“It is necessary to revise the problem of informational security in Europe”

Audrius Siaurusevicius, Director General of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television, has arrived in Ukraine on the eve of the establishment of public television to share his experience. In Lithuania, this kind of television was set up on the basis of a state-run broadcaster as long ago as 1996. It consists now of three public radio channels (general, of classical music, and one for young people) and four TV channels (general, cultural and educational, one for Lithuanians abroad, and am HD channel). The varied content of Lithuanian public television also includes a Ukrainian-language program, Trembita, made by Lithuania-based Ukrainians. The Day asked Mr. Siaurusevicius about the way the public broadcaster functions in Lithuania and about the Lithuanian experience of resisting Russian propaganda. The interview was held at the Kyiv TV Center which houses the National Television and Radio Company of Ukraine.

Mr. Siaurusevicius, why was it once so important for Lithuania to have public television?

“I think the viewer can only be really aware of the importance of public broadcasting when it disappears. In Britain, Germany, and other European countries, it has long been treated as something usual. Public broadcasting is an integral part of democracy. So, when I am sometimes asked if it can emerge, say, in Russia, I say unequivocally ‘no’ because there should be an opposition in the country for this purpose. The top priority of public broadcasting is development of a civil society and upbringing of the younger generation. It must be an alternative to commercial channels and mass-consumed products and show another level intended for other tastes. But it is, above all, an instrument of democracy, not an end in itself. In Lithuania, public broadcasting in fact emerged not in 1996, when a law was passed and the necessary facilities were set up, but much earlier. The law only confirmed what had already existed de facto. Back in 1988, when democratic processes were unfurling in the country, the Lithuanian media, including state-run television and radio, in fact became free. Yet the former communist and the newly-elected democratic authorities were, naturally, trying to influence them. Then it was decided after a lengthy debate to found the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (LRT), but it was being established on the existing basis – the content did not change much. By that time, Lithuanian television had long been working for the audience, not for the authorities. The Ukrainians expect for some reason that the establishment of public broadcasting will bring about radical changes. But I think it is necessary to work right now on innovations in this sphere.”

What impact did the emergence of a new broadcaster have on the media market?

“The media market in fact emerged together with us – those were parallel processes. The first commercial radio stations came up in 1989-90 and TV channels a little later. Now there are about 12 national channels in Lithuania. Differences in the broadcasting network were also obvious almost immediately. The viewer had already known that we would never beam as many crime and ‘tabloid-style’ programs as the commercial cannels did. The LRT also show fewer entertainment programs. Instead, we show unbiased news bulletins and programs on the life in our country. The latest example is the events in Ukraine which aroused tremendous interest in Lithuanian society. Here we outstripped the commercial channels – our Maidan reportage ranked higher than the Eurovision Song Competition! You may be unaware of public television for a long time, but whenever there is an epoch-making event, the viewer knows that he or she should switch our channel only.”

I know that Lithuania was once exploring the possibility of funding the LRT at the expense of direct donations from viewers. Why did you reject this idea?

“The then government was short of political will. Nor are new taxes very popular among the grassroots. Yet, for example, in Germany you must pay taxes even for the church you attend, but they have different traditions. From this year on, we refrain from advertising. The LRT will be funded at the budgetary expense only. We will be assigned a certain percentage and will thus not depend on the government’s will at all. But this is only one of the possible patterns of funding. There can be many systems – the point is that they should work. The only condition is that the authorities must not influence the content.”

Lithuania had begun to block Russian channels well before Russia annexed Crimea and committed aggression against the Donbas. For example, the First Channel’s Baltic version was suspended in 2013 for a distorted representation of the January 1991 events in Vilnius. Obviously, this decision caused accusations of suppressing the freedom of speech. In what way is Lithuania responding to them?

“The propaganda of war and hatred on the basis of ethnicity is banned in Lithuania even on the Constitutional level. When a war broke out in Ukraine, we could see these very things on the screens of Russian TV channels. The television market is regulated, one way or another, all over the world. Democracy and the democratic press in particular always play by the rules, but when a rule-violating player comes out on the field, this press turns out to be unable to resist him. He can let himself flout the freedom of speech and the multitude of opinions, but democratic institutions will never do so. Sometimes a criminal is stronger than a law-abiding person. This is a very topical question today to which there is no unambiguous answer. Is disconnecting Russian channels really effective? I am not sure. We are living in a global world of information, and everybody has access to the Internet. Maybe, this step was aimed not at withholding a certain material from viewers but at warning the channel.”

Has the information war, which Russia unleashed against Ukraine, had any effect on the attitude to information security in Europe?

“This was really something new for us in Lithuania. Nobody turned out to be prepared for this. Europe should revise its concept of information security. But I still believe that the best weapon against propaganda is unbiased journalism. Counterpropaganda always runs the risk of turning into just propaganda. Knowing that a part of Lithuania’s residents watch Russian channels, we tried to cover the events in Ukraine as much and as impartially as possible. Our journalists kept coming here for materials. When I first saw the Ukrainian channels’ news bulletins, I understood that there was really a war going on here. It was not yet quite clear to Lithuanians, and we had to explain things to them. Above all, we tried to offer audiences an alternative view – a view of Ukraine from Ukraine itself. On July 3 the LRT Kultura channel showed the Ukrainian 5th Channel’s Russian-language news. This project found its viewer – about a thousand and a half people watch it in the Internet alone. I think the events in Ukraine must change the worldwide approach to broadcasting regulation. We must be prepared for this kind of threats – one must work out the rules on what is to be done with those who accept no rules at all. I think all Europeans are aware of this. And, although there is no standard recipe, the democratic world has at least understood that its resources are insufficient to combat this phenomenon. The No.1 thing in search for these new opportunities is not to veer off the road of democracy.”

Like Ukraine, Lithuania has a sizable Russian Diaspora. Obviously, Russia can try to use it to form “the fifth column.” Is the government aware of this danger and of the necessity to integrate these people into society?

“It is. This problem has been actively broached particularly in the light of the latest cataclysms. We are asking today what has been done in the past 20 years to integrate [these people]. It is difficult to say that there was any special progress. Of course, integration occurs, to a large extent, on its own, for these people have lived in a totally different society for a long time – the Russian of Lithuania go to Lithuanian schools, know the language, and communicate. As for Russian television, I think the problem is not so much in that the Diaspora watches it as in that many Lithuanians still know the Russian language. They usually watch Russian channels to see a certain film but, at the same time, sometimes even without being aware of this, receive a dose of propaganda. As for the army, there is only one alternative left: we nourish either our own one or a foreign one. The Russians of Lithuania live in a democracy and have much more sources of information than people in Russia. Clearly, they also take a different view of the events in Ukraine. On the other hand, they face a moral question – what attitude they should take to this. It is their homeland, after all. Evidently, this creates a certain psychological discomfort. But Moscow knows that the Russians who are not loyal to Putin’s regime are dangerous to it. Consequently, it is trying to keep them in the sphere of its influence as long as possible.”