Journalists' Association Opposes Moving Media Support Fund to NEPLP

The Latvian Journalists' Association (LŽA) said on 10 November that it categorically opposes a government-backed proposal to hand administration of the Media Support Fund (MAF) to the National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP), the body that supervises electronic media. The association argues that combining media oversight and state funding distribution in one institution would create risks of political influence, conflict of interest and newsroom self-censorship.

What is proposed

A reallocation of Society Integration Foundation (SIF) programmes, put forward by the Ministry of Culture, envisages assessing the transfer of MAF administration to NEPLP, while other support programmes would go to ministries and the State Chancellery. In the LŽA's view, removing the fund's key functions would effectively dismantle its current operating model. It says such changes need a clear rationale, and that references to administrative efficiency or depoliticisation are not enough.

The association's arguments

NEPLP already has broad powers: content checks, broadcasting licences and administrative violation proceedings. LŽA notes that an institution able to take decisions unfavourable to a media outlet would at the same time decide on its access to state support. The association asks how equal treatment will be guaranteed for outlets that NEPLP has investigated or fined.

LŽA warns that editorial independence can be weakened even without direct orders, if journalists choosing topics start to consider the reaction of the funder. This is especially relevant for newsrooms producing investigative, analytical and regional content. MAF support covers press, radio, television and digital media, so the council's influence would extend across the sector. Council members are elected by the Saeima, the Latvian parliament, so concentrating more powers there would raise the political significance of choosing its members.

Demands

LŽA cites a Council of Europe recommendation on media pluralism, which calls for clear, objective and transparent support criteria. It urges the government to drop the idea and, together with media organisations, devise a solution with independent project evaluation, reasoned decisions, conflict-of-interest prevention and a review procedure. In its view, SIF's shortcomings should be fixed by reducing political influence and strengthening the role of independent experts.