Editorial: culture paper blowing in the wind

Photo: www.kl.ee

Such limelight, as these past few days, hasn’t fallen on Sirp, the culture paper, for a long-long while. Sure: occasionally, other media will cite Sirp-stories; in 2010, the paper celebrated its 70^th birthday etc. Still, all that would fall into everyday-category in the life of a newspaper – in no way comparable to the reaction following news of Kaur Kender appointed as acting editor-in-chief. The issue not being the controversial person that Mr Kender, the writer, is. Rather, it was the way the baton was passed.

Even with role of said Sirp on media and culture landscape now nothing like its former glory-days, it still doubtless carries a deep meaning: a newspaper, the fate of which is rightfully of public interest – and not only for the sake of taxpayer euros poured into publishing thereof. Sirp’s the paper for the educated reader; steps by publisher (read: state) to impose direction are interpreted as attitudes towards the intelligentsia.

In 2005, the Sirp editor-in-chief seat went to Kaarel Tarand. An epoch at Sirp, with Mihkel Mutt and Mati Unt as central figures, was over. Even with his somewhat splitting views, Mr Tarand was an experienced editor regarding whom it was a given that he’d be producing a culture paper – and not some other kind of media product. At the moment, we are not as convinced, following the Sirp Vision Document by culture grouping ZA/UM and initial staff-decisions by the fledgling acting chief.

From time to time, every newspaper needs new ideas and a fresh view. Understandably, a new leader may create a team of his own. Even so, a prudent freshening of the air is quite different from throwing opposite windows wide open in the midst of a storm. For a moment, the resulting chaos may feel fun, perhaps. But it won’t be pleasant, after all, dwelling in a room torn by gusts. Who will clean up the mess? Who will take responsibility?

Sadly, for an onlooker, the process of finding Sirp a boss doesn’t look quite correct. The public competition was proclaimed to have failed. Thereafter, it was assured that an acting editor-in-chief, meaning the current managing editor, would lead the paper until the new editor-in-chief is in place. All of a sudden, the foundation-in-search found not a new editor-in-chief but a new acting one. The chairman Urmas Klaas claims he would not be interfering in the selection of the editor-in-chief, but is still quite keen to comment on the topic and, as confirmed by former candidates, is actively involved in the process. And, should the culture ministry really open its purse strings wider, the justified question arises: why just now?

Meanwhile, behaviour by public culture figures is saddening as well. Constructive criticism towards Sirp should not be limited to the time-slot when a new editor-in-chief is being sought. A culture paper is in constant need of attention by artistic associations and the individual artists. At the editor-in-chief competition, more candidates could have run; at least, there could have been some public visions cast – on the kind of culture think-tank we would need, as a society, in the shape of Sirp.