---
title: "Drugs, TV and faith [SIC] | Tuomas Enbuske | Negotiator 357"
summary: "Tuomas Enbuske goes through his memoir Enbuske Elämänkerta [SIC] (Docendo 2025) and its three sore points: bipolar disorder, the cocaine years of 2018-2019, and his move from atheism to Christianity. The episode runs from his sidekick years at Kiss FM through Farout to Enbuske Veitola & Salminen, and its sharpest passage is Enbuske's own argument for why cocaine is dangerous precisely because the first few times feel like nothing. Lithium and the HUS addiction clinic get the credit that the religious conversion does not: Enbuske specifically rejects the idea that he started believing because it was useful. Also covered: collecting art, an objection to the word Asperger, and the Maria Veitola pay dispute, about which Enbuske says plainly that he does not know the figures. The episode's subtitles are YouTube's automatic ones, so quotations are approximate."
datePublished: 2025-10-28
dateModified: 2025-10-28
originalLang: en
section: society
sections: ["society"]
authors: ["Sami Miettinen"]
tags: ["Negotiator","EP357","Sami Miettinen","Tuomas Enbuske","Memoir","Bipolar disorder","Substance use","Cocaine","Lithium","Media","Radio","Religion","Art","Neurodivergence"]
canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/ai/ep357-huumeet-tv-ja-usko-tuomas-enbuske/
---
# Drugs, TV and faith [SIC] | Tuomas Enbuske | Negotiator 357

# Drugs, TV and faith [SIC] | Tuomas Enbuske | Negotiator 357

> **Summary:**
> Tuomas Enbuske goes through his memoir *Enbuske Elämänkerta [SIC]* (Docendo 2025) and its three sore points: bipolar disorder, the cocaine years of 2018–2019, and his move from atheism to Christianity. The episode runs from his sidekick years at Kiss FM through Farout to Enbuske Veitola & Salminen, and its sharpest passage is Enbuske's own argument for why cocaine is dangerous precisely because the first few times feel like nothing. Lithium and the HUS addiction clinic get the credit that the religious conversion does not: Enbuske specifically rejects the idea that he started believing because it was useful.

## How to read this

**This is a book interview, not an independent biography.** The guest is promoting a book and sells it himself during the episode. All biographical material comes from the subject, and the episode contains no second source confirming or contradicting any of it. This article therefore reports *what Enbuske says* — not what has been independently verified.

**The subtitles are YouTube's automatic ones.** The episode's subtitle source is `youtube_auto_fi`, and it produces visible errors: personal names go wrong repeatedly and individual figures are hard to read. Names have been corrected here where the intended person is unambiguous, and uncertain points are flagged. Quotations are therefore **approximate** — faithful in substance, but not to be relied on word for word. Anyone quoting the episode should check against the video.

**Claims about third parties.** The episode discusses serious allegations about another public figure, made in Enbuske's own podcast with Panu Hörkkö. This article reports what was said in the episode and by whom; it takes no position on whether the allegations are true and does not present them as established. See section 4.

**What this article does.** It separates verifiable events from the subject's interpretations and keeps the passages where interviewer and guest do not converge. The health and substance sections report Enbuske's own account; the article gives no medical or health advice.

---

## 1. The title is a deliberate error

The book is called *Enbuske Elämänkerta [SIC]*. The Finnish word is misspelled — the correct form is *elämäkerta* — and the bracketed **[SIC]** is the notation a quoter uses to signal the error is not theirs.

Enbuske explains it himself: *"Sic means sic erat scriptum. It's Latin, and roughly it means: this is how it was written."* In a newspaper it is used when the person being quoted says or writes something incorrectly and the journalist wants to show the fault is not theirs.

Miettinen's reaction is the episode's first disagreement, and it is deliberately barbed: *"Its main purpose is for a journalist to show off and to belittle."* To show that the quoted rube *"doesn't even know how this word is spelled."*

Enbuske does not dispute this — he says he designed exactly that: **the title is marketing.** *"I wanted the title wrong like that, because it made people post pictures of it on social media: hey, look, these idiots have misspelled the title of this book."* The irritation is a feature of the product, not a side effect, and Miettinen admits he took the bait immediately.

## 2. The radio years: sidekick, and the one person

Enbuske moved from Oulu in 1997 to Laajasalo College, a Christian folk high school that was then a springboard into media. He lists alumni: Jenni Pääskysaari, Katja Ståhl, Jaana Pelkonen. His parents were disappointed, because he had done well at school — history and social studies especially — but did not want university. He wanted radio.

At Kiss FM he was a **sidekick** on the American model. Enbuske sets out the arrangement: there is a male and a female host, and the sidekick is *"the slightly odder one"*, while the lead is the **straight man** — the normal one against whom the other's craziness registers. His reference is *Frasier*, where the father is the straight man and the sons are the mad ones.

This produces the episode's most amused digression, **UST**, *unresolved sexual tension*: two characters with tension between them that is never resolved and never even named. Enbuske turns it into a wider observation about flirting: *"Whenever men are learning to flirt, they think flirting means starting to talk about sex, when flirting means precisely not talking about it."*

**The decisive person in his career is Henry "Henkka" Hyppönen.** Enbuske says it without qualification: *"Henkka Hyppönen is the most important person in my career, by a mile. I wouldn't be here without him."* Hyppönen was speaking at Laajasalo, Enbuske shyly asked for an internship, and got it.

The reasoning is more interesting than the anecdote. Hyppönen was, Enbuske says, the first person to see potential in him, and that worked because **clever people can tolerate different people around them**: *"Clever people's self-esteem can take it. Some people can't stand someone being better than them at something."* Better at what? *"At least I was a better freak."*

Hyppönen's broader contribution, in Enbuske's telling, is **how people talk on air**. Radio used to be delivered in an artificial announcer's voice; today's natural speech is, he says, Hyppönen's imported American influence, and it has since spread everywhere. *"Henkka made the second radio in Finland. He was doing 20 years earlier what everyone else is doing now."*

Miettinen states his own limitation honestly here: he spent 13 years in London during exactly Hyppönen's peak, so he knows him only from a later phase and has never seen him in the role Enbuske describes.

## 3. The radio stunt and the police interview

The best-known single incident is a Kiss FM segment themed *"what have you always wanted to do on live radio"*. On a slow news day, the show came up with a listener who wanted to have sex live on air. A couple turned up, looking through the programme for a third person, who arrived by taxi at Kaapelitehdas.

Enbuske stresses two things. First, **he was a bystander in this** — Hyppönen and Pääskysaari did the commentary, he barely any. Second, it happened in a closed studio space and could not be seen into. His own retrospective verdict is deflating: nobody thought it was exciting, *"it was more a case of, well, we couldn't think of anything else"* — rather like a tabloid's slow-news-day filler.

The consequences were nonetheless legal. According to Enbuske, **the media figure Ilkka Kylävaara filed a criminal report against him without having heard the programme.** The suspected offence related to violation of sexual decency. Enbuske was interviewed at a police station on the site of what is now the Hotel Lilla Roberts, and he remembers a detail that dates the era: the officer typed on an old-fashioned typewriter, even though the radio station had internet in 2000. The officer said himself that he had no choice but to do this. **No charges followed** — a decision not to prosecute arrived long afterwards.

Enbuske speaks of Kylävaara with unusual generosity: he met him later in other contexts, doubts he even remembered the case, and says *"peace to Ilkka's soul. He was a fine man."*

## 4. The Hirviniemi story — what was actually said

Enbuske makes a podcast with the paparazzo **Panu Hörkkö**, and its first episode published a story Hörkkö had, by Enbuske's account, spent over a year preparing. The subject was the actor Aku Hirviniemi.

The claim made in that podcast is that Hirviniemi systematically sent inappropriate messages and images to a number of women, and that these messages had references to cocaine in common. Enbuske stresses that material was **deliberately withheld**: *"We wanted everything to be provable beyond doubt"*, and the full extent was not reported, so that the result would be proportionate.

**This article takes no position on whether the allegations are true.** What is being reported is what Enbuske says his own podcast published; the episode contains no response from Hirviniemi and no independent confirmation. Enbuske himself separates the allegations from his assessment of the man's craft, calling him Finland's most talented actor and the successor to Pirkka-Pekka Petelius.

Enbuske's own interest is in the **reception**, not the revelation. He says he noticed that part of the left-leaning audience was uncomfortable that it was they who reported it — as though the fault lay with the reporter. He also claims Helsingin Sanomat had tips on the subject but did not pursue it. Miettinen puts the same point more sharply, contrasting supposedly more acceptable harassment by the sons of left-wing families with the shabbier right-wing variety.

This is **an allegation about media selectivity, not a demonstration of it.** The episode presents no evidence of what HS knew or when.

## 5. Television: Farout, 9/11 and the state of the money

Enbuske got into television by accident. In 2001 Saku Tuominen called to say they needed a new host for MTV3's Saturday night show, because one of those chosen had cut sponsorship deals in his own name and taken a car out of them. Enbuske was originally meant only to make reports for *Hyppönen Enbuske Experience*, but his rising status made him a host.

**Farout** was a Finnish format, not an import. The studio was dressed as an airport terminal and was, Enbuske says, expensive and well made — the title sequence was shot in an aircraft whose day rate he recalls as 30,000 markka. Contestants were sent around the world with cameras to make inserts out of difficult tasks, and the audience voted. It drew around 600,000 viewers, and he recalls it being sold to Norway.

It was killed by **11 September 2001.** Airport aesthetics went out of fashion overnight: *"Nobody wanted to watch a light Saturday-night entertainment show from airports, because pictures of airports made people anxious."*

Enbuske draws an unusually self-critical conclusion about the industry's economics. There were then two commercial channels and **too much money**, which is why shows were bought from people they would not be bought from today: *"I got into this business at the exact moment when anyone could. With utterly mediocre skills. And this isn't false modesty — I wouldn't get in today with those skills."* Today, he says, they would buy an American format, and it would be better.

Miettinen adds the related observation that the common culture has gone: television no longer matters the way it did when everyone watched the same two and a half channels.

## 6. The pay dispute — and what Enbuske actually says about it

*Enbuske Veitola & Salminen* ran from 2016 to 2018 and is, by Enbuske's reckoning, his most significant television work. His reasoning is interesting: current-affairs shows on Yle get praised, because *"people only watch clever programmes"*, but this one actually had more viewers.

On the public pay dispute that followed the show's end, Enbuske takes a position by **declining to take one**: *"I don't actually know what she earned, and I never asked."* He says explicitly that he will not discuss this programme, because he does not know the pay differences.

Instead he makes a general point that is the episode's most checkable financial argument: **public tax records do not tell you who earns most.** Whoever has the larger salary income tells you nothing about total income, because some people in the industry take payment as salary and others invoice through a company.

Miettinen extends the same point: invoicing with VAT and salary are not comparable figures, and he finds it incomprehensible that this is not taught. Enbuske agrees and goes further — people should also be taught *"how everyone should optimise it"*, because *"if an individual's finances are in order, it's a better society"*. He adds that it has not been easy for him personally.

**Enbuske speaks of Maria Veitola with pointed respect.** He calls her one of the most talented Finnish television makers and says he values her part in changing what kind of place the media is for a woman on screen. Watching old clips, he says, the framings of the early 2000s and the treatment of female artists now look appalling, even though at the time people thought themselves progressive.

## 7. Bipolar disorder and lithium

Enbuske was told in 2014 that he probably had bipolar disorder. He finds it odd that it was not investigated further at the time.

**2018 is a blank.** He remembers essentially nothing of the show's final stretch, and he separates this explicitly from substances: the memory gap also covers periods when he was at work and not under the influence, because that would have been noticeable. He describes being in a severe phase, close to psychotic.

**Lithium is the episode's clearest note of gratitude.** Enbuske says it saved his life and that he thanks it every night in prayer — *"because it works unbelievably well."*

The illness also frames his account of money: he has spent a great deal, but has also been capable of good moves in the other direction. The book, he says, does not much cover that side.

He corrects one common misconception directly: people with bipolar disorder are not all artists. It correlates, he says, with high educational attainment and mathematical thinking, and **there are many among engineers** — but in finance and engineering roles, nobody mentions it. This is Enbuske's own claim, not a research finding verified here.

## 8. Cocaine: dangerous precisely because it feels like nothing

This is the episode's strongest single argument and is worth reading as it stands.

Enbuske first tried cocaine in 2014 and says he tried very little then. The real years are **2018 and 2019**. A trip to the United States is part of the turning point, but he corrects the interviewer's assumption: the decline did not start there, it had begun earlier.

His observation about Helsinki's media, business and elite circles is that a belief circulates there that cocaine is not dangerous. His counter-argument is a mechanism:

> *"The most dangerous thing about cocaine is that if you do it a few times, it doesn't really feel like anything."*

That is exactly how it gets close. For someone with bipolar disorder it begins to **calm**, and through that it changes the personality, keeps you awake, and **triggers mania**. Enbuske's own summary is stripped down: cocaine is *"just bad alcohol"*, with heavy dependence and a high price attached.

He does not turn this into an absolutist position against other substances but **distinguishes the harms by type**, and this is the episode's most careful passage:

| Substance | The danger as Enbuske describes it |
|---|---|
| **Alcohol** | *"Indisputably the most dangerous drug of all."* Makes people argue and fight; central Helsinki on a Friday night is his evidence |
| **Cocaine** | Feels like nothing at first, changes the personality, triggers mania, expensive and strongly addictive |
| **Cannabis** | Slows people down and removes effort — *"it doesn't look for work, it doesn't do anything"* — but people on cannabis do not cause trouble |

He also rejects the case for psychedelics. Miettinen raises Sam Harris and the period when he would ask guests *"have you done the acid trip"*, and asks whether widening the emotional range is useful. Enbuske's answer is that cocaine is neither of those things — no mysticism, and no benefit.

Enbuske adds an observation that explains why he discusses the subject warily: if he starts working through it, it is immediately turned into a political weapon. *"Alcohol is also a drug. Cocaine is a drug. They're dangerous in slightly different ways, for slightly different people."*

**He also says he can spot use in others.** He claims to notice at galas and similar events who has taken something, and grounds it in behaviour — an addict tries to conceal everything to the last, like an alcoholic mother who gets the children to practice at exactly the right time. He limits the claim: he has never seen it in a television broadcast.

## 9. The doorbell

Recovery does not begin with an insight in this episode. It begins with **two people at the door.** Enbuske's neighbour, the journalist Sanna Ukkola, and a friend rang the doorbell and said: now we are going to treatment. And they went.

There is a coincidence in the Ukkola part that Enbuske relates with amusement: both are from Oulu and went to the same school. He was in year seven when she was in year nine, so he remembers her but assumes she does not remember him — *"what ninth-year remembers little seventh-year boys"*. They have since lived in the same stairwell for nearly ten years.

Treatment was at the **HUS addiction outpatient clinic**, and Enbuske speaks of it with gratitude and a caveat: *"I've had extremely good care in Finland, from HUS. I know not everyone gets it, but I did."* At the time of recording this was nearly six years earlier.

This matters for the article because of the sequence: **treatment came first, faith years later.** Enbuske says so explicitly, and it is his answer to the assumption that this was a crisis conversion.

## 10. From atheism to faith — and why the usefulness argument will not do

Enbuske's conversion is the episode's most extensively discussed subject, and it proceeds slowly rather than dramatically.

The starting point, he says, is a **lunch with Björn "Nalle" Wahlroos in 2012** that Wahlroos certainly does not remember. Wahlroos said he believed in *believing* — that Christian societies are the best ones. From there Enbuske's atheism began to recede, and faith arrived properly only in **2022–2023**, once he was well recovered from his illness.

He brings up Oskari Onninen's piece on the Christianity of young men, in which he is himself mentioned, and whose reading was that Enbuske started believing *because woke*. Miettinen offers the same frame by asking whether Enbuske is "Finland's Jordan Peterson".

**Enbuske rejects this flatly, and his counter-argument is the episode's sharpest:**

> *"How could I believe in something I don't believe in, however much benefit it might bring me?"*

He compares it to nobody starting to believe in gravity working backwards because it would be useful. This is not, then, a cultural choice but a claim that belief either is or is not.

Miettinen keeps up the pressure with Richard Dawkins, who has publicly described himself as a *cultural Christian* on comparative grounds: Christianity is a better option than some alternative. Enbuske will not go along with this. He also criticises the Peterson–Harris debates as tedious, and says he has read Harris's *The Moral Landscape* and disagrees with much of it, while liking Harris.

Asked directly whether he is a *genuine* Christian, he first answers no and leaves it open. Miettinen announces that he is granting him public absolution, and Enbuske responds with the concept of the priesthood of all believers.

**The episode does not resolve this.** It ends with the interviewer suspecting cultural Christianity and the guest rejecting the usefulness argument — two different claims that never quite meet.

## 11. Art: the one thing where status does not interest him

Enbuske has collected art for about 15 years and says his first purchases were, in hindsight, poor. He is not talking about investment but about how things look.

This produces the episode's finest piece of self-observation. Enbuske describes himself as *"an extremely status-driven person"* interested in all of that — **except in art**, where status does not interest him at all, only the art. He used to think it fed his irrational side, but that role has now been taken by religion. He concludes that *"a person clearly needs their irrational side"*.

The collection has Finnish and international work; Osmo Rauhala is named, whom Enbuske also knows from the Tyrvää church works with Kuutti Lavonen. One piece is a **pastiche**: Maurizio Cattelan's *Comedian*, a banana taped to a wall. Enbuske has his own version, frame included, and **the banana has to be changed weekly.** He stresses this is the only pastiche; the rest is genuine.

The authenticity discussion produces the best joke in the episode. Enbuske says his favourites are the moments when someone says of Kazimir Malevich's black square that *"I could have done that too"*. The reply: **so why didn't you?** *"Do it, and go and sell it over there. This is democratic."* Miettinen sums up: *"you managed to do what somebody else had already done."*

Miettinen in turn shows his own works, commissioned from Panu Ruotsalo, which render abstractly the four dimensions of negotiation — power, analytical thinking, sociability and principle. The frame of reference becomes a *Simpsons* episode in which the Pictionary word is *dignity*: the idea of abstract art is to try to conceptualise something that cannot be drawn.

Enbuske closes the section with his broadest claim: burial and ritual made us human, and art belongs to the same continuum — abstract thought serving something other than tomorrow's hunt. *"Tomorrow we go to the forest, the weather was beautiful, and it moved me."*

## 12. An objection to the word Asperger

Enbuske uses the Finnish expression *"kirjoilla"* — loosely, "on the books" — of himself and others, and explains why he avoids the word Asperger. It is, he says, **a way for an elite to set itself apart**: *"it's the way these elite autists say: I'm the clever sort of autist."* That is precisely why he says he hates the word.

The conceptual frame comes from Simon Baron-Cohen's *The Essential Difference*, which Enbuske says he has adopted in place of his earlier Kahneman frame. The book's distinction is between the **empathising and the systemising brain**.

From this follows the episode's bluntest life decision: *"I don't intend, for the rest of my life, to become closely acquainted with anyone other than the somehow neurodivergent."* He adds that he gets on exceptionally well with people whose bipolar disorder is being treated.

## 13. Suomen nostatus, and why a paywall has to carry extra content

Enbuske makes the podcast *Suomen nostatus* with Otto Juote and says it is his dearest work, because it is where he gets to be most himself.

There is an unusually concrete detail in the business model. The podcast is paid and, Enbuske says, expensive. *(The transcript gives the price as €49.96 a month, but the automatic subtitles are not reliable at this point.)* The important part is the **legal reason** Enbuske gives: the National Police Board's lotteries administration screens out unlawful fundraising campaigns, and money may not be collected without something in return. The payment therefore has to buy genuine **additional content** — not merely support.

Enbuske says subscribers nonetheless partly subscribe as support, and describes audience feedback that is not *"yes, great podcast"* but detailed analysis: *"then some Asperger sends a bloody good analysis of how you're completely wrong about this drug-policy thing."*

He also defends entertainment against the status hierarchy: *"Entertainment is the hardest thing to make. Making Seiska is much harder than making Suomen Kuvalehti."*

The episode's structural joke runs around this: the first 50 minutes are the *"social democrat episode"*, after which the show moves to the paid Sisäpiiri — a pastiche of the clock-watching in *Suomen nostatus*. Miettinen notes the cliché is wearing thin and presents a clock as the solution.

## 14. What the episode did not settle

For the sake of honesty, these remain open:

1. **Whether the faith is "genuine" or cultural Christianity.** Miettinen keeps suspecting, Enbuske keeps rejecting the usefulness argument. These are not the same question, and the episode never fully separates them.
2. **Media selectivity.** The claim that HS left the Hirviniemi story alone because of its connections is not demonstrated. The episode presents no evidence for it.
3. **The pay dispute.** Enbuske says plainly that he does not know the figures, so the episode does not establish what anyone earned. Its contribution is the general point about salary versus invoicing.
4. **The bipolar correlations.** The claim that bipolar disorder correlates with mathematical thinking and Asperger's, and is common among engineers, is made without a source.
5. **How widespread cocaine use is in elite circles.** Enbuske's observation is experiential, not measured.

## Points of clarification

- **The error in the book's title is deliberate.** The correct Finnish form is *elämäkerta*; the cover reads *Elämänkerta [SIC]*. This article uses the book's own spelling only for the book's title.
- **[SIC]** abbreviates the Latin *sic erat scriptum*, "thus it was written".
- **UST** (*unresolved sexual tension*) is a screenwriting term, not a psychological diagnosis.
- **Names have been corrected from the automatic subtitles** where the intended person is unambiguous. The subtitles repeatedly misspell Maria Veitola and Björn Wahlroos, among others. One friend mentioned in the episode is left unnamed here, because the subtitles give no reliable form of the name.
- **The order of treatment and faith.** Enbuske stresses separately that the conversion did not happen in the middle of a crisis: it was HUS that helped him there. Faith came years later.
- **Claims concerning a third party** are reported here as Enbuske's account, not as verified. The episode contains no response from the person concerned.
- **The book is the first part of a memoir.** Enbuske and Miettinen refer to this at the end; it is also available as an audiobook read by Enbuske himself.

## Episode outline

- **00:00** — The background and meaning of the [SIC] in the title
- **01:04** — The deliberate misspelling as marketing, and the social media reaction
- **01:22** — The hosts' relationship and the early Kiss FM years
- **02:00** — The sidekick role, the straight man setup and the Frasier example
- **02:37** — Sexual tension on radio; UST between Hyppönen and Pääskysaari
- **03:28** — The subtlety of flirting, and speculation about the third wheel
- **03:46** — Hyppönen's decisive role at the start of Enbuske's career
- **04:18** — Laajasalo College, using difference, and the media springboard
- **05:13** — Hyppönen's influence in bringing natural speech to radio
- **05:34** — The group sex case and the absurdity of the police interview
- **06:38** — Taking responsibility, and a digression on journalists' accountability
- **07:19** — The "do anything on radio" segment and the limits of live broadcast
- **08:34** — Ilkka Kylävaara's criminal report and the aftermath
- **09:04** — Laajasalo alumni and the college's role in media careers
- **10:17** — The ambition to become a priest, and what studying would require
- **10:43** — The Paparazzi Hörkkö podcast and the Hirviniemi story
- **12:13** — Public reception and the claim of a media double standard
- **13:49** — The evolution of TV formats and reflections on his own career
- **15:10** — The MTV3 host vacancy, Saku Tuominen and 2000s media
- **16:03** — Too much money, and the disappearance of domestic formats
- **17:24** — Farout's international sale and the impact of 9/11 on the airport theme
- **19:17** — Daily routines, hygiene and keeping life in order
- **20:29** — Enbuske Veitola & Salminen, the pay discussion and the onset of illness
- **22:16** — Maria Veitola's influence and gender roles in media
- **23:07** — Invoicing, salary, taxation and the absence of financial education
- **24:27** — Mania, overspending, saving, and the saving role of lithium
- **25:53** — The cocaine period, the US trip and the dangers of dependence
- **28:20** — Drug effects, bipolar disorder and the claimed correlations
- **30:15** — Psychedelics, Sam Harris and the moral landscape discussion
- **30:58** — Alcohol and cannabis as dangerous in different ways
- **33:22** — Drunk personalities, factory settings and the loss of control
- **34:12** — Simon Baron-Cohen's models and neurodivergence
- **35:34** — The Hullun paperit series and Jouko Piho's predictions
- **36:36** — Suomen nostatus, the payment model and audience analyses
- **38:23** — Sabering champagne and ironic upper-class humour
- **39:02** — Art, Osmo Rauhala and the irrational side
- **41:16** — Faking it, Cattelan's banana and authenticity in art
- **42:31** — How art makes us human
- **43:16** — Faith beginning with the Wahlroos conversation, and atheism receding
- **45:00** — Help from a neighbour, Sanna Ukkola, and entering treatment
- **46:21** — The authenticity of faith, Dawkins softening and the Peterson comparison
- **48:19** — Podcasts as the new columns, and the high–low dynamic
- **49:06** — The social democrat minute sketch and the ironic clock innovation
- **49:46** — Memoir part one and the audiobook release

---

## Episode details

**Episode:** Drugs, TV and faith [SIC] | Tuomas Enbuske | Negotiator 357
**Published:** 28 October 2025
**Duration:** 50:22
**Guest:** Tuomas Enbuske
**Interviewer:** Sami Miettinen
**Book:** *Enbuske Elämänkerta [SIC]*, Docendo 2025
**Subtitle source:** YouTube automatic Finnish subtitles — quotations are approximate