Suchergebnisse

Public space is realized as social & communicative arena, civic forum. The whole of individuals becomes a market of information consumers where arguments are presented & public opinion is formed. Conception of public space is related to alternation of state organization & communication models. While a modern state is being created, press forms a bourgeois public space. Radio & television invoked public discussions in the last century. Conception of public radio & television formed in Europe prolonged the tradition of public service. Community delegates to the state certain regulation functions which secure the right of a citizen to receive information & to participate in formation of public opinion. The monopoly of radio & television broadcast granted to democratic state has to guarantee pluralism & word freedom. Goals of public broadcaster are to expand civic society, stimulate activities of non-commercial & non-political groups, nourish national values. Main principles of an audiovisual public service are accessibility, pluralism, universality, independence. Citizens control (public services) & finance (subscription fee) public broadcasters. An antimonopolic wave formed in the eighth decade of previous century forced to liberalize the sector of European audiovisual communication. A new political consensus was achieved: only competition can secure pluralism. Traditional conception of public space varies. Market of audiovisual mass communication growing rapidly formed public space being regulated & activated in a special way. Efforts of generated communication (public relations) & competitive media invoke an opposite effect -- decreasing interest in public life. According to the opinion of radical democratic theory conception of public space formed by liberal democracy fell into desuetude, because community was split to heterogenous groups which don't have the vision of the common goal. Information community evolves in the direction of demassification & diversification; it will be supplied with products of media according to individual demand. The model of vertical communication dominating in public space is replaced by horizontal interactive communication. In such a way models of popular & qualitative communication become equally important. However the idea of public audiovisual service becomes more & more popular. It is believed that only it can guarantee functioning of democracy not allowing forming community of two speeds where not all of them will have an access to information resources. Adapted from the source document.

With the so-called war on terror launched by the USA in 2001, a new era started in one of the fields of the propaganda war -- the Internet. Ability to disseminate information to as wide as possible audience due to globality of the Internet has become a powerful mean of influence. Many Muslim politically engaged religiously motivated groups, who perceive themselves to be in the state of such war, create their own elaborate web-sites. "KavkazCenter" is just one of them. "KavkazCenter" declares itself to be a product of the Chechen Independent International Islamic Internet Agency, which was set up in 1999 in Grozny by the Chechen National Center for Strategic Research & Political Technologies. However, its content is somewhat problematic, as the site appears to have been solely a propaganda tool for the Chechen Jihadist group Riyadhu as-Salihin, led by the late Shamil Basayev, who often boasted about his organized bloody attacks, frequently against civilians. Lithuania first noticed the site in early 2003, when it started being serviced by a Lithuanian firm "Microlink Data," which at the time hosted the site on its server. Back then the Lithuanian State Security Department (SSD) declared the site to be free from terrorist propaganda & insisted it did not pose any threat to Lithuania, though it was known that the site had been earlier closed down in the USA & the UK. However, half a year later the very same SSD confiscated the server of the firm "Elneta," which at that time hosted the site, thus shutting down its operations from Lithuania. This launched a long marathon of legal deliberations going all the way up to the Constitutional Court. The case divided the Lithuanian public into two parts -- those, who considered the "KavkazCenter" to be an information agency of independence-seeking Chechen freedom fighters & those, who considered the site to contain terrorist propaganda. The "defenders" group was championed by some MPs, Soviet-era dissidents, while the "accusers" group was led by the SSD. The unfolding of the case revealed that both sides were ill-prepared to meet the challenge the site "KavkazCenter" had caused. One can argue that even state institutions were taken by surprise by it. This first of all applies to the SSD, who showed itself at its worst -- its lack of professionalism was astonishing. At the same time, gaps in legislation & by extension in the work of courts were exposed. Most journalists, who took to bashing of the SSD for presumed persecution of media on the freedom of expression grounds, displayed ignorance & lack of deeper insight into the case. The general public was left puzzled. Moreover, Russia's involvement, though often referred to in the media, has never been fully revealed. The epopee of the "KavkazCenter" in Lithuania sucked both the Lithuanian government & the general society into the whirlpool of the global information wars. And though the experience shows that most of the actors were ill-prepared or not prepared at all, the very experience is very useful -- it allowed for identifying of the weaknesses in political, legal & social life of the country. Learning from its mistakes, the society can progress & improve. It is plausible to hope that in the event of another "kavkazcentr," the Lithuanian government & non-state actors will be better informed & equipped to tackle the issue. Adapted from the source document.