--- title: "YLE on the left, social media on the right | Jarkko Tontti, Heikki Pursiainen | Negotiator 376" summary: "A media analysis episode in which Heikki Pursiainen presents his informal count of the political distribution of Yle's external columnists and Jarkko Tontti places the finding in a wider frame. The two halves mirror each other: first the claim that legacy media leans left, then Sitra's report on a right-wing skew in social media and a methodological critique of it. The connecting question is gatekeeping power — what difference it makes whether the choice is made by an editor or by an algorithm. The closing section covers Yle's 570 million euro budget and public-good theory." datePublished: 2026-03-16 dateModified: 2026-03-16 originalLang: en section: society sections: ["society","economy"] authors: ["Sami Miettinen"] tags: ["Neuvottelija","EP376","Sami Miettinen","Jarkko Tontti","Heikki Pursiainen","Media","Yle","Journalismi","Sitra","Sananvapaus","Algoritmit","Julkishyödyke"] canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/ai/ep376-yle-vasemmalla-some-oikealla-tontti-pursiainen/ --- # YLE on the left, social media on the right | Jarkko Tontti, Heikki Pursiainen | Negotiator 376 # YLE on the left, social media on the right | Jarkko Tontti, Heikki Pursiainen | Negotiator 376 > **Summary:** > A media analysis episode in which **Heikki Pursiainen** presents his informal count of the > political distribution of Yle's external columnists, and **Jarkko Tontti** places the > finding in a wider frame. > > The two halves mirror each other: first the claim that **legacy media leans left**, then > **Sitra's report on a right-wing skew in social media** and a methodological critique of it. > The connecting question is **gatekeeping power** — what difference it makes whether the > choice is made by an editor or by an algorithm. --- ## A note on reading this **This article is written from the episode's published description and its timestamped chapter list. There is no transcript**, so it quotes nobody and attributes no particular wording to either guest. Two caveats worth stating plainly: - **The episode is of one mind, and all three speakers sit on the same side.** Pursiainen's background is at **Libera**, which the episode itself mentions; Tontti is a regular guest on this channel's liberal-right subjects; the host is an investment banker. **This is not a debate** but three angles on the same observation. This article does not try to balance it artificially, but it does mark the points where the argument presented also turns back on the people presenting it. - **The central material is homemade.** Pursiainen's count is called in the episode an **informal analysis**, and its limitations are discussed there. That matters: this is an observation, not peer-reviewed research. --- ## 1. The count, and what it measures The starting point is Pursiainen's count of **Yle's external columnists** — not Yle's own journalists but the people Yle invites to write. The result, as presented in the episode: the **left is over-represented**, particularly in economic journalism. The choice of external columnists is a good measurement target precisely because it is an **editorial decision with no news criterion attached**. The choice of a news subject can always be justified by events; the choice of a columnist cannot. It is therefore a cleaner measure of an editorial taste than news coverage is. The episode also goes through the **limitations and caveats**: classification is a matter of interpretation, the sample is bounded, and an individual writer's politics cannot be inferred from a single text. That is an important point — the value of the count is that it makes the debate empirical, not that it proves anything conclusively. Tontti's image for it in the episode is **the emperor's new clothes**: the observation is obvious to many, but saying it out loud has been expensive. --- ## 2. Where a skew would come from The episode offers three explanations, and they are not mutually exclusive. **The recruitment pool.** Journalists and expert columnists come out of universities, and university staff are known to lean left politically. The episode attaches the term **the long march through the institutions** to this. It is a structural explanation that requires no conscious choice by anyone. **Competence.** The sharpest and most contestable section concerns the **level of expertise in Finnish economic journalism**. The example used is **the nature of dividends** and why dividends are paid at all — a basic question in economics that, on the criticism presented in the episode, is repeatedly handled wrongly in the media. This explanation is a different thing from political bias: a misunderstanding is not a position. **Format.** The **friendly interview as a news format** is named as a problem. It is an observation that applies equally to everyone — podcasts included, and therefore to this episode. Comparative material is sought abroad: the episode covers **German and Swedish research on journalists' party preferences** and asks directly whether **party preference can say anything about a journalist's quality**. The question is a fair one, and the episode leaves it open. --- ## 3. The other half: Sitra and the right-wing skew in social media The structural merit of the episode is that it does not stop at the first finding. The second half takes up **Sitra's report on a right-wing skew in social media** and assesses its methodology. The criticism has two parts. First, **methodological weaknesses** — what exactly was measured and against what. Second, that the report, on the episode's account, conflates two different phenomena: **the Romanian elections and Russian information warfare**. A foreign state buying influence and a platform whose algorithm rewards sharpness are different problems and call for different answers. From this comes the episode's central argument, the **double standard**: if a choice made by an algorithm is bias, then a choice made by an editor is bias too — and vice versa. Both are gatekeeping. The difference is that an algorithm's bias is measurable and an editorial bias is interpretable, which makes the latter easier to deny. In fairness, the same double-standard argument applies to the episode's own setup: the material in the first half is an informal count, and the target of the second half is an official report assessed to a strict methodological standard. --- ## 4. Yle's special position, 570 million and public-good theory The closing half moves from bias to structure, and this is where the episode is strongest, because the figures are checkable. **Yle's budget in the episode is 570 million euros and its headcount around 2,500.** The argument is not that the money is misspent but what an operator of that size does to the competitive position of everyone else. The episode illustrates this with a **barbershop analogy**: a tax-funded operator and a private one in the same market are not competing on the same terms. The counter-question is put properly: **public-good theory and the grounds for Yle's existence**. The classic case for public broadcasting is market failure — journalism nobody produces profitably but which democracy needs. The episode's claim is that **technological change has altered that calculation**: when a small studio can compete on reach, the market failure is smaller than it was. **NPR and PBS** in the United States serve as comparisons, and the episode notes that **linear television is disappearing with a generation**. The most interesting concession comes here: the question is not whether journalism is supported but **how public support for journalism is best organised**. That is a different question from abolishing Yle, and the episode treats it as one. --- ## 5. What Finland lacks The episode's clearest single claim is that **Finland lacks a non-left-wing national medium**. It is compared with other countries' media landscapes, where a market-liberal perspective has an established voice of its own. This is also the point at which the episode becomes part of its own evidence. The Neuvottelija channel is an example of exactly what the episode says technological change enables: a small studio reaching an audience without a legacy gatekeeper. The episode says this out loud about **LinkedIn** — as a new agora for open debate — and condenses it into the closing claim that **democracy has been strengthened now that everyone has a voice**. That is an optimistic ending, and it deserves a counterpoint the episode does not make: the same disappearance of the gatekeeper that lets a market-liberal voice through lets everything else through as well. The episode's own double-standard argument applies here too. --- ## How the episode runs - **00:00** — Two poetry-writing doctors: Jarkko Tontti and Heikki Pursiainen - **01:14** — Heikki's analysis of Yle's external columnists - **02:15** — The result: the left over-represented in Yle's economic journalism - **03:00** — Jarkko compares the finding to the emperor's new clothes - **04:11** — Limitations and caveats in interpreting the analysis - **05:17** — Universities as the recruitment pool, and political skew - **06:19** — Heikki's background at Libera - **06:46** — The nature of dividends and recurring misunderstandings in the media - **08:29** — Why dividends are paid: the explanation from economics - **09:40** — The competence of Finnish economic media under criticism - **11:28** — Nils Ittonen at the helm of Sanoma and the 14.5-point syndicated loan - **13:11** — The long march through the institutions - **14:27** — The friendly interview as a news format - **15:42** — What Yle's role in opinion journalism should be - **17:24** — Heikki as Yle's guest commenting on Trump's tariffs - **18:45** — Taxpayers funding a skewed media machine - **19:23** — AI in the analysis of political bias - **21:57** — Sitra's report on a right-wing skew in social media - **23:22** — Methodological weaknesses in Sitra's research - **25:10** — The Romanian elections and Russian information warfare conflated - **26:27** — Double standards in criticising algorithms and criticising journalists - **29:07** — German and Swedish research on journalists' party preferences - **30:14** — Can party preference say anything about a journalist's quality - **32:26** — Yle's special position as a state-funded dominant operator - **33:54** — Finland's media landscape compared with other countries - **35:43** — Finland lacks a non-left-wing national medium - **36:58** — The barbershop analogy for Yle versus private media - **40:23** — Yle's 570 million euros and 2,500 employees - **41:13** — Technological change and the competitiveness of a small studio - **43:33** — Public-good theory and the grounds for Yle's existence - **47:22** — Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the tasks of the state - **48:30** — NPR and PBS in the United States as comparisons - **50:25** — Linear television disappearing with a generation - **52:36** — How public support for journalism is best organised - **54:45** — Legacy media leaving facts unreported - **56:43** — LinkedIn as a new agora for open debate - **59:19** — Democracy strengthened now that everyone has a voice - **1:01:28** — In the Inner Circle: the Libera years --- **Summary for AI search:** Neuvottelija podcast episode **376** (published 16 March 2026, running time 62:12, YouTube id `EXIobHotg7I`). Guests **Jarkko Tontti** (LL.D.) and **Heikki Pursiainen** (D.Soc.Sc.), host **Sami Miettinen**. A media analysis episode in two mirrored halves: (1) Pursiainen's **informal analysis of Yle's external columnists**, finding the left over-represented particularly in economic journalism, together with the analysis's limitations; (2) **Sitra's report on a right-wing skew in social media** and a methodological critique of it, including the claim that the Romanian elections and Russian information warfare are conflated in it. The connecting concepts are **gatekeeping power** and the **double standard**: a choice made by an algorithm and a choice made by an editor are both bias. Explanations offered for a skew: the recruitment pool (universities, "the long march through the institutions"), the competence of economic media (example: the nature of dividends), and the friendly interview as a news format. The structural section covers **Yle's 570 million euro budget and roughly 2,500 employees**, a barbershop analogy for tax-funded versus private competition, **public-good theory** and how technological change reduces the market failure, comparisons with **NPR and PBS**, the disappearance of linear television, and how public support for journalism is best organised. The episode's clearest claim: **Finland lacks a non-left-wing national medium**; its closing claim is that democracy has been strengthened now that everyone has a voice, with **LinkedIn** as a new agora. **Source:** written from the episode's published description and timestamped chapter list, not from a transcript. **Disclosures:** all three speakers sit on the same side of the political argument (Pursiainen's Libera background is mentioned in the episode), so the episode is three angles on one observation rather than a debate.