The European Society of Journalists (EJS) has been established in Latvia to protect freedom of speech in an era of digital challenges. This new association was formed in response to a profound crisis in the media sector. According to its founders, traditional journalistic standards have become outdated and degraded. The organization aims to combat censorship, propaganda, and the replacement of professionalism with simplistic templates.
EJS was founded by Latvian investigative journalist Leonid Jakobson and publicist Dmitry Savvin. Both founders have personal experience with persecution for their professional activities. Jakobson survived an assassination attempt and faced legal prosecution, while Savvin was forced to leave Russia due to his anti-war publications. The founders emphasize that they understand the value of free speech and are prepared to defend it.
EJS: Dmitry Savvin on the Future of Journalism
In an interview with NEWSROOM IN, Dmitry Savvin provided more details about the new association:
☛ Dmitry, according to the statement, EJS was created in response to a crisis among older professional journalistic organizations meant to protect freedom of speech. These organizations are compared to mafia structures, where they protect “their own” and persecute “outsiders,” replacing ethical standards with corporate solidarity. Does this refer to specific organizations, or is it an assessment of the general situation?
☛ We should hardly bother talking about specific associations right now. Primarily, our journalistic society, following the example of [Russian writer Sergei Dovlatov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Dovlatov), is being created not against someone, but for — in support of the principles and values we uphold. The “mafia” mindset, where informational and political spaces are divided into territories and a gang of “insiders” fights against a gang of “outsiders,” is ultimately a consequence of the crisis currently gripping the journalistic industry. Our task is to fight not the symptoms, but the roots, to create a space for professional, honest, and morally sound journalism.
☛ Who will EJS work with, and who will it definitely not work with?
☛ We have contacts with a number of journalistic and human rights organizations, including some quite well-known ones, but it would be premature to name them yet. As for our basic principles, they are already defined: we aim to create the freest, most pluralistic space possible. The fundamental limitations here will not be our own considerations or preferences, but rather the moral and legal norms that can be considered consensual for all humanity (at least, those that best fit this definition). This refers to the UN Charter and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This means that, despite our broadmindedness and tolerance, we do not wish to deal with those who justify aggressive wars, territorial seizures, terrorism, or the abuse of civilians. For this reason, we can have nothing in common with sympathizers of the Russian Federation and the policies of dictator Putin, or with those who justify Hamas terrorists who openly seize and kill hostages.
☛ The statement ironically mentions “BBC standards” as primitive templates. What is wrong with them?
☛ In my opinion, the implementation of the so-called BBC standards has simply emasculated modern journalism. (At least, that is my personal opinion and that of my colleagues and friends.) The initial premise – neutrality, representation of different viewpoints, etc. – was undoubtedly good. However, in practice, it devolved into the adoption of primitive templates: taking two comments, inventing a third, writing a lead and a conclusion stating that “everything is ambiguous,” and then sending it to the editor. The result is a lack of depth, exclusivity, or even just fresh ideas. This raises the question: why do we need such authors at all? Excuse me, but today, free AI can perform such work much faster and better. What is needed is authorial, vibrant, professional journalism, coupled with a deep knowledge of the subject, not routine processing according to an algorithm supposedly invented by the BBC.
☛ EJS speaks about the problem of political propaganda in the media. What initiatives could help consumers distinguish political consulting products from journalistic materials? Do you have a simple, universal solution?
☛ Propaganda, in one way or another, will always exist in the information space, just as subjective authorial views will inevitably be present. And this is normal. However, it is crucial that there isn’t *only* propaganda. It is important for journalists to see their work as a mission — a mission to convey truthful information to people. Not “correct” or “necessary” information, but truthful information. Even if it means making sacrifices or enduring hardship. Unfortunately, today we often see that instead of a mission to tell the truth, a different mission is proposed: to “herd the masses,” to “educate” people. And on the other hand, there’s the opposite extreme: the mercenary mentality, “we serve whoever pays.” We propose returning to the origins: we serve society by honestly telling it what is happening, how, and where. No more, no less.
☛ Let’s discuss your position on the new EU Media Freedom Act. Are the new rules sufficient to protect journalists and the independent media market as a whole? What, in your opinion, could be improved?
☛ This is a vast and important topic, but I am not ready to discuss it now, although I do have an opinion on this law. Primarily, this is because we have just completed the registration of our society and are continuing organizational work. Colleagues from Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, and even Argentina have expressed their readiness to join our activities (so, we have unexpectedly evolved from a European organization to a, one might say, worldwide one). Ahead of us are the general meeting and the formation of an expanded board. Once this work is complete, we will be able to provide a detailed assessment of the legislative achievements and gaps within the media sector in the EU, as well as at the national level. I hope we succeed in forming a sufficiently qualified expert pool; the prerequisites for this are very good.
☛ The EJS statement mentions old and new media, referring to traditional media and bloggers, who “often have a larger audience and greater influence than old TV channels, which are still officially considered ‘flagships’ of the media industry.” The new EU law lacks a clear definition of who qualifies as a journalist. Consequently, there’s no clear understanding of who is protected. What is your stance: is a journalist only an employee of a publication, or does a popular blogger also count?
☛ In our Charter, a journalist is defined as someone working with media content. Therefore, a blogger or a Telegram channel administrator — anyone who produces media content — can be considered a journalist. We are experiencing revolutionary changes, and new forms of media regulation are now needed, not only governmental but also societal. We see in both the US and Europe that a video blogger or podcaster with a million-strong audience often has much greater influence — including political influence — than the aforementioned flagships of traditional media. This is a natural process: radio once displaced newspapers, and then radio had to contend with the advent of television. Now, before our eyes, a new transformation is occurring. And, of course, it’s quite strange when a representative of a newspaper with a circulation of 3,000 copies is considered a media representative granted special rights by the state, while a blogger with an audience of 20,000 is “just a person.” If video blogs and social networks are creating new politicians, then they are already media outlets. However, for this to be true, such bloggers must, of course, adhere to basic journalistic standards. Our society is geared towards working with them, and we want to help these authors and journalists of the new era preserve the best moral and ethical standards of the past.
NEWSROOM IN notes: On January 31, 2023, the Journalists’ Unions of the Nordic countries (excluding Sweden) announced their withdrawal from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). The decision was made on January 31 after a meeting between the unions and the IFJ in Copenhagen, which took place last Friday.
Journalists from Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland accused the IFJ of corruption, opaque activities, unclear voting practices, and an inability to adequately respond to the actions of the pro-Putin Russian Union of Journalists, which supported their country’s aggressive war against Ukraine. The Nordic unions also expressed concern over the IFJ’s congress in Oman, a country known for its catastrophic press freedom situation, partly supported by the Sultan of Oman.
