Journalist Martin Laine recently bombarded several Estonian alternative media outlets and their contributors with emails and inquiries. His “big revelation” finally saw the light of day in Delfi, but the public and target audience’s reaction was quite the opposite of what he might have expected. Laine’s article was met with widespread outrage, as many saw it as an attack on independent journalism and free thinkers.
Laine’s “Investigation” and Its Aftermath
In his article, Martin Laine focused on the presence of several alternative media platforms in Estonia, which he claimed spread conspiracy theories and biased views on global affairs. His piece accused these outlets of being linked to Russian propaganda and engaging in “influence operations.” However, this seemed to be a one-sided approach, as public feedback showed that people were not buying it.
On social media and in various discussions, Laine was accused of bias and of promoting a propagandistic narrative. Many readers and representatives of alternative media responded that the journalist used misleading and one-sided information in his article.
Alternative Media Strikes Back
Several independent media outlets in Estonia, including Vanglaplaneet.ee and others, reacted strongly to the article. Vanglaplaneet even organized a special broadcast discussing whose interests Martin Laine serves and how mainstream media attempts to discredit alternative news sources.
Participants in the broadcast debated whether Laine’s inquiries were yet another example of imposed censorship and an attack on free thinking. A phone call was even made to Martin Laine himself, but the journalist avoided giving clear answers and attempted to steer the conversation in another direction.
Helen Lasn, Board Member of WCH Estonia
*”I had the opportunity to be in the spotlight again: Martin Laine & Co. have taken up mass division—you can see it in today’s Delfi, though only if you’re willing to pay for such trash? Think before you support such things!
They’ve put a topic on the table that clearly creates hostility and emotional psychosis among people. This is precisely the goal of our STATE MEDIA. Don’t let it distract you.
At the same time, this kind of arm-twisting by so-called ‘professional’ media is extremely unprofessional. If someone needs to ‘prove’ something, then the real question is: ‘prove what?’—and they just force it through, even with factual errors.
I have nothing more to add, except that Peeter Proos made a brief explanatory video, which will soon be available on Vanglaplaneet.ee.
My posts have been used by both the Health Board and the media, violently taken out of context by some troll or similar individual, even though all the posts used have been set to ‘friends only’ on Facebook. But no, some think they have the right to turn this into a public farce.
Since Laine did not ask anything of substance in his email, I will tell you myself what my so-called ‘Putinism’ consists of. I still stand for:
- Peace across the world
- The value of human lives
- Health freedom
- Freedom of speech
- Clear-minded diplomacy and good international relations
- Exposing current lies
- The survival of Estonia
- Ensuring a normal emotional and spiritual environment for children
- Life itself
Label it however you like.*”
Varro Vooglaid, Member of Parliament
*”If I had to describe Martin Laine’s so-called great revelation about the Russian information network in Delfi today in one word, that word would be ‘ridiculous.’
I can’t speak for others, but to me, the desperate effort of the domestic propaganda network to smear dissenters appears simply pathetic.
Any thinking person can see what’s really going on. Even at the end of Laine’s article, there’s an informative note: ‘The series has been supported by the Open Information Partnership (OIP).‘
OIP, however, is part of a UK government-funded propaganda machine:
‘The UK government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has provided funding for OIP so that we can support the crucial role that civil society can play in tackling disinformation.’
OIP’s website confirms that they work with PR firm Zinc Networks, whose Baltic activities have previously been analyzed in depth by Objektiiv:
Incidentally, as pointed out in Objektiiv, the former EPL/Delfi ‘journalist’ and later advisor to President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Urve Eslas, worked as a ‘network manager’ for OIP. In 2017, she published a defamatory piece in EPL titled ‘Objektiiv.ee info threads run through Russia and Syria.’
As is well known, the primary task of intelligence structures is not gathering real intelligence but spreading disinformation—intentionally misleading and false information. British intelligence has made significant efforts in this regard concerning the Baltic states, and Laine’s activities are part of this effort. The question remains: who, how, and how much is paying him for it?”*
Indrek Pähnapuu, ERE
Good morning, dear Republic! 🏰
So, here we are—it was only a matter of time before the witch hunts began…
I have officially been labeled an ‘influence agent’ and branded with the Kremlin’s ‘own jacket’ label.
All that’s left is to visit the Russian embassy and get a new passport. I hope Laine arranges that too.
I never would have believed that my beloved homeland—where I was born, raised, paid a great deal in taxes, and even represented abroad with the highest praise from our president—would eventually discard me as a ‘Kremlin agent.’
This really makes you think: what’s actually happening here? Such labeling DOES NOT happen by accident.
What comes next? Prison? Endless canceling and branding?
In whose interests is this being done?
But go ahead. The day will come when I start asking YOU, dear journalists, the questions—and I will demand answers about whose interests YOU really serve.
Have a nice day!
Public Reaction
Readers’ responses on social media were overwhelmingly critical of Laine and his article. Comments included terms like “propaganda tool,” “paid assignment,” and “an attempt to silence dissenters.” Many do not see alternative media as a problem but rather as a balancing force against mainstream media bias.
While Martin Laine’s article might have aimed to expose alternative media, it achieved the opposite effect—it reinforced the notion that mainstream media cannot tolerate criticism and wants to suppress dissenters. Instead of discrediting alternative media, this “attack” only boosted its reputation and visibility, as people increasingly seek valuable information outside mainstream outlets.
/Mario Maripuu, Editor and Host/
