[ad_1]
Due to the change of agenda, the President also did not participate any more in the Login and Lublin Quartet conferences, where the Presidency did not want the three journalists mentioned above to be moderators.
Journalist Aušra Jurgauskaitė and apprentice Augustė Liberytė discussed the situation with Dainius Radzevičius, president of the Lithuanian Union of Journalists (LUJ), Nida Vasiliauskaitė, philosopher, and Linas Kontrim, public relations expert.
The presidency’s decision is called a revelation
When asked how he assessed the Presidency’s refusal to allow famous journalists to moderate the Lublin Quartet Forum, D. Radzevičius replied that such a decision saddened him.
It seems to me that this is the most accurate word, because the current president, who has only become the head of our country, if you remember, has repeatedly emphasized that under his leadership the presidency will be open to different people, different events, different opinions, that is, more open.
Because in this case we are talking about such a beautiful initiative, which aims to consecrate both democratic values, openness and freedoms, because it is an event that needs to involve different people with different opinions, even those who do not like it, in my deep conviction, it was a sad blink, especially knowing that one of the moderators should have been the signer of the Act of Independence, my colleague Rimvydas Valatka ”.
Dainius Radzevičius
Even stranger was that the President explained to the Speaker of the Presidency Antanas Bubnelis 15min.lt that it is customary for the Presidency to contribute to the content of an event of this type or to the selection of speakers and presenters.
“That explanation is even stranger and, in my opinion, it has damaged the position of the Presidency in general. You see, the role of the presidency in many cases in general is to demonstrate leadership by involving as many people as possible. We will not create a Lithuania of welfare if the Presidency itself selectively instructs the non-governmental sector and the general public on who should be moderators and who should be rapporteurs. I would dare to say, however, that in this situation and in other similar ones, the initiative should not be in the hands of the staff of the Presidency and perhaps not even in the hands of the President, but rather in those people who approach the Presidency with the initiative to co-sponsor events.
In other words, the participation of the President and the provision of a platform, whether local or otherwise, is the most that the Presidency can contribute. If you reach out to them and ask someone for help in moderation or content, I think all is well. However, one thing is when you are approached and another is when one of the most important and influential authorities insists or imposes your will. I can’t find any explanation for that, “he commented.
According to D. Radzevičius, at least those people should apologize and hope that the employees of the Presidency will one day understand what they did wrong.
“I can give an example: a lot of people say they love Lithuania and Vilnius as the capital, but when they ask if they love Lithuania and those neighborhoods that can have drugs and maybe disasters, many say they don’t love that neighborhood very much.
You see, if you love Lithuania and Vilnius, you must love both the so-called Roma camp and Didžiasalis, just like the old town of Vilnius or the port of Klaipeda. You cannot love with reservations, which means that you cannot create a prosperous Lithuania by taking people out of the discussion about the prosperity of our country and neighboring countries. “
Furthermore, when asked about R. Valatka’s comment that Valdas Adamkus would never have acted as G. Nausėda allowed him, D. Radzevičius commented that the biggest blink of an eye on censorship he remembered was from the period of the overthrown. President Rolandas Paksas.
“One of the president’s employees had been rudely and physically deprived of our colleagues’ accreditation, so we have taken a clear position that doing so is unacceptable and does not fit into any framework. Even if we treat this as a” president. wrong “, I probably don’t remember a similar blink.
You have to understand that we all make mistakes and we are very aware that different presidents may have different likes or dislikes, but it seems to me that it is much more important for a country leader, especially his team, to understand that inclusion is a great value rather than to displace dissidents. , all the more critically. The persecution for criticism in a democratic society in general is one of the most serious mistakes that the leaders of any institution and even their teams can commit, ”said the President.
He also stressed that he would not want to compare presidents, as it is necessary to follow the realities of today.
“We probably couldn’t compare Nausėda to Grand Duke Vytautas, who lived in completely different times, from a better perspective.”
The reaction was humanly understandable
First lady D. Nausėdienė’s speech, which she delivered at the “Lithuania Davos 2020” conference, was also heavily criticized in public space. Many realized that she had accused women, of whom 79%. working in the field of education, due to poor performance in this area. However, the philosopher N. Vasiliauskaitė did not agree with such a point of view of the critics.
“The criticism I have seen is certainly not based on a proper reading of the text and understanding of those quotes. The broader context from which they were taken did not say anything anti-feminist, in general, is the fact that 79% of the Lithuanian educational system works. women, and this is not an opinion or an assessment.
It is also another fact that there is not a good situation in this system and nothing is said that it is because of women or that they are the reason why very good things do not happen in the educational system. For some reason, all those critics arrows and spears are very biased and specially made, deliberately taken and stretched, put to their lips, what they (critics – “Delphi”) supposedly thought, although we know perfectly well what the critics said. Lady. But other people thought about it. “
Nida Vasiliauskaitė
When asked to comment on Arijus Katauskas’ response to G. Nausėda’s Facebook post, in which the president defended his wife that “if you speak and misunderstand yourself, then you speak poorly,” N. Vasiliauskaitė was not based on the opinion of a public relations specialist.
“In this case, it was intentional and malicious, a misunderstanding and another option as to why it could be like that, I’m afraid a lot of people are very sick with their reading skills. I don’t think all these critics didn’t really understand what was being said, because it is the textual analysis of the text that would basically show that such claims that a woman is the cause of a poor quality education system cannot be said anywhere. On the contrary, it has been said that things like gender and performance improvement in some sector are not related.
It’s a reaction to a certain kind of feminism that is actually alive and well, and it says yes, if there is an increase in the percentage of women in some field, then supposedly things will go better because women are different: less aggressive, more empathic, more communicate, compete less, etc. All this are also the so-called gender stereotypes, which are such, if not by nature, then by upbringing.
Only the first lady reacted to this type of speech and here is another type of feminist stance, not anti-feminist, not patriarchal, but it has just been said that people can do a wide variety of activities regardless of gender. These are simply unrelated factors, just like if there is an increase or decrease in blue or long-legged in the education system, the indicators will neither improve nor worsen. It was just an answer and everything, nothing more is said about something scandalous here ”.
When asked if the president’s reaction, which he made public on Facebook, was appropriate as head of state, she said it was just an emotion.
“That reaction was emotionally and humanly understandable. Yes, it is emotional, hyperbolized, those images of a woman-mother were used without cause because no one touched on the subject of that mother. However, this is understandable, as the president was rightly surprised at how inappropriate and determined what was said was addressed, and usually by people who were supporters of another candidate in the presidential election, specifically Ingrida’s supporters. Šimonytė.
You have reason to suspect that this is simply an organized attack. Whether we like G. Nausėda as president or not, but to do so <...> and to make a fuss on an equal footing in all places is, to put it mildly, ugly. “
No crisis
The public relations specialist L. Kontrimas, in turn, wanted to remind a professional communicator that he considers himself as a truth.
“Go read the primary sources. This fact, and this story that is now about the president, is a pseudo-event or a comment on comments. I’ll quote you what she said about herself in the post about that 79 percent. women: “Are they empowered to change the educational system in any way, are there mechanisms and where are the errors?” <...> “And that the voice of the women sounds strong.” Here’s a quote, and now I don’t know what we’re talking about.
We are discussing a typical case of a pseudo-event, and how does a normal society differ from one that is slightly influenced by the media, but not by the media, but by the absolutely “yellow” media? The fact that normal societies go deep into the fact and the essence, not so much in the sentences of expression. Yes, there are also criticisms, if it is said in an inappropriate way, but there is still a deepening of what that person wanted to say ”.
Linas Kontrimas
In his opinion, all these events cannot be called a communication crisis of the presidency, because the colors would be too thick.
“Crises have a completely different spiral and are born differently. Now for those preferred or unwanted moderators, from what I have read the reactions and comments from both parties, everything is as follows: this is an event organized by the Presidency, which means that the people who participate in the event have all the right to nominate its speakers, moderators, etc. It is normal ethics and if someone has organized at least one event, they know it.
I also want to say that I notice, and it is very clear, that a negative opinion is being formed with enough direction towards the President. I don’t know why and how it happened, but he just has to understand that the time will come when there will be people who do not like him, who do not like him and who criticize every opportunity. “
L. Kontrim summarized that the comments in the comments give the impression that there is a crisis, but in reality there is not.
[ad_2]
