Advertisement

Solving the Surveillance Problem

Media Debates About Unwanted Surveillance in Finland
  • Minna Tiainen
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the way surveillance is discussed in the leading Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat after the revelations made by former NSA-contractor Edward Snowden. In 2013, Snowden provided journalists with documents that revealed the unexpected extent of surveillance conducted by security agencies such as the NSA. Drawing on Critical Discourse Studies and a Foucauldian view of discourse, this article understands media discussions following the Snowden revelations as discursive struggles where the legitimacy and future of surveillance are being constructed and debated. The article examines the ways the media formulates solutions to the problems posed by surveillance, and explores the way they contribute to the overall discursive struggle. The solutions appearing in the data are categorised into two main categories, next step solutions and direct solutions. Overall, it is concluded that solutions play a minor role in the news coverage as they tend to appear briefly and rarely as subjects of debate. This means that solutions do not make a substantial contribution to the discursive struggle over surveillance and, furthermore, leads to an understanding of surveillance as a practice that is difficult to change.

Keywords

News Coverage Media Discussion Step Solution Critical Discourse Analysis National Security Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allmer, T. (2012). Critical internet surveillance studies and economic surveillance. In K. Fuchs Boersma, A. Albrechtslund, & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Internet and surveillance. The challenges of web 2.0 and social media (pp. 124–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Barnard-Wills, D. (2009). The articulation of identity in discourses of surveillance in the United Kingdom. University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard-Wills, D. (2011). UK news media discourses of surveillance. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 548–567. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01219.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burroughs, E. (2015). Discursive representations of ‘illegal immigration’ in the Irish newsprint media: The domination and multiple facets of the ‘control’ argumentation. Discourse & Society, 26(2), 165–183. doi: 10.1177/0957926514556029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Gorr, D., & Schünemann, W. J. (2013). Creating a secure cyberspace–Securitization in Internet governance discourses and dispositives in Germany and Russia. International Review of Information Ethics, 20(12), 37–51.Google Scholar
  11. Graber, D. A. (2007). Media power in politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, J., & Hier, S. (2009). CCTV surveillance and the poverty of media discourse: A content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34(3), 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halminen, L. (2013, June 16). Ville Niinistö: The NSA whistleblower could get asylum in Finland. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, C., & Cap, P. (2014). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  15. Huhta, K., & Raeste, J. P. (2013, August 27). Tuomioja on whistleblowers: Manhunt incompatible with the principles of a constitutional state. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  16. Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–63). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Kähkönen, V. (2013, October 24). Katainen: Suspicions about the USA’s cell phone spying are worrying. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  18. Kerola, P. (2013, July 17). Snooping scandal damages Merkel’s reputation. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  19. Kumpu, V. (2016). On making a big deal. Consensus and disagreement in the newspaper coverage of UN climate summits. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(2), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2015.1042392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Limnéll, J. (2013, June 13). Intelligence operations should not violate individual rights. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  21. Lischka, J. A. (2015). Surveillance discourse in UK broadcasting since the Snowden revelations. (Discussion Paper 12/2015). URL: http://www.zora.uzh.ch/116575/1/DCSS_Broadcasting-report%281%29.pdf
  22. Lyon, D. (1994). Electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mathiesen, T. (2012). Preface. In C. Fuchs, K. Boersma, A. Albrechtslund, & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Internet and surveillance. The challenges of web 2.0 and social media (pp. 15–20). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. McGarrity, N. (2011). Fourth estate or government lapdog? The role of the Australian media in the counter-terrorism context. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 25(02), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McQuail, D. (2007). The influence and effects of mass media. In D. A. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 19–35). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Niskakangas, T. (2014, May 28). The NSA battle is just beginning. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  28. O’Heffernan, P. (2007). Mass media roles in foreign policy. In D. A. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 294–305). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pietikäinen, S. (2012). Kieli-ideologiat arjessa. Neksusanalyysi monikielisen inarinsaamenpuhujan kielielämäkerrasta [Language ideologies in practice. A nexus analysis of multilingual Inari Sámi speaker’s language biography]. Virittäjä, 116(3), 410–440.Google Scholar
  30. Pietikäinen, S., & Mäntynen, A. (2009). Kurssi kohti diskurssia [Course towards discourse]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  31. Pullinen, J. (2013, June 24). Also British Intelligence reads messages from the net. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  32. Qin, J. (2015). Hero on twitter, traitor on news: How social media and legacy news frame Snowden. International Journal of Press/Politics, 20, 166–184. doi: 10.1177/1940161214566709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Resende, V. D. M. (2013). Media, sexual exploitation of children and the National Street Children’s Movement in Brasília: An analysis of texts’ social effects. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(3), 263–274. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2013.791234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salter, L. (2015). Framing Glenn Greenwald: Hegemony and the NSA/GCHQ surveillance scandal in a news interview. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 11(2), 183–201. doi: 10.1386/macp.11.2.183_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schulze, M. (2015). Patterns of surveillance legitimization: The German discourse on the NSA scandal. Surveillance and Society, 13, 197–217. URL http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/index
  37. Sillanpää, S. (2014, May 5). Expert: “Mobile phones are tracking devices that just happen to make phone calls”. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  38. Simone, M. (2009). Give me liberty and give me surveillance: A case study of the US government’s discourse of surveillance. Critical Discourse Studies, 6, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/17405900802559977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication and Society, 18(7), 798–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiainen, M. (2017). (De)legitimating electronic surveillance: A critical discourse analysis of the Finnish news coverage of the Edward Snowden revelations. Critical Discourse Studies.Google Scholar
  41. Van Dijk, T. A. (2013). CDA is NOT a method of critical discourse analysis. Associacion de Estudios sobre Discurso y Sociedad. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://www.edisoportal.org/debate/115-cda-not-method-critical-discourse-analysis
  42. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vasama, T. (2013, November 10). Espionage discussion heats up late in Britain. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  44. Viiri, K. (2013, July 8). Finland must oppose snooping. Helsingin Sanomat.Google Scholar
  45. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016a). Methods of critical discourse studies. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016b). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Method of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–22). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and Communication StudiesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations