– What major changes do you notice in media law and its application in Lithuania?
– Among the most important changes, the European Media Freedom Act, which began to be applied in August last year, cannot be overlooked. Why is it significant? First of all, we must not forget the reasons that dictated its emergence. It was proposed in response to the deepening problems of media freedom in some European Union (EU) member states. It contains many important provisions, but in my opinion, the most significant are those related to the protection of editorial freedom, ensuring the confidentiality of sources, and guarantees of the independence of public broadcasters.
Is there any point in talking about risks to these values in Lithuania? In my opinion, definitely yes. Because there are risks to editorial independence, and they are not decreasing. Starting from the financial or management dependence of the media (especially regional) on politicians and ending with self-censorship, when a journalist, reacting to often unfounded or casuistic criticism (for example, alleged lack of balance in topics or interviewees), begins to limit themselves. I definitely see this trend because media outlets are increasingly forced to explain not the compliance of a specific journalistic work with legal and ethical requirements, but the editorial direction itself, the alleged lack of opinion diversity, or even worldview diversity: why the editorial office is too liberal or too conservative, why it writes about the “sins” of the left and not the right, and so on.
The essence of editorial independence is very simple: the journalist and the editorial office must have the right to freely choose topics and interviewees, but achieving this in a meaningful, not formal, sense is not easy, because recently there has been a desire from politicians and other influential members of society to “help” the media be more impartial, diverse, etc., which certainly does not contribute to editorial independence, rather the opposite.
Ensuring the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is also not yet properly understood, unfortunately not only by the public but also by law enforcement agencies and even courts. I am talking about a somewhat publicized case in the media when the editorial office refused to disclose a journalist’s source, and the next day the editorial office received a prosecutor’s order and a judge’s resolution obliging the source to be revealed, although both European and national law state that such a decision is a complete ultima ratio, necessary only for particularly significant public interests, and all other means have been exhausted; it is made by a reasoned court decision, hearing the journalist (editorial office) in the session.
Regarding risks to the independence of the public broadcaster, at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, we had a real opportunity to observe how different groups in our society evaluate both the role of the public broadcaster and various aspects of its independence, and here the European Media Freedom Act was quite rightly recalled.
– From the perspective of media law, is it more difficult or easier for a journalist to work today than, say, ten years ago?
– I have been working with various media outlets for almost 15 years and can say that professional journalists have been and are able to work in a way that avoids major mistakes. In my opinion, many journalists I work with are well versed in the essential principles of media law and, even without knowing legal nuances, 99 percent out of 100 can distinguish public interest from curiosity, opinion from fact, as well as recognize borderline cases and consult on them.
As I say during training for journalists, media law is very intuitive. In many cases, if you are honest and sincere and think that some information should not be published because it is private and does not add public value to your journalistic work, the dispute resolver will most likely see it the same way.
Therefore, I do not think that purely professionally it is harder for a journalist to work now than ten years ago. It is harder only in the sense that alongside their professional tasks – preparing a professional journalistic work – a journalist is often forced to fight additional battles and defend their content in other “arenas,” for example, on social networks or explaining to dispute resolvers.
– Quite a few journalists currently engage in other activities alongside their profession (e.g., public activities, also creating content on social networks). Where is the boundary today between the personal responsibility of the journalist and that of the editorial office?
– The answer depends on which media entity and what responsibility we are talking about. In the simplest sense, the one who disseminated the information is responsible and accordingly had the opportunity and duty to prevent the dissemination of illegal information. If we talk about a classic public information medium, the roles are quite clear: the journalist prepares the information, and the responsible editor decides to publish it, so the journalistic work passes the so-called “four eyes” filter, and therefore editorial responsibility lies with the media outlet.
When we talk about social media content, such a filter no longer exists, and the public information creator and disseminator coincide, being the same person, so they become responsible for the dissemination of illegal information.
This question also hints not only at legal responsibility for the dissemination of illegal information but also that a journalist, even acting in a social (non-work) space, is often identified with the media outlet by the information consumer, so the journalist’s social activity may have significance for the evaluation of the public information medium.
What a journalist communicates outside the work sphere can affect the media outlet, which is not only a public information disseminator but also the journalist’s employer. In such a case, we must talk about the rules set by the public information medium regarding journalists’ expression on social networks or other public activities, and here the rules or agreements may vary.
– Who is legally responsible for an error, inaccurate information, or violation of human rights – the journalist who collected the information, the editorial office that published it, or the editor?
– If we talk about a classic public information medium, in terms of civil liability for defamation, damage to dignity or professional reputation, or privacy violations, the defendant is the public information medium. After all, the journalist or editor is only an employee acting on behalf of and in the interests of the employer – the public information medium.
However, this does not mean that the journalist is not responsible for violations; if a violation is established, disciplinary or contractual liability may be applied to them.
– How does artificial intelligence (AI) change the legal responsibility of the journalist and editorial office? If AI is used to search for information, prepare text, translate, summarize, or create images, who is responsible for its mistakes, bias, or possible copyright infringements?
Is there enough clarity for both media field workers and its consumers: readers, viewers, and listeners?
– Artificial intelligence, or more precisely – its use, does not change the legal responsibility of the journalist or editorial office in any way. AI can facilitate information search, help prepare information, but the responsibility for the compliance of information with legal requirements lies not with artificial intelligence but with a human.
Is there enough clarity for media field workers? It depends on the employer. Which AI tools to choose and how, how to evaluate them, whether they need to be controlled, how they are used, today is largely the employer’s choice.
The responsibility for the compliance of information with legal requirements lies not with artificial intelligence but with a human.
Read more The US warned Americans about traveling to Saudi Arabia
In my opinion, a responsible employer, especially a responsible public information medium, which inevitably deals with a large volume of various information, cannot afford to leave the choice of AI tools to chance or employees’ discretion.
From the privacy or personal data protection aspect, a simple transcription (audio or video recording transcription) tool that converts sound to text involves transferring the speaker’s personal data (voice, conversation content) to another person – the AI tool provider, so when selecting AI systems to use, an assessment should be made of how input/output data are processed, where and how long they are stored, where they may be transferred, whether they are used for machine learning, etc.
Regarding clarity for readers, viewers, and listeners, from August this year, transparency requirements established in the Artificial Intelligence Act apply, obliging to label AI-generated or altered video or audio content if it realistically imitates people, objects, or events that the information consumer might mistakenly believe to be real (so-called deepfake content).
It is also required to mark AI-created or altered text used to publicly inform society on important public interest issues if the text has not been thoroughly reviewed by a human (e.g., automatic AI-made text translations, automatic audio or video transcription, etc.).
– What new legal risks do the current speed of information and digital environment create for journalists? Are the biggest challenges today related to privacy, personal data, copyright, social networks, disinformation, or are there entirely new problems emerging?
– The desire to be the first to publish news is not new. More than a decade ago, I had to represent media outlets in a dispute when they accused each other of a practice where a publication from one internet news portal was slightly modified and published on another portal. Then the question arose about the difference between a copyrighted work and a regular report on events, citation and reproduction, and other copyright-related issues.
Today, the “race” for information speed is also ongoing, but now it involves not only traditional media but everyone who has a social network account.
A professional journalistic work has always been and will be about the duty to verify facts, provide the criticized party the right to respond, weigh privacy against the public’s right to know, which hardly correlates with the desire to publish news immediately.
In my opinion, professional media cannot afford to sacrifice the fundamental principles of public information (justice, accuracy, privacy protection, and others) for the sake of speed, because only this still distinguishes it from all other information abundance today.
Therefore, I would say that being first and not necessarily correct, accurate, properly respecting privacy, or conversely – slower but calm about the published content – today is a choice made by each public information disseminator.
One of the most illustrative examples for me was the so-called “Epstein files” published earlier this year and the very different editorial approaches to the privacy of persons mentioned in these documents. I watched with some surprise the race of editorial offices to publish stories about people found in the “Epstein files,” placing those editorial offices that at least tried to decide which of the mentioned persons could be considered victims and which were persons whose behavior deserved public investigation on different ethical shelves.
Being first and not necessarily correct, accurate, properly respecting privacy, or conversely – slower but calm about the published content – today is a choice.
– Looking ahead to the coming years, what changes in media law and the daily work of journalists can be expected? What should journalists and editorial offices already change in their work processes so that technological development does not outpace professional and legal standards?
– I have already mentioned the main newer European legal acts regulating the media sector (the European Media Freedom Act, the Artificial Intelligence Act).
Among relatively new but already functioning institutes, so-called SLAPP lawsuits should be mentioned. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to represent a media outlet and its journalists when more than 20 disputes arose from a journalistic investigation on the topic of the symbiosis of politicians and business, probably in all possible dispute institutions; complaints and lawsuits were filed by different heroes of the same story against both the public information medium and the journalists, going through all possible stages.
Then I encountered for the first time a phenomenon very similar to strategic litigation, but the SLAPP lawsuit institute was not yet present in the Lithuanian legal system.
Currently, we already have not only the legal basis but also court practice that has formulated criteria allowing to assess when a lawsuit aims not to defend a violated right but to hinder public information activity, deter it, or punish it.
Among important changes in journalistic activity, it is worth mentioning the court data provision procedure to the media, applied since June this year, allowing journalists to receive anonymized court decisions. This undoubtedly facilitates investigative journalism work but also imposes additional responsibility to responsibly balance the values of personal privacy and public interest in publishing relevant information.
Answering the last question, what journalists and editorial offices should already change in their work processes so that technological development does not outpace professional and legal standards, I would wish not to forget that technological development can facilitate the daily work of collecting, systematizing, and managing information, but editorial responsibility, information verification, and journalistic ethics requirements cannot be delegated to algorithms.
In my deep conviction, in the long run, those editorial offices will win that use technological achievements as assistants but keep decision-making and value choices in the hands of professional journalists.
“Journalism sees more” is a content section that is part of the project “Real journalism brings real changes.”
The project is partially funded by the Media Support Fund – allocated 220,000 Eur.
