Download the report in .pdf



Author: Anda Rožukalne

December 2016


1.  About the Project

  • Overview of the project

The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) is a research tool that was designed to identify potential risks to media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union. This narrative report has been produced within the framework of the first pan-European implementation of the MPM. The implementation was conducted in 28 EU Member States, Montenegro and Turkey with the support of a grant awarded by the European Union to the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) at the European University Institute.

  • Methodological note

The CMPF cooperated with experienced, independent national researchers to carry out the data collection and to author the narrative reports, except in the cases of Malta and Italy where data collection was carried out centrally by the CMPF team. The research was based on a standardised questionnaire and apposite guidelines that were developed by the CMPF. The data collection was carried out between May and October 2016.

In Latvia, the CMPF partnered with Anda Rožukalne, Department of Communication Studies of Faculty of Communication at Riga Stradins University, who conducted the data collection and commented the variables in the questionnaire and interviewed relevant experts. The report was reviewed by CMPF staff. Moreover, to ensure accurate and reliable findings, a group of national experts in each country reviewed the answers to particularly evaluative questions (see Annexe 2 for the list of experts).

Basic Protection Market Plurality Political Independence Social Inclusiveness
Protection of freedom of expression Transparency of media ownership Political control over media outlets Access to media for minorities
Protection of right to information Media ownership concentration (horizontal) Editorial autonomy



Access to media for local/regional communities and for community media
Journalistic profession, standards and protection Cross-media concentration of ownership and competition enforcement Media and democratic electoral process Access to media for people with disabilities
Independence and effectiveness of the media authority Commercial & owner influence over editorial content State regulation of resources and support to media sector Access to media for women


Universal reach of traditional media and access to the Internet Media viability



Independence of PSM governance and funding Media literacy



The results for each area and indicator are presented on a scale from 0% to 100%. Scores between 0 and 33% are considered low risk, 34 to 66% are medium risk, while those between 67 and 100% are high risk. On the level of indicators, scores of 0 were rated 3% and scores of 100 were rated 97% by default, to avoid an assessment of total absence or certainty of risk[1].




Disclaimer: The content of the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the CMPF or the EC, but represents the views of the national country team that carried out the data collection and authored the report.


2.  Introduction

Latvia is one of the Baltic States; 2 million inhabitants live in an area of 64,500 square meters. The largest ethnic minority in Latvia is Russian – 504,300. According to the Central Statistical Bureau’s data, 62% of the population are Latvians and 35% Russian-speaking minorities. The latter include 26% – Russians, 3.3% – Belarusians, 2.3% – Ukrainians and representatives of other nationalities.

After the economic recession, a moderate growth period has occurred in Latvia. In 2008 and 2009, under the influence of the global financial crisis, the inflow of foreign capital stopped and the recession started. During the crisis, GDP went down by 25%, external debt almost doubled, the number of employed decreased by 16%, real salaries reduced about 12%, according to the report of the Ministry of Economy in 20161. Since the end of 2010 the economic recession in Latvia from 2011 to 2013, GDP grew by an average of 4.4% annually; from 2014 – by 2.5% annually. In 2016 GDP has grown for 1.6%, which still makes it 5% lower than before the crisis in 2007.

In November 2016 the Latvian government approved the media policy created by the Unit of Media Policy of Ministry of Culture. The document defines the aim of media policy: strong, diverse, professional, transparent, sustainable and stable media environment1. The purpose of the policy is envisaged in four basic principles – the diversity of the media, the safety of the media environment, media literacy, and media professionalization.

Latvian Democracy audit[2] makers describing the Latvian media system observed features of several models: efforts to strengthen the public media show the existence of a democratic corporate model, whereas the political parallelism and political public relations impact of the media content identified features of a polarized pluralist model in the Latvian media system.

According to the data of market, society and media research company TNS Latvia people evaluate media performance critically – 50% of the population trust the Latvian mass media[3]. TNS data shows that the main sources of information for people in Latvia are television and Internet news sites. 79% of the population watch television; news portals are a daily source of information for 21% of the Latvian population, 37% of Internet users read news sites every day; 59% of the population listen to the radio on a regular basis. Latvian newspapers are read by 17% of the population on a daily basis, 48% – read the press twice or three times a week. 72% of the population use the Internet regularly.

The ethnic structure of the population and the languages used results in the linguistically divided media environment, media market and media audience. Russian speaking Latvian residents read newspapers and watch Russian cross-border TV channels more than Latvian speaking inhabitants. A greater impact of Russian media information has been observed since 2013, when the readership of Latvian newspapers fell and the proportion of one-sided information from the Russian cross-border TV and radio channels increased.


3.  Results from the data collection: assessment of the risks to media pluralism

The implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2016 for Latvia shows a medium/high risk for media pluralism in the country. By detailed analysis of existing formal media regulation, it can be concluded that the basis for development of a pluralistic media environment has been established. However, media regulation acts do not always fully transfer in practice.

Latvia scored a medium risk to media pluralism in the area of Basic Protection that encompasses the protection of freedom of expression, rights to information, access to the Internet, independence and effectiveness of media authority, and the status of journalistic profession, standards and protection.

The situation of the media Market Plurality in Latvia corresponds to medium risk. However, two of five analysed indicators in this area score high risk: Media ownership concentration (horizontal) and Commercial and owner influence over editorial content. Generally, the level of media market concentration in Latvia is high in all media segments with the exception of the online media. Media regulation and self-regulation instruments do not protect media professionals nor the content from commercial and political influence.

While evaluating the indicators that characterise the level of Political Independence, deterioration of the situation, in comparison to 2015, was observed. The political control over media outlets does not decrease. There are no restrictions on political parties and politicians which want to set up mass media outlets or manage media companies. At least one leading audio-visual media company in Latvia is politically controlled. There are 27 independent local media companies in Latvia and 105 information leaflets founded by local governments. Almost the half of local municipalities’ publications has been registered to Mass Media Register of Latvia and acquired the status of media outlet.  These free information leaflets are fulfilled with journalism – like content, some of them publish commercial advertising and classifieds on regular basis. This situation creates high risk for independent local media companies in Latvia.

High risk was shown in the analysis of indicators in the Social Inclusiveness area. Community media are not defined in the law nor exist in Latvia; a stable media literacy programme has not been established in primary or lifelong learning education. There is a limited access to media for representatives of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. The PSM Latvian Television and Latvian Radio do not have any gender equality policy.

3.1. Basic Protection (37% – medium risk)

The Basic Protection indicators represent the regulatory backbone of the media sector in every contemporary democracy. They measure a number of potential areas of risk, including the existence and effectiveness of the implementation of regulatory safeguards for freedom of expression and the right to information; the status of journalists in each country, including their protection and ability to work; the independence and effectiveness of the national regulatory bodies that have competence to regulate the media sector; and the reach of traditional media and access to the Internet.

The analysis of Basic protection factors for media pluralism shows a medium risk. Overall, the regulatory safeguards in Latvian legal system pose a medium risk for media pluralism in what concerns Freedom of expression – FoE (38%) and a low risk regarding the right to information (25%). Both rights are explicitly recognised in the Constitution, and the regulation of FoE and right to information respects international standards. The right to information is protected by the Law of Information Freedom, which is approved by Parliament in 1998. The Constitution of Latvia clearly defines restrictions upon freedom of expression; particular restrictions are harmonized with the international human rights law.

However, the analysis of how FoE is respected in practice shows medium risk because of the following aspects. First, the restrictions upon FoE online are not clearly defined in law. Secondly, the new amendments to the Criminal Law on the limits to disseminate the so called State Secret has been developed in 2016, and this initiative created a broad discussion on the right of journalists to publish leaked documents.

Thirdly, Latvia still has not decriminalised defamation in press. Article no 157 of the Criminal Law states that the person must be punished by short-term imprisonment or fine for the defamation through mass media.

The information on regulation of the profession of journalism, standards and protection scores medium risk (48%). Journalism as a profession is not regulated in Latvia. The access to the journalistic profession is open in practice and the conditions to become a journalist impose no barriers to exercise the profession of journalist. There are two journalists’ professional organisations in Latvia. However, only a small percentage (about 5%-10%) of journalists are represented by professional organisations. In fact, professional associations of journalists are not effective in guaranteeing editorial independence and respect of professional standards. Journalists still face a high level of job insecurity because many commercial media do not provide permanent job contracts for journalists.

There has been one attack on the physical safety of a journalist in Latvia in 2016. There are also other types of threats to journalists and their sources. For instance, the Latvia’s State Police had information that a journalist was developing a professional investigation story, and opened a criminal investigation against that journalist, who worked for Latvian Television Sanita Miķelsone and tapped her phone calls and the locations of the people she contacted during the investigation procedure. The investigation was closed as no law violations were established.

Independence and effectiveness of the media authority in Latvia indicates medium risk – 40%. In line with the appointment procedure established by the Electronic Mass Media Law members of the National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEMMC) shall be approved in a transparent manner, ensuring NEMMC independence and minimizing the risk of political or commercial interference.

However, in practice, politicians try to intervene with the work of the media authority. For instance, in July 2015, the Parliament of Latvia voted for the dismissal of the four NEMMC members, and the Chairman of the Council Ainārs Dimants was dismissed due to “political” reasons. In December 2015, an Administrative court overturned the decision of Parliament to fire Ainārs Dimants from the NEMMC.  There were several cases when the Government overruled decisions of media authority in Latvia. The most common situation, when the government has changed decisions of NEMMC, is related to the funding of public media organisations. For example, in 2015, the government decided to decrease the amount of funding of public service media in Latvia. This decision contradicts Article 70 of the Electronic Mass Media Law which states that the funding of PSM may not be less than that of the previous year.

Universal reach of traditional media and access to the Internet are available in Latvia. There are also regulatory safeguards regarding net neutrality. Due to the lack of data on the market shares of TOP4 internet service providers, the variable is indicated as medium risk (34%).


3.2. Market Plurality (61% – medium risk)

The Market Plurality indicators examine the existence and effectiveness of the implementation of transparency and disclosure provisions with regard to media ownership. In addition, they assess the existence and effectiveness of regulatory safeguards to prevent horizontal and cross-media concentration of ownership and the role of competition enforcement and State aid control in protecting media pluralism. Moreover, they seek to evaluate the viability of the media market under examination as well as whether and if so, to what extent commercial forces, including media owners and advertisers, influence editorial decision-making.

The indicators of Market plurality illustrate the most significant media market problems in Latvia. The indicator Transparency of media ownership shows medium risk (63%) because there is no law that requests media companies to publish their ownership structures on their websites or in other records that are accessible to the public. But media companies must inform authorities about the ownership structures. Commercial Law Section no 17(1) “Duty of disclosure” requires the Company register to be informed about the owners or beneficiaries that own more than 25% of the shares in a company.

Article no 16 of the Electronic Mass Media Law states that each company that applies for the broadcasting rights in Latvia must provide information on the owners to the electronic media authority NEMMC. NEMMC publishes the register of the electronic media and cable TV operators on its webpage but only the titles of firms are publicly available. The structure of owners, names of real owners and beneficiary are not available to the general public.

The analysis of Media ownership concentration (horizontal) regulation shows high risk (68%) because media legislation in Latvia does not contain specific thresholds or other limitations in order to prevent a high degree of horizontal concentration or cross-media concentration. But there is the general provision in the Law of Competition that defines a domination position on the market with 40% of market share. The Law of Electronic Mass Media defines the domination position of companies of audio-visual sector with 35% of market share. The evaluation of dominant position of media firms will be provided only in case of merger of companies.

The Cross-media concentration of ownership and competition enforcement indicator shows nearly a high risk situation (65%).

The Latvian media market, similar as in other nations, is tending towards concentration and creation of an oligopolistic competition, when the market consists of many companies, but only two or three of them attract the largest audience and advertiser investment.

There are two clear trends of media concentration in Latvia since 2000. The concentration of conventional media (press, TV and radio) is gradually increasing, but the Internet media market concentration has shrunk down due to a fast growing number of market players, and the increase of competition between the largest Internet market participants – local social media company (For Friends), global social network companies, news sites, and, and national provider of e-mail service, gaming and online shopping

Latvian daily newspapers market is moderately or highly concentrated. Data illustrates that two or three largest daily newspapers that are issued in Latvian dominate the market (Diena, Latvijas Avīze, Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze), and other players cannot seriously influence the market concentration.

There are three companies that attract larger part of audience and advertisers’ investments of TV market in Latvia. According to the audience share MTG Latvia is the largest player (it operates five TV channels) in TV market of Latvia, the viewers’ time expenditure for MTG channels is 24.6%. Baltic Media Alliance that represents four influential Russia’s TV channels (PBK (Pervij Baltijskij Kanal), RenTV Baltija, 1BM (First Baltic Music Channel), NTV Mir Baltic) in Latvia attracts largest part of Russian speaking audience with the 19.5% of time expenditure, and the time expenditure of the audience of two channels (LTV1 and LTV7) of public media Latvian Television is 13,9%.

There are a lot of players in the radio market who reach a small (from 0.1% to 1.5%) listening time share, but a few players’ influence causes the high level of market concentration. The largest market share belongs to the public broadcaster Latvian Radio (LR), which offers four different channels and attracts about 40% of the radio audience.

Four commercial radio companies and their listening timeshare have an effect on market concentration. All of the influential commercial stations (JSC Radio SWH, JSC Mix Media Group, JSC Super FM, RS Media) offer several channels both nationally and regionally, gradually increasing their product portfolio, musical format and the diversity of the reached audience, therefore achieving a larger listening time share.

The analysis of data of Commercial and owner influence over editorial content indicates a high risk level (88%). This evaluation is based on the following factors: first, there are no mechanisms that provide social protection to journalists in case of ownership changes or transformation of editorial line; second, there are no regulatory safeguards which seek to ensure that decisions regarding appointments and dismissals of editors-in-chief are not influenced by media owners’ commercial interests; third, the self-regulatory mechanisms are very weak in cases of appointments or dismissals of chief editors, but the codes of professional ethics include rules that support the independence of journalists and editors from the commercial pressure.

There is a law and self-regulatory measures stipulating that professional journalists’ activities are incompatible with activities in the field of advertising. In fact, according to interviews with journalists and editors this principle is not always respected in practice.

Although there are no laws prohibiting advertorials, the term “misleading advertising” in the Section 8 of Advertising Law refers to situations in which the aim of the publication is the promotion of a product or service but where the payment fact for the publication is not made clear for the media audience. Section n. 12 of the Advertising Law states that “disseminator of advertising has a duty to separate advertising from other information”. However, this is a declarative regulation because of the lack of legal instruments that prevent the violation of this law.

The situation of media viability seems to be low risk (22%) in Latvia. Specifically, there are contradictory trends of the advertising revenue changes of the various media sectors: advertising revenue is increasing for online media companies, stagnating for television, but decreasing for press and radio segments. A part of media companies has adapted to market reality by developing alternative streams of revenue e.g. media organize conferences and other events, provide lifelong learning activities or elaborate crowd sourcing campaigns.


3.3. Political Independence (63% – medium risk)

The Political Independence indicators assess the existence and effectiveness of regulatory safeguards against political bias and political control over the media outlets, news agencies and distribution networks. They are also concerned with the existence and effectiveness of self-regulation in ensuring editorial independence. Moreover, they seek to evaluate the influence of the State (and, more generally, of political power) over the functioning of the media market and the independence of public service media.

Indicators in the area of Political Independence show either a high or a medium risk. Most at risk are indicators on Political control over media outlets (79%), and Editorial autonomy (81%).

In order to explain those data, facts on general media regulation should be mentioned. The media law does not regulate the conflict of interests between media owners and the ruling parties, partisan groups or politicians. The only way to limit political control is mentioned in the Articles no 16 to 21 of the Electronic Mass Media Law that explains the procedure of receiving broadcasting licence. The electronic media regulator – National Electronic Mass Media Council – has the rights to define specific criteria for the status of owners of channels/programs to avoid direct or indirect control of audio visual media by party, partisan group or politicians.

The assessment of the indicator on Media and democratic electoral process shows a medium risk (38%). There is no specific regulation that impose rules aiming at fair representation of political viewpoints in news and informative programs on public service media (PSM) channels and services. But the Electronic Mass Media Law (Section no. 24) ensures that facts and events are honestly reflected in broadcasts, promoting the exchange of opinions, and complying with the generally accepted principles of journalism and ethics. In practice the channels and services of PSM provide fair representation of political actors and political viewpoints in news and informative programmes. There are no laws or self-regulatory measures that guarantee access to airtime on private channels and services for political actors during election campaigns. Nevertheless, interviews with the producers and editors of commercial TV and radio channels show that the largest channels provide content based on the principles of quality journalism during the election period. Generally, the representation of different political groups is fair and balanced. At the same time, there are media outlets (few commercial radio channels) that have been established with the aim of providing politically influenced information before and between elections. And, as academic researches (e.g. Audit of Democracy in Latvia, 2014) show, unbalanced and politically biased content before the elections still exist due to political parallelism within the media system in Latvia.

The data on State regulation of resources and support to the media sector score a medium risk (63%). Legislation in Latvia does not provide fair and transparent rules for distribution of direct subsidies to media outlets, other than PSM. The Law on Electronic Mass Media provides the opportunity for commercial television and radio companies to grant 15% of state budget funding for public remit. However, it does not specify the criteria and procedure of the subsidy allocation. Further, there is no regulation for indirect subsidies to media companies, neither the legislation that would provide fair and transparent rules on distribution of state advertising to media outlets. Every year state-owned companies in Latvia support commercial electronic media companies by direct subsidies to the content of various programs.

The indicator on Independence of PSM governance and funding scores a medium risk (50%). There is a legal basis to guarantee fair and transparent appointment procedures for management and board functions of PSM. However, in practice politicians and government members regularly try to violate independence of mentioned bodies. The Government decides on PSM funding in Latvia every year. This makes the budget of PSM highly dependent on the political situation and the understanding of PSM mission of particular political group members.


3.4. Social Inclusiveness (69% – medium risk)

The Social Inclusiveness indicators are concerned with access to media by various groups in society The indicators assess regulatory and policy safeguards for community media, and for access to media by minorities, local and regional communities, women and people with disabilities. In addition to access to media by specific groups, the media literacy context is important for the state of media pluralism. The Social Inclusiveness area therefore also examines the country’s media literacy environment, as well as the digital skills of the overall population.

The Social inclusiveness indicators illustrate high and medium risk conditions. The indicator Access to media for minorities is evaluated as medium risk (46%). The Electronic Mass Media Law recommends the creation of PSM programmes for minorities.

There is a radio channel (LR4) that is addressed to the largest groups of ethnic minorities in Latvia. This channel provides news, current affairs, discussions and other information on various topics in Russian. The additional funding for Russian language programmes is provided from the state budget for the Latvian television channel LTV7, which has increased the airing in Russian from 196 hours in 2014 to 405 hours in 2015.

Minorities have access to airtime of PSM but there is a difference between access and usage. There is a longstanding viewing tradition of Russia’s TV channels in Latvia; therefore, a large part of the Russian-speaking minorities’ audience follows the information provided by TV channels that are broadcasted from Russia. Most popular Russian speaking weekly newspaper in Latvia is MK Latvia that is a part of publishing house Moskovskiy Komsomolets in Russia.

The indicator Access to media for local/regional communities and for community media shows high risk (88%). There is no law that grants access to media for local/regional communities and local media outlets in Latvia. Moreover, PSM do not have an obligation to provide news in regional and minority languages. Nevertheless, there are few programmes that provide content in Latgalian (regional) language. Community media is absent and subsidies for community media do not exist in Latvia.

The indicator Access to media for people with disabilities shows medium risk (50%). Only PSM has a duty to provide access to media content to people with disabilities. The analysis of the electronic media strategy[4] and the other documents show undeveloped policy on the access for disabled people to media content in Latvia. The most significant reason of this situation is the low funding of PSM in Latvia.

The indicator Access to media for women shows very high risk (97%). This risk score reflects the real situation. Gender-related discrimination is prohibited by the Labour Law but there are no specific regulations to guarantee an equal access to media for women. PSM in Latvia do not have any gender equality policy. The PSM employees are selected mostly by professional qualities, according to interviews with the top managers of PSM of Latvia[5]. The representation of men and women on the PSM management boards is not balanced. One of the three members of the Latvian Radio Board is a woman, the board members of the Latvian Television are all men.

The Media literacy indicator shows medium risk (63%). Media literacy policy is underdeveloped in Latvia. Media literacy is included in the priorities list of the media policy document that has been developed by the Unit of Media Policy at the Ministry of Culture. Currently, media literacy is present only to a limited extent in the education curriculum in Latvia.


4.  Conclusions

By analysing different risks to media pluralism in Latvia, the following policy recommendations have been developed.

Recommendations for Basic Protection

  • To overcome fragmentation of media and communication industries regulation the establishment of Media Ombudsman shall be completed, as well as, separate authority for PSM regulation should be founded in Latvia;
  • In order to protect media market pluralism and to avoid the political influence the registration of informative freesheets issued by the local governments to the Mass Media Register of Latvia should be prohibited by law.

Recommendations on Market Plurality

  • The regulation of media ownership transparency should be improved by obligation for all media companies to publish their ownership structures on their websites or in the records that are accessible to the public without a payment.
  • Media law in Latvia does not define the status of online media. The precise definition and obligation to follow general media regulations should be included in the amendments to Law on Press and other Mass Media.
  • In order to prevent high degree of horizontal and cross-media concentration in Latvia, specific thresholds and other limitations should be developed.
  • The regulatory safeguards, including self-regulatory instruments, which seek to ensure that decisions regarding appointments and dismissals of editors in chief are not influenced by commercial interests of media owners. By using good practice examples and guidelines of other countries, amendments to Law on Press and Other Mass Media should be developed.

Recommendations on Political Independence:

  • The legislation that provides fair and transparent rules on distribution of State advertising to media outlets should be created in Latvia.
  • The amendment that provides the regulation of conflict of interests between media owners and ruling parties, partisan groups or politicians should be included in the Law on Press and the Other Mass Media.
  • The inadequate and short-term based funding creates serious risks of possibility to politically manipulate PSM, therefore, the funding system of PSM should be changed by implementing the one of following funding system:
  • In order to reduce influence of government’s yearly decision and to guarantee sustainability of PSM, funding from the state budget should be planned for the three or five years’ period;
  • PSM funding from the state budget subsidies should be changed by introducing media fee in Latvia (Finland model);
  • To ensure stable PSM development funding should be derived from the two sources: state budget, and by allocating the certain amount (for example (1%-2%) from excise tax (or other tax) revenue (Lithuanian model).

Recommendations on Social inclusiveness:

  • In order to improve media pluralism, specific support policies that provide support for covering the fixed costs of regional/local/community/minority media companies should be developed in Latvia by using capacity Media Foundation;
  • The funding for content preparation for people with disabilities in PSM should be increased;
  • Precise rules that provide access to commercial audio-visual media content for people with disabilities should be elaborated by National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEMMC);
  • The NEMMC and Unit of Media Policy at Ministry of Culture of Latvia should develop a clear and comprehensive gender equality policy that covers both personnel issues and programming content for PSM organisations in Latvia;
  • A clear and well established media and information literacy policy for different groups of society, including programmes of lifelong learning should be elaborated in Latvia.


Annexe 1. Country Team

The Country team is composed of one or more national researchers that carried out the data collection and authored the country report.

First name Last name Position Institution MPM2016 CT Leader (please indicate with X)
Anda Rožukalne Head of Communication Studies Department Riga Stradins University, Faculty of Communication x
Sergejs Kruks Professor Riga Stradins University, Faculty of Communication

Annexe 2. Group of Experts

The Group of Experts is composed of specialists with a substantial knowledge and experience in the field of media. The role of the Group of Experts was to review especially sensitive/subjective evaluations drafted by the Country Team in order to maximize the objectivity of the replies given, ensuring the accuracy of the final results.

First name Last name Position Institution
Ainārs Dimants Member of National Electronic Mass Media Council National Electronic Mass Media Council
Arta Ģiga Representative of Association of Latvian Journalists, journalist and editor Association of Latvian Journalists
Ivans  Jānis Mihailovs Expert of media  law, docent Riga Stradins University, Faculty of Communication
Jānis Juzefovičs Expert of Media and Journalism University of Applied Sciences, Valmiera, Latvia


[1] For more information on MPM methodology, see the CMPF report “Monitoring Media Pluralism in Europe: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2016 in EU-28, Montenegro and Turkey”,

[2] Rozenvalds, J., (red.), Cik demokrātiska ir Latvija? Latvijas demokrātijas audits 2005 – 2014, [How democratic is Latvia? Audit of Democracy of Latvia (2015 -2014)], Rīga, LU, SPPI, 2014.

[3] TNS Latvia, Visvairāk Latvijas iedzīvotāji uzticas gimenei, prezidentam un baznīcai, [Most Latvian inhabitants trust to their family, President and the church], 2016,

[4] NEPLP, Elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu nozares nacionālā stratēģija 2012 – 2017, [National strategy of electronic media field 2012-2017], 2012,

[5] Rožukalne, A. (2016) Latvijas plašsaziņas līdzekļi: sieviešu veidots saturs vīriešiem piederošos medijos [Latvian Media: the Content created by Women in Media Owned by Men]. Grām. Jansone, I., red. Dzimtes konstruēšana III [In book: Gender Construction III]. Rīga: LU Literatūras, folkloras un mākslas insitutūts [Institute of Literature, Art and Folklore of University of Latvia].