Intercontinental uproar.
Such was born by Urheilu’s expert Between Ismo Lehkonen and ice hockey player Mikko Rantanen. The case and its aftermath revealed a bewildering number of things that deserve a closer look.
At first I didn’t understand where the whole fuss started. And I still don’t really understand.
Lehkonen is a long-time hockey expert. What are the duties of an expert? At least the following: analysis, evaluation, speculation, criticism.
And that’s exactly what Lehkonen did when he was asked why the NHL team Colorado’s game had been painfully forced. “Ika” analyzed and reflected, shared his views on what is troubling the strong champion candidate.
After that, Lehkonen was asked for his opinion on Rantanen’s ineffectiveness. Why hasn’t the NHL’s star forward played at the level we’re used to seeing from him?
– Could it be that Mikko has hit a wall for a while, Lehkonen began his reflection on Rantanes.
Could it be. So Lehkonen did not claim that this would be the case. He doubted, asked if it was so that.
Did Rantase have too much of something in the program last summer that would have possibly hindered the preparation for a long and tough season? That was the whole point of the discussion. Lehkonen based his suspicions on the fact that Rantanen had too many “cat crosses” in the summer.
I can’t find anything in those comments, even with a magnifying glass, that could properly pull those famous peas up my nose.
But just like that, whole pea pods started getting into people’s windpipes.
The media literacy of an alarming number of people, including Mikko Rantanen, seems to be in a worrying state.
Rantanen got really upset and said that “she had been talked about like shit”, although no one even asked Rantanen anything about it.
It’s really hard to understand how a superstar, one of the best hockey players in the world at the moment, gets spoiled by moderate speculation and normal questioning.
Nine games without goals, power points 0+1 for four games, power reading -7. It naturally raised questions, for which the expert found reasons.
Did Rantanen get angry because Lehkonen’s suspicions were true?
Dear reader. Read that sentence again if you feel a pea in your nose. In that, I ask if Lehkonen was right in his speculation. I’m not saying it would. Rantanen’s strong reaction actually forces you to ask.
I apologize for this kind of map stick waving and some kind of teacher play. But there’s a reason for that. Wider media illiteracy was revealed in connection with this case.
There was shouting on Facebook, of course. And the competition was declared, how “I’m on Rantanen’s side!”
Excuse me? No one was against anyone here.
We opened the case thoroughly in Lehkonen’s podcast. I recommend listening.
As usual, the broken phone was – and still is – on both sides of the Atlantic. In North America, the wildest social media rumors say that Lehkonen claimed that Rantanen spent the whole of last summer completely wasted.
It was instructive to notice how we humans all the time seem to have a huge need to find excitement in something. It’s only when you feel alive when you can howl about your own pain. The thing itself doesn’t matter anymore. The main thing is to get a parka!
Rapid measures should be devised to develop media literacy. The incident evoked a direct feeling of sympathy for Rantase.
Despite everything, Lehkonen and other experts continue their work. They speculate, analyze and, when necessary, criticize. It should be obvious to everyone, especially elite athletes.
I hope Rantanen also learned something from the incident. If not, I’ll offer a small example of how an elite athlete can deal with the criticism they face. If you happen to receive quite a bit of criticism, no tame speculation.
A few years ago, in the Urheiluhullut program, we discussed one of the most talked about cases of the moment. One of the main characters in the case was a very successful elite athlete who was not involved in the studio conversation.
Direct, even remarkably critical words were uttered about him in the conversation. So something completely different from what Lehkonen was now thinking about in Rantanen’s case.
After the program, the athlete’s feedback was short. It came in the form of a message to the interlocutor who made him stand up.
– Then you went to throw me under the bus in Urheiluhullui. But that’s okay, I can handle it.