Partija prieš

LTPolitikos komunikacija, atskleidžianti politikos, žiniasklaidos ir visuomenės sąveiką, rodo esant nuolatinį šių veikėjų konfliktą, kuris net ir teoriniu aspektu yra neišsprendžiamas. Pirmiausia dėl to, kad trys sąvokos yra daugiaprasmės: „politika“ aprėpia institucijas, įstaigas, organizacijas, asmenybes; žiniasklaida yra socialinis verslo ir žurnalistų kūrybos institutas; visuomenė - apskritai abstrakti sąvoka, nes ji skyla į auditorijas, kurios tiek naudingos politikų interesui tenkinti, kiek yra paveiktos masių psichologijos ir plečiasi tik atrasdamos jas tenkinantį žiniasklaidos produktą. Sąvokų turinys atskleidžia daugialypę konkurenciją, lengvai pastebimą viešojoje informacinėje erdvėje, bet demokratinėje visuomenėje, laimei, neįveikiamą. Kita vertus, jos rodo esant tarpusavio ryšius, kurie nebūtinai pastebimi viešojoje erdvėje (tad galima daryti prielaidą, kad ir nėra skaidrūs). Taigi minėtą konfliktą lemia: - politikų interesas pasiekti ir paveikti auditorijas; - žiniasklaidos interesas tenkinti auditorijų interesą žinoti apie valdžios veiksmus; - auditorijų interesas įsitikinti, kad valdžia atitinka jų vaizdinį. Interesų skirtumas leidžia tikėtis nenutrūkstamų informacijos mainų, kurie atskleis įvykių įvairovę kuriant naujieną ir visą naujienų lauką. Problema yra ta, kad kiekvienas politikos komunikacijos veikėjas skverbiasi į šį lauką norėdamas paveikti kitus veikėjus ir daryti įtaką jų veiklai.Kiekvienas jų mano esąs reikšmingiausias, nes sprendžia apie informacijos produkto vertę ir naudą. Tačiau tik du iš jų - politika ir žiniasklaida - viešojoje erdvėje pasitelkia argumentus, kurie gali stiprinti jų galias arba jų galios vaizdinius. Šiame straipsnyje1, pasiremdami politiko, publicisto, redaktoriaus Leono Bistro1 2 veiklos atveju, palyginsime politikos komunikacijos kaitos aplinkybes pirmojoje Lietuvos Respublikoje (XX a. I pusėje) ir dabartinėje Lietuvoje. Tarkime, kad šios aplinkybės rūpi vienu - partijų sąveikos su žiniasklaida - aspektu, kadangi tik jis būtų teisingas, jei norime įvertinti ir palyginti politikos, žiniasklaidos ir auditorijų sąveiką. [Iš straipsnio, p. 9-10]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Partijos; Politika; Žiniasklaida; Komunikacija; Visuomenės informavimas,; Žurnalistika; Spauda; Political parties; Politics; Media; Communication; Public awareness; Journalism; Press.

ENPolitical communication that illustrates the interaction between politics, media and civil society, suggest the existence of a conflict of interests. Politicians seek to influence the audience; the media have an interest in satisfying the wish of the audience to be aware of the actions of the government, which presupposes an a priori critical approach; whereas the audience wants to make sure that the government meets the image the society has coined of it by applying the critical approach. The author analyses this conflict through a study into the historical personality of Leonas Bistras who served as a politician, leader of the Christian Democrats, Speaker of the Seimas in 1922,1923 and 1925, also worked as a Minister after the coup detat as well as a journalist and an editor. The case of Leonas Bistras is taken to analyse the controversial aspects of contemporary political communication in Lithuania. The life of Leonas Bistras as a politician and an editor of a daily newspaper illustrates the European experience: in an effort to gain freedom, the European nations reared a new generation of leaders, who, upon gaining power, saw the media exceptionally as a means to disseminate the information on the decisions of the government. Bistras roles changed from a party leader to editor, from Member of the Seimas to Minister in an autocratic regime; he even worked as a journalist. These changes are illustrative of the understanding of democracy measured against values picked by a certain particular party, representing the electorate, to justify and give grounds to politically motivated actions. The previously mentioned difference of interests pursued by the actors of political communication leads to presume the existence of a continuous exchange of information and a range of various events entering news reporting and news agenda.The problem in political communication is that every actor seeks to enter the field of political communication in order to influence other actors and make an impact on their activities. Every player considers himself to be the most significant, since he decides on the value and usefulness of the given informational product. However, only two of the three players, namely, politics and the mass media, use arguments in the public sphere that may strengthen their powers or reinforce their image. Both the theory of political communication and the history of journalism pinpoint to yet another element that highlights the importance of actors involved in political communication. The key role in the triangle with the three players involved is played by the fourth, inanimate yet essential player, namely, the financial means for creating and disseminating the media product. This is exactly the factor that makes an essential impact on the philosophy of the mass media. The source of funding is the feature that destroys the image of alleged independence of the media from political influence. The author raises the question of whether we are free from prohibitions, manipulation and corruption today, at least from the legal point of view. There is sufficient global scientific and practical evidence to suggest that various political powers and various types of regimes have been trying to control the media and the news agenda. Journalism of the 20th century is the cornerstone of this theory: the fragmentation of journalism into types and genres, its relationship with the state, and recognition of its powers have been predetermined by the wish of audiences to know who in the world or in the relevant region was allegedly to be blamed and who was allegedly good.Authorities in the past used to limit through legislation, on the grounds they justified, the freedom of expression of legal and natural persons operating in the media system. This led audiences into feeling controlled and, as subordinates and voters, ultimately not responsible for the decisions made by political regimes and their consequences. In the digital era, one may think that the audience is a much more active and ostensibly more demanding player in political communication. However, the remaining two actors also have more technological tools at their disposal for the creation the news agenda and reaching their objectives to wield influence. Therefore, the effectiveness of application of the said tools through state funding can be determined by timely insights as well as legislation governing the interaction between the two actors of political communication, on the one hand, and regulating public funding of the two players of political communication, on the other.

• Atsakingos žiniasklaidos sistemos: teorinės prieigos ir situacija Lietuvos regionų spaudoje / Jolanta Mažylė. Žurnalistikos tyrimai. 2012, Nr. 5, p. 126-144.
• Naujoji cenzūra / Gintaras Aleknonis. Vilnius : Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2011. 223 p.