This research note analyses the interrelation between the changing media environment in Latvia and journalistic practices, with a focus on self-censorship. It is based on, first, a survey investigating journalists’ professional values and, second, semi-structured qualitative interviews with media professionals. The data indicate that the most viable self-censorship strategy is to reconcile professional principles with political and economic pressures and constraints.
BaerugJR (2017) The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism. A Comparative Study of Newspapers and Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe. Tartu: University of Tartu.
2.
BalčytienėA (2009) Market-led reforms as incentives for media change, development and diversification in the Baltic States. International Communication Gazette71(1–2): 39–49.
3.
BalčytienėAVinciūnienėA (2012) Baltic media in times of change. Media Transformations7: 4–11.
4.
BeitikaI (2015) Public Service Media and Public Remit: Analysis of Latvian Experience. PhD Thesis, University of Latvia, Riga.
5.
CorniaASehlANielsenRK (2018) ‘We no longer live in a time of separation’: A comparative analysis of how editorial and commercial integration became a norm. Journalism1: 1–19.
6.
DeuzeM (2005) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism6(4): 1–23.
7.
DimantsA (2018) Latvia: Different journalistic cultures and different accountability within one media system. In: EberweinTFenglerSKarmasinM (eds) The European Handbook of Media Accountability. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 143–149.
8.
FarquharLKCareyMC (2018) Self-censorship among student journalists based on perceived threats and risks. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator74(3): 318–335.
9.
GrattanM (1998) Editorial Independence: An outdated concept?Australian Journalism Monographs1: 1–26.
10.
HanitzschTVosT (2018) Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life. Journalism19(2): 146–164.
11.
HimelboimILimorY (2008) Media perception of freedom of the press. A comparative analysis of 242 codes of ethics. Journalism9(3): 235–265.
12.
JastramskisDRožukalneAJõesaarA (2017) Media concentration in the Baltic States (2000–2014). Informacijos mokslai77: 26–48.
13.
McQuailD (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
RožukalneA (2012a) Journalism quality in Latvia: Looking for new values in the middle of chaos. Media Transformations6: 92–107.
15.
RožukalneA (2012b) Significance of hidden advertising of the media business models in Latvia. Media Transformations8: 126–151.
16.
RožukalneA (2013a) Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises. Media Transformations9: 80–111.
17.
RožukalneA (2013b) Latvia’s Media Owners: A Monograph on Latvia’s Media System and the Most Important Owners Thereof. Riga: Zinātne.
SalovaaraIJuzefovičsJ (2012) Who pays for good journalism?Journalism Studies13(5–6): 763–774.
20.
SchimpfösslEYablokovI (2014) Coercion or conformism? Censorship and self-censorship among Russian media personalities and reporters in the 2010s. Democratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization20(2): 295–312.
21.
ŠulmaneI (2012) Neatrastās identitātes? Latvijas dienas laikrakstu žurnālisti politikas, ekonomikas un kultūras lauku ietekmē [Unidentified Identities? Latvian Daily Newspaper Journalists Under the Influence of Politics, Economics and Culture]. Riga: SPSS.
