Latvian radio announced a threat to freedom of speech and media independence

Council officials note that journalists have been subjected to angry attacks on social media for years, which has silenced some of them. A similar trend, according to the council, is reflected in the content of professional media, namely, there are situations when, predicting a wave of hatred, journalists do not want to create content on potentially controversial topics or expose themselves to censorship in displaying the material.

“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has narrowed the boundaries of freedom of speech even further: only “patriotic” content is expected from the media, in particular public ones, and voicing an opinion opposite to the “main stream” is assessed as anti-state actions of the media,” representatives of the council say.

In addition, the council highlights in the letter a judicial precedent when the Riga District Court ruled in favor of the National Electronic Media Council (NEMC), which fined the “TVNET group” for improper “accuracy and neutrality” when using the word “deportation”. In addition, journalists note the transition to content in the Latvian language included in the national security concept and the assignment to Latvian Television (LTV) to develop an editorial policy for publishing opinions, cartoons and comics on the portal “Lsm.lv”.

These processes create a fertile background for limiting the independence of the media, the council believes.

“It should be no secret to either the Social Media Society or the President of Latvia that public media in Latvia is in fact subject to over-regulation and over-control. The bureaucratic burden is much greater than in many other European countries, and it requires a disproportionate amount of energy to be spent on it. “Public media already has a quality management system in place and their social benefit is measured annually, which is publicly available. This is an independent assessment of our work, based on which further tasks are determined,” the council emphasizes.

In addition, representatives of the council emphasize that for two years now, anyone can file a complaint about the work of public media with the Ombudsman. According to the council, public attacks on it indicate a desire to discredit the structure of the Ombudsman. The Council in the letter suggests that the discrediting of the Ombudsman occurs due to the fact that this body did not live up to the intention of politicians or other individuals – to serve as an instrument of their influence on public media.

“The measure of the activities of public media is the interests of society. We are not a state media that carries out the policies of the ruling coalition or some other influential figures. We urge you to base decisions about the media on the needs of society, professional arguments and data identified through qualitative research,” the council emphasizes .

The Council calls on the public and politicians to recognize that media independence and freedom of expression are enduring values ​​even when there is war raging next door.

“Our editorial guidelines stipulate that public media reflect the views of different groups of society – including those that some may find unacceptable. (…) By excluding some opinions and topics, we may gradually find ourselves in a looking glass that has little connection with reality,” council representatives say.

The chairman of the Saeima subcommittee on media policy, Atis Švinka, noted on social networks that the letter from Latvian Radio is “disturbing news for both society and politicians.”

Schwinka believes that journalists’ statements about censorship should be taken seriously and acted upon – not despite the security situation, but because of it. “The moment has come when journalists are already raising the alarm that they cannot speak on complex topics, are forced to self-censor and fear aggression. This is an alarming signal,” the politician believes.

According to Švinka, Latvia should not become a country where the dictatorship of a majority or an imaginary majority influences the work of the media, exposes journalists to aggression and attacks, and where controversial, complex and painful or inconvenient issues are not discussed in the media.

The head of the subcommittee on media emphasizes that the job of journalists is to cover and analyze current events – one of the cornerstones of democracy. “Politicians and controllers who do not understand these principles would do well to repeat the Constitution and the values ​​that distinguish us from the authoritarian countries to our east,” the deputy noted.