20 Years Later: Latvia
By Janis Krekis Posted Apr 13 2010
Protesters confront Latvian Finance Minister Einars Repse during an anti-government rally in downtown Riga in 2009. Thousands of angry Latvians called for the government's resignation after the week's approval of cuts in wages, pensions and other social benefits. AP Photo: Roman Koksarov
Latvia regained its freedom just 20 years ago. And after 1991, freedom of the press became one of the country’s main issues. For 50 years, Latvia was under its aggressors’ hold, and Latvians understood that it was important to keep the press safe in order to guarantee the circulation of different opinions.
Now, there is the Act of Press and Other Mass Media, which forbids censorship of mass media in Latvia. Today, there are three daily newspapers published in Latvian — Latvijas Avīze, Diena and Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze, — as well as three Russian-language newspapers — Час, Телеграф and Вести Сегодня. Each of them represents different groups of society based on various ethnical, political and economical aspects. In reading these newspapers, it is possible to see how differently each covers the same event. This diversity could be considered proof that there is a free press in Latvia. The country is currently No. 14 of 175 in press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders. Of course, sometimes this freedom verges on impunity. To avoid this, Latvia has its press act and National Radio and Television Board (NRTB), which keep an eye on media so they are not censored and journalists are not allowed violate ethical norms.
In September of 2008, former Latvian Justice Minister Gaidis Berzins from the Fatherland and Freedom party came forward with an initiative to draft a law that would restrict coverage of criminal cases. He put forth this idea based on leaked documents and materials made public by the accused in previous cases. Berzins proposed the law forbid publication or quoting of case evidence and other case materials. But the committee of the Latvian Parliament (Saeima) rejected these proposals.
“I think there is freedom of the press in Latvia,” says Dmitrijs Petrenko, editor of the political Web site politika.lv. “But still, there are many problems with this issue. First of all, it is the professionalism of journalists. I have observed that governing bodies of some media are interested in cheaper personnel. Thus, there is the possibility that journalists are not as professional as they should be, and they don’t ask why they should write the articles they are told to.”
In this way, media owners could affect the content news organizations produce. This threat to press freedom appears mainly because of financial crises. And in Latvia, financial woes are significant and dictate the rhythm for many sectors of society; the press is not an exception.
“I suppose there is a rather big possibility that the political elite can affect the content of public media,” Petrenko says. “NRTB does not represent society and, considering statements of this institution, does not achieve its mission — to keep media safe.”
For example, the day before 2007 presidential elections in Russia, Latvian TV had planned to air the movie The Putin System, but channel LTV 7, which wanted to air the film, said the cassette had broken down. NRTB tried everything to hide this incident. There were reports that the day before the planned airing of the film, the Russian Embassy called LTV 7 and made objections.
Latvian media researchers also think politicians in Latvia are not interested in strengthening public media. Still, Petrenko emphasizes that, despite it all, there remains a free press in Latvia.
In December, the Open Society Institute published research on the state of press freedom in all former Soviet republics and how financial crises affect this issue in “Footprint of Financial Crisis in the Media.” One of the conclusions was that news organizations, weakened by financial crises, have become more susceptible to outside influences on editorial decisions and more lax about the quality of the journalism they create. It also points out that biased advertising, newspapers praising one political party or company while decrying another, publications running interviews glorifying political figures and the use of unconfirmed or single-opinion reports has become commonplace in the media.
It’s election year. In October, Latvia will choose its next (or perhaps keep the same) government. This means a hard year for media and press freedom in Latvia. Each private media outlet will supposedly choose its favorite candidate, which is a typical practice. But, as Petrenko and media researchers state, sympathies for a particular political party will mainly be based on the owners’ — who are often linked to the various political parties — wishes. All the same, a healthy rivalry between different opinions circulating in newspaper columns cannot harm society, even with elections coming.
The financial crisis, however, represents a larger problem. Press tax is currently at ten percent, but next year the government is considering raising this to 21 percent. If so, the deepening crisis could pose a potential obstruction to press freedom in Latvia.