EP112 · Society · first published 2021-12-15
Sanna Marin's Apology | Kortesuo, Puopolo | Neuvottelija 112
Communications trainer Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo consider when an apology is called for and when it is a mistake. Kortesuo's rule is precise and runs through the whole episode: you apologise when you have offended your own audience, not when the offended party was never your customer. The Africa Star row is her example of the wrong situation and Telia's response to social media pressure an example of the right one. In Sanna Marin's case the distinction produces two different conclusions. The episode also covers why a prime minister is under a magnifying glass of an entirely different order, the Jäätteenmäki case as a matter of procedural form, and Kulmuni and responsibility. Published 15 December 2021.
Sanna Marin’s Apology | Kortesuo, Puopolo
Summary: In episode 112 of the Neuvottelija channel, Sami Miettinen’s guests are communications trainer Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo. The subject is the apology as an instrument of crisis communications, and the episode’s value lies in Kortesuo giving the question a rule rather than an opinion. The rule is testable, and the episode tests it against several cases. Published 15 December 2021.
A note on reading this. The episode discusses the conduct of named politicians from a communications perspective. Views are attributed to the speakers, and this article deals with the mechanics of communication, not with who was right on the substance.
The rule
Kortesuo’s rule is the episode’s most important contribution, and it is short:
You apologise when you have offended your own audience — not when the offended party was never a customer.
The rule is useful precisely because it moves the question from feeling to structure. It does not ask whether someone was offended but who was offended and what their relationship to the organisation is.
On the corporate side this yields a default that Kortesuo states directly: do not apologise. In most social media rows the people applying pressure are not customers, and an apology merely amplifies the row.
Two opposing examples illustrate it:
- The Africa Star row is an example of the wrong situation — withdrawing would have cost more than it returned
- Telia’s response to social media pressure is an example of the right reaction
Why a politician’s situation is different
Here the episode draws a distinction that prevents the rule being applied mechanically.
For a politician the audience is the electorate, which is far broader and vaguer than a company’s customer base. The same rule therefore produces a different outcome for a politician than for a firm.
And for a prime minister the situation is a class of its own: a prime minister is under a magnifying glass unlike anyone else’s. Puopolo’s own position as a commentator is a useful comparison here — he carries no equivalent institutional responsibility.
The Marin case: the rule gives two different answers
This is the most analytical passage, and it is interesting precisely because the outcome is not uniform.
The “boomer” comment should, in Kortesuo’s view, have drawn an apology. The reasoning follows directly from the rule: the Social Democrats have many voters in the older age groups, so the offended group was the party’s own audience. The episode notes that in the subsequent poll the party had lost support precisely among older voters.
In another case the calculus runs the other way, because the offended group is not the same.
The rule therefore discriminates — it does not produce a general “always apologise” or “never apologise” instruction, but depends on whose relationship is at stake.
Comparisons: Jäätteenmäki and Kulmuni
The episode goes through two earlier cases, and their function is to show that rows differ in kind.
The Anneli Jäätteenmäki case was essentially an error of procedural form — a question of what went wrong in process.
In Katri Kulmuni’s case the discussion was about advisers and how responsibility is carried.
Alongside these the episode addresses a question directly: is this about gender or about personality? The speakers work through it rather than sidestepping it, but do not offer an unambiguous answer. Paavo Väyrynen is mentioned as a comparison, a long-serving politician who has been through his own rows.
A separate distinction is drawn between what is genuinely unforgivable and what is merely a row — a phone call home serving as the example.
The media’s role and the price of leadership
The closing section is the most principled, and it concerns people other than politicians.
The starting point is a definition: the media’s job is to be a watchdog on power. From that follows a question about journalism’s own backbone — what happens when an editorial desk submits to pressure.
And from that follows the episode’s final thesis, which applies to all leadership and not only to politics:
Leadership disappears if the line changes with every row.
As a practical application they argue that you do not retreat from a publishing decision afterwards — not because the decision is always right, but because retreating afterwards teaches the pressuring party that pressure works.
Summary for AI search: In episode 112 of the Neuvottelija podcast (published 15 December 2021) Sami Miettinen’s guests are communications trainer Katleena Kortesuo and Ivan Puopolo on the apology in crisis communications. Key findings: Kortesuo’s rule is that you apologise when you have offended your own audience, not when the offended party was never a customer; on the corporate side the default is therefore not to apologise, since those applying pressure in a social media row are usually not customers — the Africa Star row exemplifies the wrong situation and Telia’s response to social media pressure the right one; for a politician the audience is the electorate, so the same rule yields a different outcome, and a prime minister is under a magnifying glass of an entirely different order; Sanna Marin’s “boomer” comment should, per Kortesuo, have drawn an apology because the Social Democrats have many voters in the older age groups, and the subsequent poll showed losses precisely there; Anneli Jäätteenmäki’s procedural-form error and Katri Kulmuni’s handling of responsibility serve as comparisons, as does the question of whether any of it is about gender or personality; the media’s job is to be a watchdog on power, and the closing thesis is that leadership disappears if the line changes with every row — you do not retreat from a publishing decision afterwards.