Finland, a pioneer in fostering critical thinking and media literacy in education, has a history of effectively tackling disinformation campaigns and implementing innovative strategies to equip its students with the tools needed to navigate today´s media landscape.” It is always inspiring to observe the world’s expectations of Finland in these fields of media literacy and countering disinformation. In 2008 I was asked to speak to the teachers in the Central Connecticut State University on “Is Finland leading the way to the creative knowledge society?” The teachers at the Connecticut forum were puzzled by the question why Finland which is about the size of Connecticut was doing better in the ranking of educational achievements. One of my messages was that we had introduced the research component in teacher education comparable to other academic professions.

Even though the research was much action research it also helped to the self-understanding of the basic concepts and issues of education. I remember with respect the view of many American leaders like the former president Eisenhower that the foundation of democracy rests on the base of an intelligent, informed citizenry. In a nutshell, media literacy was introduced to Finland and Europe prior to its global recognition. Through the efforts of Dr. Ritva-Sini Merilampi, Counselor of Education, who had been developing media literacy for almost fifty years, the national curriculum on mass media education as it was called that time, was devised in 1970.The new curricular guidelines were introduced in 1994 and again 2004. The new one in 2014 introduced the concept of multiple literacies and trans-literacy. Dr. Merilampi developed the “media literacy staircase which aims at intercultural dialogue. This was also our approach with Professor Jose Manuel Perez Tornero in our work for UNESCO on media literacy and new humanism. (https://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214678.pdf) We were interested in European philosophical approaches to the topic as compared with American way of thinking. We were also asking ourselves if it is too narrow to approach the problem only from technological, scientific or social science thinking. Could we approach the media and communication also by traditional art and painting like our colleague the late Juhani Palmu did in his painting “Communication” in 1997 that inspired us?

We also tried to understand what the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas means with communicative competence. The Italian writer Umberto Eco had emphasized that a democratic civilization will save itself only if it makes the language of image into a stimulus for critical reflection, not an invitation to hypnosis. North American scholars like Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan strongly inspired our thoughts. We know through media research that the dominant media forms emphasize some of our senses more than others. Walter Ong wrote of “secondary orality” as a consequence of the emergence of radio. He said that the use of the term “media” is useful to refer to the technological means of communication but it also could be misleading if it leads us to think that the use of these media would be only the transmission of information. In fact, all these media do much more: they enable thought processes inconceivable before. Today the discussions of media literacy have been strongly influenced by military thinking. Information and cyber warfare are advancing towards cognitive warfare. The concepts of disinformation and misinformation have basically military origins. The European and American challenge and my own involvement in this process started in June 2000 when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe organized jointly a Session on Media Education with the committee of Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport. The report was prepared by Dr. Tytti Isohookana-Asunmaa. I and Francois Nissim were invited to speak at the Hearing to explain media education and democracy. The report stresses the need for promoting media education to create a critical and discerning attitude towards the media and train citizens to make their own judgements based on the available information. The official Report of the Hearing summarizes my views as follows: “…Varis pointed out that different terms were used for media education: “media competence” in Germany, “social competence” in Spain, “media pedagogy” or “media literacy” in the Scandinavian countries. In all cases, this was a continuous process which needed to be developed by practice and education. It was also a multidimensional concept including cognitive, emotional, aesthetic and moral aspects. It could be described as “the ability to communicate competently in all media, print, and electronic, as well as to access, analyze and evaluate the powerful images, words, and sounds that make up our contemporary mass media culture.

These skills of media literacy are essential for our future as individuals and as members of a democratic society” (Doc.8753 – 14 June 2000) Even though the Report gives much credit to me, I was in fact, introducing the respected audience to the American approach to media literacy which was extensively and professionally presented by Professor W. James Potter in 1998 (Media Literacy, Sage 1998). Next to me in the parliamentary hearing was Mrs. Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz, Head of the Unit for Multimedia, Directorate General of Education and Culture, European Commission. She asked me if I could come and give the same presentation to the European Commission. The presentation took place in November 2000 at the EC Workshop “Image Education and Media Literacy” with the title “Approaches to Media Literacy and eLearning.” The connection to e-Learning was strengthened by the creation of the UNESCO Chair in “global e-learning with applications to multiple domains” at the University of Tampere in 2001. The Chair had a close cooperation with Barcelona and the Global University System in New York. The EC had a strong eLearning program which also included media literacy program as explained by Maruja Gutierrez Diaz. She wrote in our publication on “Communication and Learning in the Multicultural World” (2006) of the genesis and evolution of the EU eLearning initiative. It took place in the wider context of Information Society Policy. Maruja Gutierrez Diaz explains the emergence of media literacy in the eLearning initiative that the fast take-up brought with it some concern for a disproportionate attention to technology. There was a clear need to develop a cultural, humanistic approach to the new culture, and to how best prepare citizens for the digital society, to use its new tools but be critically aware of their problems and advantages. At the hearing by the European Parliament in 2001 the Commission had the opportunity to discuss the initial ideas with the Council of Europe and with a group of European experts. I was one of the invited speakers to help to set in motion the media literacy action under the eLearning initiative. (“Communication and Learning in the multicultural world”, Okka Foundation, Finland 2006).

Today, the international debate on media literacy is strongly influenced by the worsening of international relations in all fields. Now media literacy is approached by asking how we are shaping tomorrow´s minds. It may be idealistic to remind us of the UNESCO’s Charter of “building peace in the minds of men and women.” Equally idealistic may be the Costa Rican University for Peace slogan “if you want peace prepare for peace.”