In late summer 2013, almost three thousand Thai berry pickers arrived in Finland to harvest Finnish wild berries. 50 of these pickers ended up in conflict with inviting company, creating a media hype that questioned the vitality and practices of the industry. The purpose of this study is to compare the rhetoric used by the media before and after publicity.

The first is to determine whether the rhetoric used by Thai pickers will change with the conflict and, if so, how the conflict will affect the new narrative. The aim is also to examine how the Finnish media, the berry industry and the general public construct and legitimize the national story of berry picking.

The material for the study is news from Yle and Helsingin Sanomat about Thai berry pickers. More specifically, the material is limited to the years 2005-2014. Kenneth Burke's theory of identification and supporting concepts such as representative anecdote have been used as analytical methods. In addition to identification theory, Burke's concepts utilize the concepts of scapegoat and mortification.

Research results show that while the conflict questioned berry picking practices, the representative anecdote remained unchanged. The story's scapegoats are the offending agents who do not follow common rules. Elsewhere, conflict comes through mortification, the national story of our natural berries justifying wrongdoing. By revising the rules of the game and finding the scapegoats, this story was renewed to justify the fall of 2013.

The results of the study also show that the national story of common forest berries, which must be rescued at all costs, can do well and enable the Thai berry pickers to enjoy an exceptional labor market position.