Latvian and Estonian Russian-language Delfi: Dissent as a Norm?

It is worth noting that also in the case of Lithuanian Delfi, one of the thematic collocations with the EU appearing in commentaries independently of the topic set in the article is the relationship with Russia. Another is general dissatisfaction with politicians, often rendered via (emotionally charged) statements on the Paksas controversy. Because of the latter, the commentaries in EU accession debate on the Lithuanian Delfiare much more subversive of the elite discourse in the articles than the commentaries in the parallel debate in Latvia, even though many commentators support EU accession as such.

snobbish people whom nobody knows’.¹⁷The legitimacy of pro-EU opinions in such commentaries is fundamentally excluded – as is the legitimacy of anti-EU opinions in official texts. These attempts to establish alternative access control become understandable if put in the context of traditionally oppositional discourses of the Russian-language press in Latvia. The negative attitude towards the discourse of the (ethnically Latvian) political elite, especially in the area of foreign policy and ethnic policy, is regularly present in these media. (Kruks & Sˇulmane 2000) The practice of Latvian Russian-language media to make habitually critical remarks concerning every aspect of ‘official’ policies can be described as discursive practice of non-citizenship– a strategy aimed at a large segment of the population, mostly Russian-speaking non-citizens, representing a reaction of journalists and media owners to the ethnic aspect of existing power relations.

Similar tendency is visible in the commentaries posted on the Russian-language version of Estonian Delfi. While Estonia demonstrates a somewhat lesser extent of ethnic polarisation, due to a less clear-cut ethnic character of political parties and media, and lack of radically polarising policies such as the Latvian reform of minority schools, the presence of discursive practices of non-citizenship is obvious also here.

A vivid example of a news article with strong polarizing potential is the article published on Estonain Delfiin July 2003:‘Deputy of parliament invited EU to condemn communism’ (349 commentaries). The majority of commentaries posted on the Russian-language version condemn the deputy’s idea. Of these, some include negative comments on the economic effect of the EU accession, and some express general dissatisfaction with government policies and personal qualities of political leaders, e. g.:

‘When you, ladies and gentlemen in the government, will have provided the people (I mean common people, not those in power) with economic welfare, then you can condemn communism. Otherwise you have robbed the people, provided them with drugs and joblessness, with the pennies you pay to retired people… and now you are washing dirty linen in public.’¹⁸ Similar reactions follow another publication stating a politician’s official position on EU-related issue of high domestic priority: an article about the Estonian Minister of Population Stating that the EU will not solve the problem of citizenship.¹⁹ This article, followed by 304 commentaries, contains statements that provoked predictably negative reaction of many commentators, e.g. ‘Minister added that it will be a shock for many non-Estonians when they wake up from their illusions and understand that no one will automatically grant them citizenship when Estonia joins the EU’. This statement is almost identical to similar statements made by Latvian politicians before the referendum concerning non-citizens in Latvia. The minister added that after this ‘news’ many Russian-speaking inhabitants may change their attitude towards the EU. As in the case of the Russian-language Delfiin Latvia, not all authors of commentaries limit themselves to critique of concrete statements in the text. Many commentaries are short exclamations using rude lexic, and some are general statements on the policies of Estonian government. The elite discourse of citizenship is criticized using the same rhetoric devices as are often used in the Russian-language media in Latvia: ‘I have lived in this country for 40 years. Should I now pay the last pennies you give me, to get Estonian citizenship? In Raidi (cemetery in Kohtla-Järve) I will be accepted also without citizenship.’

The use of ‘you’ in the latter quotation is particularly interesting – it denotes ‘the government’ or ‘the state’, reproducing the discourse of state/government as (unjust) distributors of goods, and population as passive and wronged recipients.

Some commentators also make statements on the powerlessness of Estonian policy-makers in the face of the EU: ‘When they are told, they will give us passports.’ Parallel to that, a critique of transparency/ legitimacy of political decision-making processes is present in some commentaries, e.g. ‘Today in the morning they said on Radio 4 that in Greece the decision of joining the EU was made by the government, and so should it be here – this government’s, not people’s business.’ The same author concludes: ‘So there is no point to say that annexing Estonia to the USSR without referendum was bad.’ Also here, historical allusions are made, though these are more likely to evoke historical memory common to all post-Soviet space, e.g. comparing criticized politician to the Nazi Müller. Radical political language is used (as also in commentaries on Latvian Delfi): e.g., ‘genocide in Latvia and Estonia’ (about policies regarding ethnic minorities in these countries).

17 http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=6182734&com=1, visited on 20 January 2004.

18 http://rus.delfi.ee/archive/article.php?id=6018593&ndate=1058734800&categoryID=309647, visited on 20 January 2004.

19 http://rus.delfi.ee/archive/article.php?id=6036621&ndate=1058994000&categoryID=309647, visited on 20 January 2004.

Also on Estonian Delfi, articles on EU accession information campaign appeared in the months preceding the referendum and evoked contradictory reactions. While some remained almost without attention from commentators (e.g. Euroskeptics on the beach, 22 July²⁰), others – like the news article quoting BNSabout the wish expressed by pro-EU organizations to see information concerning Euroskeptics’ funding sources²¹– received more attention. The rhetoric of online commentaries was varied and revealed no monolithic Eurosceptic attitude among the readers (e.g. a reader using nickname Cremlin posted the commentary

‘We will not make public the sources of Europhobic funding’). Some commentaries, both in support and against EU accession, used extended analytical arguments, while others reproduced uncritically the arguments present in political discourse, e. g.:

‘You are against joining the EU because you would like Estonia to join the Commonwealth of Independent States’.

The question remains, does the Internet in the Baltic States reinforce the existing order of top down communication or not? While recognising that the sample of articles and online comments analysed in this article is not representative enough to make conclusive statements, some regularities seem to emerge and would merit further research.

A greater divergence of discourses between the texts generated by political elite and the texts generated by online debate seems to be present in the case of Russian-language Delfiin Estonia and Latvia, as well as in the case of Lithuanian Delfi.

As can be concluded from the above descriptions, both the Latvian and the Estonian cases of Russian-language Delfirepresent more critical reception of elite discourse than the Latvian-language version of the same portal. At the same time, the audience of Lithuanian-language version is equally critical of elite discourse, though, it can be hypothesized, for a different reason.

All of these examples seem to suggest that more heterogeneous messages and alternative uses of public debate space take place in the cases when an alternative discourse is organized – for example through alternative media and alternative agenda of opposition parties, as in the case of Russian-speaking audiences in Latvia and Estonia and in the case of Lithuanian audience during the Paksas presidency in Lithuania. Where no major organizational forms for alternative discourses are in evidence – as in the case of Latvian-speaking audiences in Latvia – the acceptance of elite discourse is much greater, also in the seemingly free spaces of online Internet debates.

References

Fairclough, Norman (1999) Language and Power, London.

Golubeva, Maria & Ieleja, Diana (2004) “Conceptualising the Fear of Losing National Identity: the Case of Latvia” – in Hecker-Stampehl, J, Bannwart, A., Brekenfeld, D & Plath, U. (eds.) Perceptions of Loss, decline and Doom in the Baltic Sea Area,Berlin: BWV, pp. 331-342.

Kluitenberg, Eric (1999) The Politics of Cultural memory[online], available: http://www.t0.or.at/~micz/threadder/messages/151.htm [visited on 6 January, 2004].

Kruks, Sergejs & Sˇulmane, Ilze (2001) “Stereotipi Latvijas prese¯” (Stereotypes in Latvian Press) – in Latvijas Mediju Analı¯ze (Daudzveidı¯ba III), Rı¯ga: Latvijas Universita¯te, pp. 11-50, available online: http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=101966&lang=lv [visited on 4 August, 2004].

Nora, Pierre (ed.) (1989) “Between Memory and History: Les lieux de memoire” – in Representations 26.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (1993) “Principles of critical discourse analysis” – in Discourse and Society,No. 4, vol. 2.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2002) “The Discourse-Knowledge Interface” – in Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (eds.) Theory and Interdisciplinarity in Critical Disocurse Analysis,Houndmills: Palgrave.

Young, Iris Marion (1995) “Communication and the Other: beyond deliberative democracy” – in Wilson, Margaret & Yeatman, Anna (eds.) Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices,Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

20 http://rus.delfi.ee/archive/article.php?id=6027826&ndate=1058821200&categoryID=309647, visited on 20 January 2004.

21 http://rus.delfi.ee/archive/article.php?id=6028940&ndate=1058907600&categoryID=309647, visited on 20 January 2004.

Media Modernization and Journalism Cultures in the Baltic States and Norway

Aukse˙ Balcˇytiene˙

1. Introduction

The tendency of media to become very competitive and increasingly market oriented appears to be a phenomenon manifested in many countries. In addition to commercial imperatives, a very powerful force on changes in the media comes from the rapid diffusion of new technologies in the newsrooms with new news production routines and new formats deriving from that.

The widely discussed commercialism of the media is, in fact, strongly related to social changes. One important argument for media commercialisation is the idea that the centrality of organized social groups and importance of loyalty and solidarity to group interests is giving way to greater individualism (Hallin & Mancini 2003). As many scholars claim, a mass audience changes into a new audience with personalized interests (Hallin & Mancini 2004) and the media re-orients itself towards producing news and information as a “saleable product”. The arrival of interactive technologies, too, contributes to the process of personification: it provides means to personalised experience for information consumers.

In this article the process of media modernisation is analysed from two perspectives, namely the economic and technological impact on media development. On the one hand, the article seeks to demonstrate that the business-inspired attempt to

“sell” news to the audience affects the development of the media in a small market. On the other hand, the article seeks to assess the diffusion of technological innovations as another powerful force towards media homogenisation. Bearing in mind these two perspectives, the crucial questions, therefore, are: Has economic liberation brought more democracy to the Baltic States? Have technological innovations, in principle, changed how journalists do their job and communicate with audiences?

The article begins with an assessment of economic and technological factors as the main universalising forces in the modernisation of media systems worldwide. It applies a “what has happened” approach and describes the major structural changes that recently took place in the Lithuanian media. It then talks about the diffusion of new technologies and their impact on conventional media development. Although the tendencies of media development are similar in many countries worldwide, the results are different due to national characteristics of journalism cultures.

The article is written from a Lithuanian perspective with comparative data from three other countries, namely Latvia, Estonia and Norway. The article aims at a systematic comparison between the four selected countries. It intends to identify and explain differences and similarities between the media with respect to the particular phenomenon (e.g., media modernisation and the culture of journalism), being analysed. Hence, the emphasis here is on theory building and theory testing with the four countries themselves acting as cases.