Content will continue after the ad
Advertising
–
The Saeima is currently discussing a draft law on public media, which, among many other changes, also envisages the creation of a unified public media in the future. Several years ago, I expressed my objections because I found the way in which the work on the concept took place unacceptable. This does not mean that I am conceptually against combining the two media – if it is done qualitatively in the interests of ALL listeners, viewers and readers, then it is good.
I just left the working group at the time because I saw that Latvian Radio needs are ignored and radio was treated as a secondary, insignificant medium (my subjective opinion, which was later joined by the rest of the radio team).
I very much hope that after the adoption of the new law, this time there will be quality work on the development of a new concept and everything will be different. However, the events of recent weeks are again creating an unpleasant premonition. There has not been any discussion yet about the basic principles of the merger process, but decisions on the needs of a new building are being made at the speed of the monkey. Last week I learned that Latvian Radio will be evicted from the Dome Square, NEPLP a decision has been made to build a new house with an area of 25 thousand square meters, the new medium will be located in either Skanste or Zaķusala, the radio’s 1st recording studio will be liquidated and some live studio could be built in Old Riga, but exactly where and for what purposes later. The total cost would tentatively exceed 56 million euros, but it is only a matter of building the house itself. All the infrastructure, technical equipment, relocation fees, providing live broadcasting, and the rest – you will see it already. The final decision had to be made last week. Everything!
Have you already guessed why everything happens at such a cosmic, pointless speed? Well, of course, the benefits of Covid! There is a window to European grants, and it must be used as a matter of urgency. It’s nothing that you don’t even know what space is needed at all, what this medium will look like, what principles will work. Just to get money – we will attract the content after that!
I understand very well my colleagues on television, who have been working in unsuitable premises for many years (radio is not such a situation – we need much less resources to maintain a home). But it’s not about that. If other state institutions did this, we would shout out loud! Do we really agree that we are silenced (or bribed) in this way? We will not be morally entitled to talk about the fair distribution of public funds in the future if we implement this practice ourselves!
There are so many issues that have not even been discussed at all. For Latvijas Radio 1, the News Service (and, as far as I know, Latvijas Radio 3 and Latvijas Radio 4), being located in the center of Riga near all state institutions is vital. Of course, it would be more convenient for me to drive to one of the islands of the Daugava to work in new, cool premises. But more important to the society is the program and its content!
How many times, while working in the news, I have not run from the government house or the Saeima, editing recordings in my device on the way to go to the studio live in 5 minutes! How often has a qualitative discussion been possible at the “Crossroads” only because the deputies of the Saeima can run away during the break of the plenary sessions and answer (sometimes awkward) questions! Have any of the latter-day decision-makers asked me what is needed to make our work even better?
I am glad that the management of Latvijas Radio, at the risk of damaging the relationship, has expressed its position to decide on the construction of the new house only when a reasonable new media concept corresponding to the public interest has been developed. Then we will be able to decide what we need, how much it will actually cost and how to implement it. And if the society and the state will appreciate it, then also find the necessary means. The path now envisaged is morally unacceptable to me.
It is not said that we will actually be given this Covid money, but if we accept this approach, we will close our mouths to talk about others for a long time. Eh, please reassure me that my concerns are unfounded!
–
