control of their government (e.g. the Chinese or Russian state tv stations). It is wrong to associate public service broadcasting with these.
Yleisradio is like many other European broadcasters such as the BBC, SVT, SR, NRK, DR, ARD etc etc, in that it is a public service broadcaster with operational independence from the government. The government does not tell Yle which editorial decisions to make or what the programmes it shows should be about. Therefore to say it is state operated is simply wrong and misleading.
Incidentally, whilst we are having a media moment, has anyone noticed that Uusi Suomi is back from today as a web-newspaper… a blast from the past! http://www.uusisuomi.fi
Comment by JG — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
The government does not tell Yle which editorial decisions to make or what the programmes it shows should be about. Therefore to say it is state operated is simply wrong and misleading.
It’s just as wrong and misleading to say that they’re completely independent. The parliament appoints an “Administrative Council” to “supervise”.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Oct 10th, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
If you want to read a bit more about comics and censorship in Finland, maybe you can find interesting to take a look at our past interview with Ville Ranta:
http://www.freemagazine.fi/content/view/146/124/
Comment by Antonio — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 12:04 am
“It’s just as wrong and misleading to say that they’re completely independent.”
It could be argued that no media is completely independent. Privately owned media have their advertisers to consider.
Comment by aet75 — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 12:07 am
The government does not tell Yle which editorial decisions to make or what the programmes it shows should be about. Therefore to say it is state operated is simply wrong and misleading.
…
It’s just as wrong and misleading to say that they’re completely independent. The parliament appoints an “Administrative Council†to “superviseâ€Â
Parliament is not the government. The Administrative Council has no involvement in day to day running of Yle. It is there to oversee that Yle maintains its public service goals under its law of establishment (i.e. to be impartial, serve both the language groups, ensure the company sticks to its budget etc). Yle is operationally independent of the government. No one from the government, parliament, or indeed from the Administrative Council is setting the agenda for the evening Tv-uutiset for instance, just as no one from the British government is deciding what the BBC does editorially. It is not a state-operated broadcaster. Examples of these are the sorts of companies like Channel 1 in Russia, where someone in the Russian government’s propaganda unit ensures the evening news is “presenting the right image” (i.e. ignoring the opposition).
Aet75 also makes a very valid point in comment nr 18, public service broadcasters are free from commercial patronage. They don’t need to ensure that their programmes don’t offend their source of income, their advertisers. This actually enables them to be freer from a potential source of self-censorship.
Now, just because Yle is a public service broadcaster does not make it infallible. I completely disagree with its earlier decision on this documentary and I am glad they have reconsidered and will broadcast it. It is certainly a very controversial subject which clearly provokes an emotional response from many in the Islamic world. With that in mind, one wonders whether a commercial broadcaster would be even less likely to show it. Perhaps any companies operating in the Islamic world that would fear a boycott would not be paying for advertising during such a programme.
Comment by JG — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 1:00 am
I have kind of mixed feelings. Yle doesn’t want to show socialistic propaganda. Obviously, there is the first time for everything!
Comment by muu — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 1:14 am
#10
lol… Calm down, have some dip.
Comment by gopha — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 1:18 am
but but they are the religion of P E A C E
ok, scarsasm flag off.
But come on, why give in so easily? Some Human Shields to protect?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Finland is a totalitarian country. Freedom of speech is not obtained free. If Finns want freedom, they have to have courages to stand up and say “no!”.
Comment by european — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 1:26 am
courage to say “no”
when you support thugs and killers with a Human Shield deployment to Lebanon?
Me thinks they already said “yes”. Loud and clear to Iran, and oil.
No, Finns are not free, and really they don’t care.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 2:43 am
Interesting comments in both #18 and #19 and they raise a big question as well as show he differences between Finland and other societies. Why do you consider a commercial network would be more likely to “Favour it’s sponsers” (their advertisers), the source of it’s income than a state channel “favouring it’s sponsers” the government and state sysytem. Is it because the evil capitalist companies are never to be trusted? They will use their wealth to manipulate the minds of their viewers for greater profits at all costs. A state would never try that now would it? Surely not?
I find it an interesting comparison in light of a comment made by a “Miss” here yesterday under a different topic whereby it was claimed Finns don’t trust their government and question it often while those of us “on the other side” blindly trust ours at all times. I believe this idea can firmly be put to rest when considering European State Media and that found in other places.
Comment by Punter — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Go aet75!
Well I too believe that commercial network in some puritan area where showing a breast will launch mass-escape of advertisers = money from the channel would be even more tied than a public service broadcaster in Finland.
I hate that let’s compare -card few guys here always pulls up, put you know whitch puritan area I was thinking. :p
Comment by issi — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Punter, those parliamentary watchdogs (like YLE:s “Administrative Council”) found in countries employing a public broadcaster have a political agenda. That is to ensure a neutral, middle-of-the-road editorial line in regards to the various political groups making up that country’s parliament. I think this sort of political oversight was a sort of sine qua non for ensuring that all parties can accept what, some decades previously, was a effective electric media monopoly.
This comparative neutrality is, at the same time both a blessing and a curse. It can keep the media climate from slipping into such blatant partisanship as seen in some other countries, but it also means that no swift changes happen in the way different issues are handled.
This means, of course, that the editorial line of the YLE will closely resemble that of the average views of the parties. To a foreigner coming from a decidedly more right-wing media climate (ie. the US or Australia) it will seem to be slanted towards the left. But every single television company and news agency has its own special sort of editorial bias, and in comparison with, say, different privately owned media giants the European public broadcasters are not the worst by far.
Comment by Drakon — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
@24,
Of course a commercial network would have to follow a line that did not upset its sponsors, anything else would be stupid, and could possibly get them sued (the management have a responsibility to the shareholders and if they drive away sponsors or advertisers and lose revenue, they’ve not done their job). But in a small country where everything is very much connected to everything else, a public network is not going to rock the boat either. Any interests big enough will get treated with due respect by all major media.
Comment by prince of dorkness — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Hurray, we surrender to Sharia law even before hoards of Muslim immigrants try to enforce their societal “values” on this country.
Comment by bafana — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
28-You’re a dick
Comment by Punter — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
@24: Punter, you’re jumping your guns there. I wasn’t actually making any qualitative comparison between state-sponsored and privately owned media. Just pointed out a fact.
And Bafana, you can stop foaming at the mouth now, they’re going to show the fucking document. But it’s nice to see you treasure the newcomers so (hoards?).
Comment by aet75 — Thu, Oct 11th, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
question
i have heard that in 80-100 years the predominant religion in Finland will be no other than Islam!
Can you please confirm this issue?
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Oct 13th, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
i have heard that in 80-100 years the predominant religion in Finland will be no other than Islam!
Even if the few thousand Muslim immigrants breed like rabbits, there are 10 Laestadian families for each Islamic one. So, unless Muslim men are going to take several wives and concubines and REALLY start spreading their seed, Finland is going to stay Lutheran for the foreseeable future. Sorry, doomsday prophets.
Of course, when you have 100 kids, the issue is also how you find the time to indoctrinate all of them.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Oct 22nd, 2007 @ 10:50 pm