Without funding from the Media Support Fund (MAF), many commercial media owners would have to subsidize them from their other businesses in order to preserve their own and their affiliated politicians’ influence in the regions and in the country. I arrived at this conclusion after examining funded media projects over a three‑year period.
A few days ago, the editor-in-chief of the portal “Delfi”, Filips Lastovskis, in the context of a discussion about the usefulness of the Society Integration Fund (SIF), published his own version of the impact of money on the media from the Media Support Fund (which is one of SIF’s activity directions). I must admit that I cannot agree with a single one of Lastovskis’ generalized claims, except for the notion that we should understand which SIF support mechanisms work and which do not.
Before proceeding, I would like to add that I agree that the state should support small regional media – those established by journalists themselves to inform the public about events, and which have no one behind them, while the village or small town they represent is too small to be of interest to advertisers. The social function is important; such small media in more distant regions create a sense of community and perform a range of other functions that are necessary in a healthy society, and I am sure no one would object to that.
But in all other respects, I can only marvel at how superficial the Delfi editor-in-chief’s view of MAF’s problems is and suggest that it is more likely an attempt to secure continued funding and to defend the politicians’ decision not to liquidate SIF after all. I will explain why.
- The mechanism by which politicians influence the media is tried and tested and works like clockwork; moreover, the smaller the country, the easier it is to exert pressure on a media outlet. Often such pressure does not even need to be applied, because there is also journalists’ self‑censorship. The Delfi editor’s assertion that “although there are media outlets for which the percentage of state support in relation to turnover is noticeably high and can become unhealthy, the current picture does not indicate dependence” is essentially unfounded and can apply only to a few national‑level media. I will illustrate this with a striking example, but at the end of the article there is a data table on support to the media over the last three years, where one can verify the accuracy of the figures and the allocated funding.
“In 2023, Valmiera businessman Jurģis Ābele ordered five new rhododendron varieties to be named after himself and his family members – the shrubs were named ‘Jurģis Ābele’, ‘Baiba Ābele’, ‘Aleksandra Daniela Ābele’, ‘Enzo Ābele’ and ‘Bruno Ābele’.” Kas Jauns avīze wrote about this in January 2023. That year, six media outlets owned by Jurģis Ābele’s family received 842 thousand euros from taxpayers’ money via the Society Integration Fund (SIF), which was just under 30% of the companies’ turnover. Over three years, national and regional media owned by a single owner have received more than 2 million euros, and the largest project, worth 344.57 thousand euros, was received by Ābele’s company “Re MEDIA” for producing municipal news on the ReTV channel – in other words, simply for what ReTV already does on a daily basis anyway. No special content projects, at least according to the information on SIF, were planned. Just segments with summaries on the ReTV website, where, with reference to MAF funding, a total of 54 news items with stories can be found. For example, about how the State Audit Office went to inspect the Jēkabpils municipal council, run by the Latvian Green Party, and what a huge dispute broke out in Jēkabpils over four sheds. Meanwhile, for instance in Cēsis, where New Unity is in power, one of this year’s most visible events is that a 9‑meter‑high maidenhair tree was planted in Cēsis, while in other media there was a report about a man in Cēsis who, under the cover of social networks, raped a minor girl for two years, which apparently seemed insignificant to the public from Re:TV’s perspective. Perhaps because this could cast a shadow on the negligence of municipal services and cause concern among Cēsis residents, which of course should not be allowed in a year when local elections are taking place. Just as no other negative news about towns governed by New Unity should be allowed. On the other hand, it is acceptable that SIF funding under such a programme is being “distributed” for the first time in SIF’s history, and of course the fact that this happens precisely in a local election year and goes to this one media outlet alone is pure coincidence. Among other things, if we divide 344 thousand by 54 stories, we get 6,300 euros per story… either that is disproportionately expensive, or perhaps in December the news about trees being planted in Cēsis will pour forth like from a horn of plenty.
It is not excluded, of course, that the search function on the ReTV portal simply does not work, because when searching by MAF project keywords it supposedly finds 54 results, but displays only ten, one of which is an advertorial. Still, it is better to discard this thought immediately, because ReTV also received 75.8 thousand euros from MAF in 2023 for the creation of the ReTV portal, 10 thousand euros for strengthening ReTV team’s digital skills, and in 2025 – 14 thousand euros to strengthen the portal’s functionality. Surely it cannot be that the money was received but the search function does not work? If we nonetheless assume it works properly, then by searching by city names anyone can verify that, in ReTV’s view, everything good in Latvia happens only in cities where New Unity and its mayor are in power, and everything bad – where political opponents hold sway. One event, however, has become an exception and has united regions irrespective of which party is in power there, namely the protests against the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. For example, about 100 people took part in such a protest in Daugavpils, and this event, of course, was worth 6,300 euros.
The previous paragraphs would be inaccurate if I did not mention that the 344 thousand euros were not allocated only to Re MEDIA but also to cooperation partners selected at the applicant’s discretion. For example, why not cooperate also with Vidzemes TV, which it also owns?
This is just one example illustrating the mechanism, but I am sure that with enough time such coincidences could be found in every cell of the table, because it is very hard to conceal interests when the largest sums of money are granted to those media that are owned by people or entrepreneurs close to the coalition’s political forces, or who support or finance these parties.
Indeed, what a miracle that the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) gave in and agreed with the coalition not to liquidate SIF after all! What would ZZS member and donor Ričards Zakss, who owns the EHR Media Group and has received hundreds of thousands of euros – more precisely, 692 thousand euros in the last three years – have to say about that?
- A veil of secrecy and unclear evaluation criteria do not promote trust and transparency. Unfortunately, the SIF website does not contain information about all the media and projects that were submitted and rejected, nor about the individuals who sat on the evaluation committees.
Why is this important? Because any citizen – and in fact first and foremost the editors and owners of the media themselves – may have questions about various oddities. For example, when compiling the table of support to the media, I repeatedly had questions. In one case I wondered why the radio station “EF‑EI”, owned by the wife of Rēzekne’s mayor Aleksandrs Bartaševičs, Olga Bartaševiča, was allocated 14.6 thousand euros in 2023, providing 81% of its turnover (at that time Bartaševičs was mayor), but in 2024, when Bartaševičs was no longer mayor, this radio station did not receive such funding. Are these facts related or not, and is funding for any media outlet dependent on the power positions of relatives and allies?
I think many would be interested to know why some Russian‑language media are lambasted, while for example the NGO DAmedia (chayka.lv) is allocated 67 thousand euros so that the portal can maintain its Facebook page in Latvian in Latvia? Moreover, Chayka’s content in Russian and Latvian differs, because which Russian speaker would be interested in the “Latgale strength stories” separately funded by the Ministry of Defence, right? I see problems in the integration field.
But enough about Russians; there are many other interesting things, big and small. For example, the company “Vietējā” (“Vietējā Latgales avīze”), owned by JSC “Preiļu siers” – that is, by New Unity donor Jāzeps Šņepsts, who is by no means poor – has received 125.6 thousand euros over three years, which provided 34% of this media outlet’s turnover. It operates in a town run by a New Unity mayor, and without these state investments the company would be operating at a loss; that is, Šņepsts would possibly have to give up some exotic hunting trips and maintain the media out of his own pocket, or close it down. Can such a portal, where on 18 November, the national holiday, the top story at midday is a 10‑day‑old news item about a visit by New Unity’s foreign minister Baiba Braže, be considered an independent regional media outlet, and the funding – support for quality journalism?
Of course, it is also interesting whether the highly specific magazine “Bilance”, whose office is located in the business school “Turība” run by the president of the Latvian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LTRK), Aigars Rostovskis, was allocated 117.7 thousand euros over two years because this magazine is owned by the husband of Saeima deputy Aiva Vīksna – or not? A more transparent jury composition and evaluation process could help answer such questions and avoid speculation.
In my opinion, the most interesting question should be addressed to Zemgale Regional Television, which has received 111 thousand euros over three years and also can hardly exist without this money; this TV station has also been granted funding for capacity building. Here I would like to reflect on why the Lursoft database lists the private e‑mail address and mobile phone number of former National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP) member Dace Ķezbere as the company’s contacts. Could this mean that, contrary to formally unknown female owners, the true owner is Ķezbere? For those who do not know – adding contacts to this database is not a simple or anonymous matter; to change contacts, you must log in with Smart‑ID or otherwise prove your identity. Can we conclude that, as a NEPLP member heading the supervisory body, Ķezbere was in a conflict of interest while also overseeing a television station she herself controlled? How is it really?
- Many media outlets could not exist without MAF support or their owners would have to top up the funding from their own resources, for example from profits in other businesses – and who would want to subsidize a company like that? They would have to start thinking, perhaps power might even change…
As can be seen in the table, there are plenty of projects that have operated at a loss or with only small profits, but without this support the owners of these media outlets would have to look for money somewhere. In other words, they would have to behave like in any other business: compete, cut something, think about efficiency. I think it does not need to be proven that the goal of any company is to make a profit. However bitter the truth may be, the media market has changed significantly in the last roughly 15 years, because the media, as we know, have power. This has ensured that media owners are mostly entrepreneurs with interests in the political field. For example, to maintain positions in a particular municipality. I think it is highly unlikely that Jāzeps Šņepsts decided to diversify his activities in dairy processing by adding a small newspaper to Preiļu siers. Or let us imagine that entrepreneur Uldis Mierkalns, who owns the wood processing company PATA with an annual turnover of more than 330 million euros, suddenly thought that his daughter Patrīcija – a karate champion and self‑regulation skills lecturer at Riga Stradiņš University, who has nothing to do with the media field – suddenly needed her own TV channel “Vidusdaugavas televīzija” somewhere in Jēkabpils. Yet it exists, and it receives MAF support… As for the ownership circle of the magazine IR and its almost 400 thousand euros of funding over three years, that probably deserves a separate article, also analysing the publications – hopefully some university student will do that.
- The capacity‑building programme – daylight robbery.
Honestly, I did not know such a thing even existed until I saw a separate column in the Delfi editor’s article. But then I read about it. In general, I think any business would be delighted if the whole nation covered its development costs. I can hardly imagine a greater absurdity in private business. Looking at the projects approved and funded in 2025, we see that only those media have been strengthened with state funds that belong to party sponsors or otherwise related persons. How is that even possible? Looking at the projects themselves, it is clear that in any other business these would be capital expenditures or increases in share capital, or development and competitiveness. For example, Latgale Regional Television, owned by Ēķis, has been sponsored with 34 thousand euros for “the creation of a quality studio, …”, while Radio Skonto, owned by the above‑mentioned Ābele, has had “ensuring the speed and functionality of the website…” financed for 80 thousand euros. It is like funding a new production line for a food manufacturer, etc. It is interesting whether such support to private business is even legal… Other commercial media should be the first to cry out about this, but no – all remain diplomatically silent, afraid of losing even what they already have. Healthy competition? No, never heard of it.
Inc-Baltics by Inc-baltics.com
Does not establish and does not influence. Finally, dessert.
The Delfi editor Lastovskis writes in his publication that funding from MAF in Delfi’s case constitutes only a small percentage and therefore does not affect editorial content. In my view, the first part of the sentence is true, but not the second. However, we cannot find this out, because no other data are known, for example, about the sums and the parties with which “cooperation agreements” have been concluded directly or via organizations close to them. I know about the existence of such agreements from the time I worked at the Ministry of Economics, and I suspect that the agreement with New Unity is for a larger amount than with ZZS. Why do I suspect this?
Let us recall an interesting incident from the middle of last December, when Mr Lastovskis wanted to obtain a document that the Ministry of Finance (FM) had sent to the Ministry of Economics (EM) in order to prepare a publication about what fools work at EM that they are unable to churn out a capital market development strategy. The interest in the publication somehow disappeared after I, as the economic minister’s adviser, sent the journalist not only the letter that was unofficially requested, but also the strategy document itself, in which the FM’s comments had been retained and it was obvious that FM was trying to reduce its own responsibility. I would really like an answer as to whether the planned publication became uninteresting once it was established that, in favour of New Unity‑led FM, the article could not be massaged into shape even with a great deal of effort. How is it really?
In conclusion, and to reinforce the sense of independence on the national holiday, I would also like to highlight a great MAF project, for example Delfi’s project “Strengthen the Strong”. Without any sarcasm, I think this is an excellent example of how the media, state support and society could interact. The state provides reasonable support, the media describes and informs, Ziedot.lv helps collect donations and, to some extent, eases the lives of a certain part of society.
On the other hand – would these families not actually prefer real money found, say, in the budgets of the Ministry of Welfare or the Ministry of Health, rather than once again being collected from the people in a PR campaign?
Originally published at https://inc-baltics.com/bez-maf-atbalsta-iespejams-pat-vara-nomainitos/
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
