Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

With regards to freedom of expression in Lithuania, participants agreed that the media were safe and independent. Moreover, there was diversity and pluralism of opinions, and no serious problems existed in this area. Especially in the area of radio and television, a very large diversity of media outlets were present in Lithuania (notwithstanding the high concentration of media ownership). However, it was said that the written press had lost its stronghold in Lithuania compared to many other EU countries, with only one daily newspaper left, and the internet was currently the main source of access to media. The market for news portals on the internet was very competitive and most journalistic innovations were taking place there. TV was said to be the most influential and richest media in the country, whereas the internet was seen by the participants as the most easily accessible channel for expressing one's opinion.

Regarding hate speech and instigation of hatred, participants agreed that it was present in social media, especially in comments sections, with gender, ethnicity and social standing being the main targeted aspects. Journalists, however, were not systematically targeted by hate speech in Lithuania. Furthermore, it was noted that the Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania had the authority to stop programs from other countries being re-broadcast on the territory of the country, if hate speech or other infringements were identified in them. However, these decisions only applied to rebroadcast television programmes, and did not cover the internet.

Freedom of media was assessed as an area of no particular concern, even though it was noted that journalists were facing some attempts to withhold certain information from them. In this regard several participants mentioned aspects of the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Lithuania, which had been a lengthy and complex process. An element brought forward by the participants was that the implementation of the GDPR was sometimes used by the public authorities as an excuse to withhold information from journalists, for example during journalistic investigations.

Implementation of the GDPR was also mentioned as the area where journalists had to "fight" the most due to the scarce legal practice in the country, as well as to some decisions taken by the Ethics Inspector of the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics, accountable to the Lithuanian Parliament, which had later been overruled by the courts. Investigative journalists had challenged those decisions, as they were working on important issues in the public interest, and if the GDPR was used against them as a means of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) action to silence them, then it would violate freedom of speech in the country very significantly. 

Furthermore, it was noted that journalists were following standards of ethics, and the editorial boards did a lot to ensure the safety of journalists and to avoid prosecution. It was also noted that a revival of quality journalism could be observed, with four investigative teams currently active in the media. However, it did not seem that a self-regulation mechanism existed in the country. Furthermore, a significant need for training and advice for journalists, especially regarding social media, was mentioned, which was said to be provided by the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics both in writing and orally, as well as through training seminars.

Regarding media funding, commercial media saw State aid to the national public service broadcaster as a problem as it was considered that such support was bigger than the sum for all commercial television providers taken together. The media had limited possibilities to monitor how this public broadcaster funding was spent and how it matched its mission. As for the private media, it was said that they could receive funding from the Media Support Fund as well as various projects. However, funding was not considered as sufficient.

Another point mentioned with regard to funding of the public service broadcaster was the fact that the significant funding it received from the State budget (through personal income tax and excise duties collected) was automatic, without the broadcaster having to justify its needs; some therefore believed that this distorted the entire market. Furthermore, due to this capital, the public service broadcaster could also attract the best and the most experienced journalists, which also impacted the salaries paid to journalists in private media outlets.

Finally, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was said that it had negatively impacted the quality of journalism, because of the reduction of revenue from advertisement for the media.