Finland Talks (Suomi puhuu in Finnish) was a public deliberation event for Finns, organized by the nation’s leading daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat. In March 2019, hundreds of Finns met their debate partner in person to discuss important societal values. An algorithm paired the participants based on their views — the most opposite view points were paired up for the conversation. Managing Editor Laura Saarikoski from Helsingin Sanomat tells about the project.
What was the goal of the Finland Talks initiative?
The most important goal was to break value bubbles and increase understanding between people who disagree with each other. We also wanted to dismantle black and white positions. When people talk with each other, they often realize that they have more in common than they thought. It is harder to hate somebody when they meet face to face.
What is the relevant background information to understand the context of the project?
While working as a correspondent in the United States for Helsingin Sanomat, I noticed that the increasing political dichotomy has led to a situation in which people do not only disagree with each other, but they actually hate one another. The tightened atmosphere has led to political violence and the rise of extremist groups in the United States. The situation is worrying for democracy, because as voters move further away from each other, political decisions are based on smaller groups’ interests rather than masses.
The division between different groups have become more steep also in Finland. The traditional big middle parties have lost support. If the same dichotomy were to happen in Finland, it would be more dramatic, because the whole Nordic welfare society is based on solidarity.
It worries me that negative stories, which promote juxtapositions and divide people, attract the biggest audiences. I have been wondering how to instead tell about what people have in common. After starting as managing editor at Helsingin Sanomat, I heard that the German newspaper Die Zeit is preparing an event called Europe Talks. In this event, the participants would have conversations across country boarders. I found it a very exciting idea and attended a planning event in Berlin in January. There I received more information on how we could host our national event before the joint European venture.
How was the process conducted?
Helsingin Sanomat organized the Finland Talks event in March 2019 across Finland. At first, the participants answered an online questionnaire. Based on the answers, the algorithm created pairs with opposite views for the face-to-face conversations. The pairs then met on the deliberation day on March 30.
Our editorial staff prepared the survey questions based on themes such as immigration, climate change and equality. Topics were similar to the ones in the previous German Talks event, because themes tearing Europe apart are the same.
I ran the project alongside my daily job. Colleagues from various departments such as editorial, marketing, development and business teams participated. Our in-house lawyers negotiated contract terms with Die Zeit.
Europe Talks project was similar to the national one, but it was a joint project of 16 European media partners from 13 countries and had participants from over 30 countries. Hundred deliberation pairs met in Brussels on 11 May, and other participants held their conversations via Skype.
How many people participated?
Around 2 800 people registered for Finland Talks, and eventually over a thousand of them met in person.
For Europe Talks, 16 000 people confirmed their attendance from 33 countries. 966 attended from Finland.
Were there many stages in the process?
Data collection through the online questionnaire lasted 3–4 weeks. After that, the online questionnaire was closed and the algorithm started pairing up conversation pairs from the survey respondents.
On the event day, the pairs met for face-to-face conversations. We provided instructions before the meetings on how to converse in good manner and some practicalities, for example that the pairs should meet on public places.
Helsingin Sanomat reported the project throughout. We also made stories of five conversation pairs’ meetings.
If technology was used, what type of technology? Who developed the technology?
The platform and algorithm are developed by Die Zeit. They provided it for free to use for European media.
We modified further the data protection agreement made by Die Zeit, so that we could provide the best possible information safety for Finnish participants.
How does the project contribute to democracy?
This was a step toward journalism that breaks bubbles instead of strengthening them and tries to understand the opposite side instead of demonizing them. In my opinion that is not idealism. I believe that people have more in common than they do not, even though journalism tends to highlight differences and problems.
Very few people hate other groups with passion. The attitudes and prejudices of most people are based on their past experiences. If you can appreciate someone else’s situation you can understand their political views, even if you don’t agree with them.
What are the most important lessons learned so far?
When meeting face-to-face people do not disagree with each other as much their questionnaire answers predicted.
It was very touching to read the feedback from the participants. People have been extremely happy with the experience and deeply moved by the situation. One participant described it as one of the best meetings of their life. Many of the meetings lasted three to four hours, and people were planning to stay in contact with their debate partner. One participant said that they had never before met someone who disagrees with everything but still listens. Nobody reported aggressive or threatening behavior.
What challenges did you face during the process? What solutions do you propose for addressing these challenges?
There was one weakness in the algorithm: If either one from the conversation pair did not confirm their participation, the algorithm did not find a new partner for the participant that had confirmed their participation. This meant that around 400 people were left without a partner even though they themselves confirmed their participation but their partner didn’t.
The second challenge, or, what I thought could be a challenge, was the amount of participation. I was worried if there would be enough participants. I was positively surprised that so many young people took part. We were able to attract also people who were not our typical readers. When the survey was still online, we noticed that educated people with liberal values from large cities were starting to be overrepresented. Then we targeted social media marketing towards more conservative areas, non-subscribers and the country side in order to have participants also from the other side. This approach brought results and people with different values and all ages participated.
Another challenge was the timing of the initiatives. Due to the schedule of the Europe Talks event, we had to run Finland Talks, the national deliberation weeks before the Finnish parliamentary election. The questionnaires were made one after the other and within a short time span. We did not want to keep them online at the same time in order to avoid confusion. It would have been better if the national deliberation (Finland Talks) could have been organized just before the elections and the European deliberation just before the European Parliament elections. We were, however, able to instruct people who were too late to participate in the national conversation to take part in the European one instead. We also targeted marketing so that we promoted Europe Talks at the bottom of our foreign news stories and stories that covered issues related to the European Union. Finland talks was promoted in the same way but in different articles, for example in political news.
What are the next steps in the project?
We are likely to continue in some form. Now we are aware that this is a major project so next time we need to have a larger, dedicated team put together from the beginning. The next project should also bring something new to the table. For example it could be a joint venture with other Finnish media outlets so that we could reach even more Finns. This has already been the way in Germany, even though journalistic publications normally are rivals.
Europe Talks was a unique project and for the first time we collaborated so broadly with 15 European media partners in order to unite readers across borders. It was a pilot project and surely we will utilize this network in other projects in the future.
Have you published any research about the project? Are there additional materials online that we could link to?
Europe Talks hosts a website where you can find information, photos, videos and links related to different national projects. Stories published in Helsingin Sanomat in Finland Talks can be found here, as well as an editorial opinion by Laura Saarikoski here.