We are ruled and lied to by the same road robbers and their grandsons who were here immediately after independence

  "After it became clear that a special series of publications about Lithuania published by the British portal "Financial Times" was paid for by the public institution (VšĮ) "Invest Lithuania" under the Ministry of Economy and Innovation (Armonaitė), a storm of discussion arose. However, it seems that all the discussions went in the wrong direction: will Lithuania will not benefit, "publicization" cost cheap or expensive, etc.

 

    However, the main question remained behind the scenes: is it possible to lie to the readers?

 

    We remind you that on Monday seven publications about Lithuania appeared in the "Special Reports" section of the British "Financial Times" (FT): the country's position in the international arena, a breakthrough in the field of financial technologies, the achievements of photographers, the Suwalki corridor, energy independence from Russia, basketball and the first Lithuanian unicorn "Vinted". Lithuanians expressed joy and pride that an influential media outlet paid so much attention to us. Various institutions and ruling politicians were also happy.

 

    The euphoria subsided when it became clear that Lithuania had paid for all that "beauty", i.e. i.e. articles to be ordered: the mentioned Public Institution spent 56,800 EUR of budget funds for this content campaign. For his part, the portal's journalist Richard Milne noted that the clients had no influence on the content of the texts.

 

    VšĮ tried to convince the public that now we will get the attention of foreigners and, what is no less important, cheap. The price may not be worth discussing - we can believe: really cheap.

 

    We can even ignore the lie that the clients did not help the FT journalist to choose topics in Lithuania (maybe the FT actually has such superprofessionals that they know about the specific national interests of Lithuanians - from basketball to potato dumplings - zeppelins).

 

    We can pretend that the politicians are really so naive that they did not know the purpose of talking to, for example, the Prime Minister of the country Šimonytė and that she was not warned that a Briton would be knocking on her door. And when it came knocking, the Government "didn't know" that the interview with its leader would be part of a content campaign. Maybe we could even believe that "knowing nothing" politicians, institutions (for example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Landsbergis) rushed to promote their merits or their party's merits on social networks as if on command... And that the Public Enterprise is needlessly nailed to the cross, because, as one of the Public Enterprises said a famous Lithuanian merchant in the era of wild capitalism (the end of the last century), "there is such an unmarked advertising product on the market, and if it suits us, we buy it." Because it's over.

 

    However, the essence remained behind the frame: is it possible to lie to the readers (and it doesn't matter where they are - abroad or in Lithuania) and present the ordered advertisement as an article written by an independent journalist? Apparently there is something wrong with that FT if they spit on the independent media code of ethics and don't clearly flag content marketing on their pages. Someone must be very serious about their income, if they even bribe their colleagues in Lithuania by asking them to write articles and publishing them as an unmarked advertisement. Let's leave it to the conscience of the Japanese owners and the British journalistic community.

 

    In VŽ's opinion, what should shock us the most is the reaction of the public in Lithuania, when they are publicly happy that what's the point if double-bottomed information about Lithuanian zeppelins will be digested by foreign readers.

 

    Let's go back to the times when such tricks were played out in Lithuania first by the litas, and then by the euro-worshiping media and all-powerful public relations scammers, who told their clients that readers, viewers and listeners would not even know who received the far-from-reality spam, e.g. a product with magical properties, a crystal clear businessman or politician. Sooner or later, when we felt cheated, we were outraged when we fell into the traps of manipulators and diligently shamed journalists, calling them scumbags and likening them to prostitutes.

 

   

 

    It cost us dearly to discover the value of independent media, and new faces in journalism were needed to revive the public's watchdog instincts.

 

    And for you - we learn from the discussions that it is moral to deceive a foreigner, because he is not one of us.

 

    Double standards - as if from the fairy tale "Ali Baba and 40 robbers".

 

    And this is what happens when independent media is eradicated or when we allow our people in power and ourselves to "lie just a little".

 

    Yes, there is such an advertising tool in the market as content marketing. We are used to it, but if we want to preserve the ability to see and perceive the world with our own mind, and not with someone else's, we must insist on clearly marking that such content has been paid for.

 

    By the way, look at The Economist, CNN or any other independent media - they are full of government-sponsored advertisements with a clear link. It helps us to calibrate our relationship with the content of our interests and make thoughtful independent decisions. Finally, promotional content - especially from governments or public institutions - is clearly marked it also serves a civic control function, bringing transparency and limiting the appetite of officials to use taxpayers' money for self-promotion.

 

     We want to be muggles playing the role of useful idiots, especially during elections? Need examples like this? Read independent media.”