Monika Gimbutaitė. What have the Media Foundation’s dramas taught us? | Culture

I remember who I interviewed, where I was in a hurry to transcribe the text, and how the editor deservedly scolded me for an ironic retort towards the then Minister of Culture Šarūnas Biručis.

It was obvious that a similar campaign might be needed this year as well in the fall. After the Press, Radio and Television Support Fund was closed, the processes of establishing the new entity – which distributes funding to the media, but for some reason was called the Media Support Fund – took a lot of time.

Funding is still undistributed, and the cultural media community’s more prominent agitation over the issue has occurred twice – oddly enough, but the rest of the media sectors, which are also concerned regarding the issue, have been even quieter.

The first stir came when Kultūros barai announced its closure. I’ll be the person to voice the behind-the-scenes conversations: it has long ceased to be a very relevant publication, nor a leading publication in any aspect of the community. The public mourning of “Culture bars” as a cultural bastion caused a slight smile, but at the same time, without any sarcasm, I claim that this event was used correctly. This provoked a more public debate and a reaction from the Ministry of Culture: an attempt to throw a lifeline through simplified public procurement by purchasing advertising space for the publication of cultural information. True, only in periodical cultural media.

The second stir came following the publication of the fund’s regulations and tender conditions. After Matus Drukteinius drew attention to them at the beginning of March, a public statement by representatives of part of the cultural media appeared as the month drew to a close. The press release states that the conditions of the competition promote unfair competition, as “the criteria for evaluating applications of the newly established fund will be the number of full-time employees, website traffic, periodicity, and for online publications – paper circulation.” This prevents non-eligible players from receiving funding, which in this outside – there is no shortage.

True, the report does not mention another problem – I will not try to decide whether it is because it is less relevant to the signatories. However, the current mechanism basically does not provide opportunities to receive funding for new media channels, which can survive for two or three years without state funding in the current market conditions – a mission impossible.

It is clear that the situation is bad, much worse than in 2016. But so far, the speeches seem very polite (and belated), they do not smell like protests or brave public actions. And the snow has already melted…

Is it the apparently bigger fund budget and the expectation of a more financially stable tomorrow that has slowed down the action? But I remind you interview with media expert Deimantas Jastramskisin which he says that there really isn’t much to be happy regarding.

Did the fact that Gytis Norvilas, who is also the head of the Culture Periodicals Association, became the chairman of the Council of the Media Support Fund had an influence? Maybe you didn’t want to protest once morest your association representative? But I want to believe that the errors of the Media Support Fund were largely due to the absurd haste caused by delayed processes and failure to ensure the continuity of a smooth funding mechanism. The Ministry of Culture should have much more criticism, no matter how it tries to avoid responsibility and paint the situation in bright colors: probably for the first time, while listening to the meeting of the Seimas Culture Committee, I agreed with Stasius Tumėnais, who was surprised by the optimism of the Ministry’s Chancellor, Rolandas Kvietkauskas, when talking regarding the processes of the new fund .

However, in this context, looking at the actions of more prominent field representatives in the public space, it is interesting to look back at ourselves. And what did I do? I delayed sitting down to this text for three weeks because I realized a funny fact: colleagues, as much as I’m sick of you, I’m afraid of you. This is not regarding getting comments from the editor, not even regarding criticizing Ingrida Šimonytė as a conservative voter – it takes much more courage to move the cultural media in Lithuania. And so far, almost all attempts to reconsider certain content selection or work organization practices have been met with sensitivity and strictness. Especially if people “from the country” tried to do it.

Mostly they say they don’t understand the specifics. It might very well be! But because of this, it is somewhat surprising that the cultural media themselves rarely try to cover those specifics and raise relevant questions for themselves and their colleagues, as if they are not responsible for their own agenda – of course, with important exceptions that, I hope, will inspire their colleagues as well. However, for now it is disappointing (and, in my eyes, problematic) that the cultural media itself does not like to engage in self-reflection and does not want to let others into its garden analysis, and media and political topics, even when they themselves become vitally important, receive too little attention.

Let’s remember that the dramas of the Media Support Fund were first of all covered by the national media, it was here that the main discussions took place, until finally this topic moved to the background on the news conveyor.

Some proverb would be appropriate here, not only regarding the firm representation of one’s position, but also regarding solidarity – the real one, which does not shy away from a critical look at a colleague, but also at oneself cobblestones non-stretching

It is sometimes lacking in the media as a whole, and not only when talking regarding this topic. I still remember the interview of Ramunė Ramanauskienė, the editor of “Tauragė Kurjerio” on the air of “Žiniai Radio”, in which she said that the publication she manages has been writing regarding the expenses of the members of the municipal council for at least 15 years. But nobody cared regarding the topic developed in the regional media until Andrius Tapinas touched on it. Or the situation when Marius Laurinavičius revealed the identity of the speaker following the investigation of the book “The Speaker and the President”, and the media made it public without blinking an eye. I have no doubt that those working in this field or following it with one eye would have their own examples.

I mightn’t find a proverb regarding solidarity and it seems eloquent. But still, the feeling that we have to learn something from this whole situation does not leave us. Care and courage? Collaboration between different media sectors and inclusion of issues relevant to both yourself and your competitor? A more open look and perspective on the future?

Well, or just go shoveling snow together, when we see that it has already snowed a lot.