This article analyses the inappropriate use in the media of such concepts as autoritetas (authority) and garsenybė (celebrity). In recent years we have seen the media lump together positive and negative assessments of concepts expressing the worth of individuals. They have been using the same words – which formerly had only a clearly positive value – authority, celebrity and personality to refer to both respectable well-known people and the worst criminals; even perhaps to the latter more often. When this happens, two logically incompatible items (a criminal and a genuine authority or celebrity) are fused into one descriptor, thereby violating the normal semantic collocability of the words. This situation is brought about by clashes of values that come about in the language users’ consciousness and thinking when the distinction between good and bad, honour and dishonour is eroded as the formerly prestigious words honour, glory, greatness, heroism, etc. begin to lose their primary meaning. The so-called authorities and celebrities in the criminal world do not meet the criteria that are usually applied to ‘authorities’: they are not universally acclaimed individuals, their opinions are of no importance to the nation, they have not earned any respect. They have become ‘celebrities’ only thanks to the media. If media writers want to apply such epithets to criminals in a sarcastic way, jokingly, it would be appropriate to put the word authority or celebrity between inverted commas. The inverted commas would serve to protect the real value of these concepts, acting as a barrier to defend these words against demoralisation and devaluation. People who use language in public positions should choose their words particularly responsibly, since by repeatedly making inappropriate stereotypical statements they can transfer their concept of truth and justice into the listener’s or reader’s mind
