The European Federation of Journalists has issued a statement “Lithuania: Threats to self-regulation worries journalists organisations”, which in our opinion contains misleading information that LRT’s proposals for amendments to the Law on Public Information, which would revise the system of self-regulation and reform the Public Information Ethics Commission, would be a step back for media freedom by allegedly opening greater opportunities for government influence and restricting democratic principles.
In our opinion, the statement does not reflect the real situation and does not present the opinion of LRT.
There have been two main issues which prompted LRT to start raising the issue of media self-regulation last year.
First, the new Law on LRT came into force in 2021 and created the position of LRT Ethics Inspector (Ombudsperson). Among the other roles, the LRT Ethics Inspector supervises the compliance of LRT journalists with the Code of Ethics in Providing Information to the Public. The Public Information Ethics Commission performs the same functions in relation to LRT journalists. Thus, LRT is subject to a double imperative regulation, something that had to be addressed.
The second important issue is the work quality of the Public Information Ethics Commission, which has been influenced by the principles of its composition. The Commission’s work has previously been criticised by media industry representatives, lawyers and journalists, pointing out that it often fails to explain its decisions properly and does not in practice fulfil its function of advising producers and media organisations. Since 2018, LRT has won three court cases against decisions of the Public Information Ethics Commission and has been awarded more than 5,000 euros in compensations.
The Commission is composed entirely of representatives delegated by members of the Public Information Ethics Association, most of whom are producer associations and commercial media. LRT, meanwhile, is not a member of the Association and is therefore not represented on the Public Information Ethics Commission.
Thus, the LRT Law, as it currently stands, potentially gives rise to a conflict of interests whereby journalist ethics violations committed by LRT are examined by delegates of commercial media organisations that compete with LRT. Some of these organisations have lodged a complaint with the European Commission regarding LRT’s funding.
Given this situation, LRT believes that Lithuania needs a systematic reform of the media self-regulation model in order to ensure transparency, neutrality and fairness as well as equitable representation of all interest groups in media self-regulatory bodies. LRT has called for reform in order to bring the model into line with good European practices, in particular, the principles of journalism ethics as set out in the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly Resolution No 1003.
A working group set up by the Lithuanian Seimas Board worked for more than a year and submitted a draft amendment to Article 46 of the Law on Public Information to the parliamentary Culture Committee.
The proposed amendment removes the double regulation of LRT and suggests revised principles for the formation of the Public Information Ethics Commission so that it includes an LRT representative.
The Working Group’s proposal sounds like this: “Members of the Commission shall be appointed for a term of three years and may serve no more than two consecutive terms. One representative to the Commission shall be nominated by each member of the Association, one by LRT, and three by the Media Council. Candidates for the Media Council’s delegates are nominated by universities running study programmes in journalism. A person with a university degree and at least five years of experience in journalism, law or media-related work may be a member of the Commission. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson of the Commission from among its members for the duration of its term of office.”
Notably, the Media Council that would be able to nominates Commission members is an advisory body to the Ministry of Culture with a broad membership that includes media organisations, NGOs, the academia, and professional journalist associations. It was created to maintain a dialogue between the Ministry of Culture and the media industry. The Media Council also includes representatives of the very same media organisations that have complained about LRT’s proposals on reforming the Public Information Ethics Commission.
During discussions of the amendment in the parliamentary Culture Committee, LRT proposed to fix the number of members in the Commission at nine (the Working Group’s proposal left it undefined) and to include not only commercial media organisations’ delegates but also, but also the representatives of journalist associations, the public and the academia.
LRT’s proposal was as follows: “The Commission shall be composed of 9 members: three members shall be appointed by consensus by the Association members representing producers and communicators of public information, two members shall be appointed by consensus by the Association members representing journalist organisations, one member shall be appointed by LRT, and three members shall be appointed by the Media Council. Candidates for the Media Council’s delegates shall be nominated by universities running study programmes in journalism. The members of the Commission shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the institutions and/or organisations appointing them. A member of the Commission may be a person with a university degree and at least five years of experience in journalism, law or media-related work. The Commission shall elect the Chairperson of the Commission from among its members for a period of three years.”
Importantly, both the Working Group’s original draft amendment and LRT’s proposal envisage only one member in the Commission delegated by LRT. There will be no shift “to more voices given to public broadcaster” as claimed in the statement by the European Federation of Journalists.
This proposal was endorsed by the Committee on Culture.
We would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Working Group also discussed the option of not passing any legislation on the self-regulation of journalists, but to leave it to genuine self-regulation. However, this proposal did not receive much support from the Working Group members, including media representatives dissatisfied with the LRT proposal.
LRT believes there is no substance to the claim that expanding the Public Information Ethics Commission in line with the European recommendations will destroy media freedom in Lithuania.
Following the debate and misinterpretations of this draft law, the parliamentary opposition registered its own proposal for this law, which is identical to the draft prepared by the former Working Group. The Culture Committee is due to consider this proposal and submit its conclusion. The draft will then be discussed in the Seimas plenary.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
