VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS Augustinas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS POLITIKOS MOKSLŲ IR DIPLOMATIJOS FAKULTETAS VIEŠOSIOS KOMUNIKACIJOS KATEDRA Augustinas Šemelis ŽINIASKLAIDOS KAIP VERSLO BŪKLĖ, ARBA KAS „IŠGELBĖS“ PROFESIONALUMĄ ŽURNALISTIKOJE: „DELFI“ ATVEJIS Magistro baigiamasis darbas Žurnalistikos ir medijų analizės studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 621P50002 Žurnalistikos studijų kryptis Vadovas (-ė): Prof. dr. Auksė Balčytienė (Moksl. laipsnis, vardas, pavardė) Apginta ___________________ (Fakulteto dekanas) Kaunas, 2015 VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT Augustinas Šemelis STATE OF THE MEDIA AS BUSINESS, OR WHAT WILL “SAVE“ THE PROFESSIONAL SIDE OF JOURNALISM: CASE OF “DELFI” Final Master Thesis Journalism and Media Analysis Study Program, state code 621P50002 Degree in Journalism Supervisor: Prof. dr. Auksė Balčytienė (acad. title, name, surname) Defended ___________________ (Dean of the Faculty) Kaunas, 2015 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SANTRAUKA / 4 SUMMARY / 5 INTRODUCTION / 6 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK / 10 1.1 Methodology / 10 1.2 The Dialectic between the „Social“ and the „Commercial“ Role of the Media / 13 1.3 Convergence towards the Neoliberal? / 17 1.4 The Neoliberal Ethos / 24 2. MEDIA: AGENCY AND STRUCTURE / 30 2.1 The Logic of Lithuanian Media Policy: Self-denying State Action / 30 2.2 Media as Just Another Private Enterprise / 34 2.3 Market Parallelism / 37 2.4 The New Media and Market Parallelism: Intensification through Interactivity / 42 2.5 The Incredulity towards Journalistic Professionalism / 51 2.6 “DELFI”: The Mirror of Trends / 58 CONCLUSION / 67 LITERATURE AND SOURCES / 69 3 SANTRAUKA Paprastai didžiausiu pavojumi žiniasklaidos nepriklausomybei ir, tuo pačiu, profesionalumo ir kokybės standartams žurnalistikoje yra laikoma politinė galia. Natūralu, kad nepriklausomybę atgavusios Lietuvos respublikos žiniasklaidos ir žiniasklaidos politikos didžiausias siekis buvo ką tik iš slegiančios cenzūros išsilaisvinusią industriją apsaugoti nuo galimų politinių aspiracijų varžyti žodžio laisvę ir daryti įtaką žiniasklaidos turiniui ateityje. Tačiau ypač liberali žiniasklaidos politika Lietuvoje atvėrė kelią kitokio pobūdžio išorinei įtakai ir žiniasklaidos instrumentalizacijai: tiek privati galia, tiek rinkos dėsniai randa svertų žinių turinio formavimui, „kokybės“ suvokimo kaitai ir profesionalios žurnalistikos sąvokų transformacijai. Politinio paralelizmo išvengusi žiniasklaida atsidūrė rinkos paralelizmo įtakos pavojuje: abiem atvejais kenčia žiniasklaidos nepriklausomybė nuo išorės faktorių. Jeigu kalbėtume apie D. Hallin‘o ir P. Mancini apibūdintą „liberalųjį“ modelį būdingą JAV žiniasklaidos sistemai, tuomet žiniasklaidos komercializacija nebūtų tokia fundamentali problema: šio modelio atveju žiniasklaidos atstovavimas viešajam interesui yra daugiau ar mažiau užtikrinamas nusistovėjusio aukštos žurnalistikos kokybės standartų ir profesionalumo reikalavimų naratyvo atsvaros. Tačiau Lietuvoje šis naratyvas neturėjo progos įsitvirtinti: išsilaisvinimas iš monolitinės cenzūros sistemos iš naujo besikuriančioje Lietuvos žiniasklaidos sistemoje atvėrė neišvengiamą vertybinį vakuumą, kuris ėmė užsipildyti iš Vakarų sklindančiu neoliberaliu etosu, neigiančiu viešojo intereso svarbą – šiam sušvelninti, kitaip nei Vakaruose, Lietuvoje nebuvo tvirtai įsišaknijusių žurnalistikos kokybės ir profesionalumo standartų. Galimas to rezultatas: žininiasklaida, save pozicionuojanti ir veikianti tik kaip privatus verslas, formuojanti savo turinį tiesiog pagal rinkos ir paklausos dėsnius – šitaip rinkos paralelizmas keičia politinę priklausomybę. Tokiu atveju neišvengiamai turi keistis ir žurnalistikos kokybės ir profesionalumo standartai. 4 SUMMARY Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. It is only natural that the foremost aim of the media and media policy of the newly independent Republic of Lithuania was to avoid future political overreach in an industry which has so recently experienced an oppressive censorship. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media’s content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media’s independence from external influences. If we would refer to the so-called Liberal model defined by D. Hallin and P. Mancini, the model characterizing the U.S. media system – in that case trends of commercialization would not pose such a fundamental difficulty: in this case media functioning in public interest is secured to a certain extent by a counter-balance of deeply ingrained values and standards of journalistic professionalism. In Lithuania, however, these values did not have a chance to be internalized: the emancipation from monolithic political censorship left behind and unavoidable ethical vacuum within the newly reestablishing Lithuanian media landscape. The vacuum, needing a set of ethical motivations, started absorbing the neoliberal ethos spreading from the West, which was essentially marked by incredulity towards any notion of public interest. And unlike in the countries of the “old West”, Lithuanian media landscape had no deeply ingrained values of professionalism and professional ethics to soften the new trend. A possible outcome: media positioning itself as just another private business and thus constructing its content purely by market logic – in this way market parallelism is replacing the political one – and this would also inevitably mean a transformation in standard practices of professional journalism. 5 INTRODUCTION When asked about greatest perils facing the media and journalism nowadays or, for that matter, any time, most professional journalists would respond without blinking: the unholy patronage of the government. Traditionally, in most countries and their media systems, this has been exactly the case: the public sphere was restricted from an outright censorship to narrow political partisanship shaped by various degrees of political parallelism, both internal and external. Within the framework of media systems of D. Hallin and P. Mancini, the North-Atlantic or the so- called Liberal model was probably the first major breakthrough of the paradigm: the media finally becoming an end in itself, a truly independent watchdog, rather than a mean by which political ends are pursued. Though the developments in recent decades in the Western world have increasingly rendered the geographical boundaries of the media systems obsolete: Hallin and Mancini would refer to this as convergence towards the Liberal model – a model which has always been more profoundly marked by commercialization - however, we think that the process in action is more complex than a simple convergence towards one traditional media system of the modern age rather than another. The commercialization of the media within the “classical” North-Atlantic model was a decisive factor which allowed the media to break free of the government patronage, by becoming viable and prosperous without being dependant on political factors, however, a newly professionalized field of journalism had a strong sense of mission in serving a public interest: it was the “Liberal model”, after all, which generated the ideas ultimately expressed by, for example, the Hutchins commission. Media, essentially being a private enterprise, was at the same time never “just another private enterprise” – it was, after all, the essential manifestation of the public sphere, the watchdog, the mediator, the agenda-setter, the entertainer – and almost never just a mean by which commercial interest is pursued. That was the ultimate strength of this system: while the media in the systems in which the ties with the political class were too tight became essentially a lip-service platform of partisan politics, the commercial model found the balance between financial viability and the standards of quality and serving the public interest, rather than becoming a mean solely to reach commercial ends. Recently, however, a different sentiment started spreading: „Anxiety about the news responds to the sense that a system once governed by professionalism and conscientious news values is being corrupted by an entertainment complex. This trend is all the more alarming because of the sense that it is happening at a time when the media are more and more central to the way we 6 govern ourselves“1. If this might be the case, then the most fundamental question is – is this still the „Liberal model“ we are talking about, is this still the „Liberal model“ that the media systems of the Western world are converging towards? Within these questions also lies the relevance of the main topic of this paper: to question if the commercial factor in the media is still the guardian of its independence from the government, compatible with media being an end in itself, or rather, is this commercial factor becoming a liability and overshadowing “the public mission” of an independent media? More specifically, we will be operating within a specific context of Lithuanian media landscape – but in order to identify the main problems facing it, first we will have to take a more holistic approach and briefly look at the recent socio-economical and political