Are We Informed by "mediji" or "mēdiji"?

If you type the following keyword into Google, you will find in equal numbers on various Latvian websites both the phrases "masu mediji" and "masu mēdiji" (mass media in Latvian). So which is actually correct - with the long or short vowel?

If one examines various Latvian language dictionaries compiled by Latvia's most learned scholars, it turns out there is no such word as "mēdiji" in the Latvian language at all. Even though many of us like to use it, and one must admit it also sounds better than "mediji", which involuntarily echoes the Latvian verb "medīt" (to hunt).

Moreover, there is also the question of whether to use this word in singular or plural form. Jānis Vidiņš in his "Svešvārdu grāmata" (Foreign Word Book) (Valters un Rapa, 1933) mentions the word "medijs" and explains it as "intermediary", which in its functional meaning corresponds well to the modern informational mass media - intermediaries between the source of information and the recipient or consumer of information.

Interestingly, the "Svešvārdu vārdnīca" (Foreign Word Dictionary) published in 1978 (Liesma) defines "medijs" only as "a person who, according to the superstitious beliefs of spiritualists, acts as an intermediary between humans and spirits". There is no connection whatsoever with the press, television or radio mentioned here.

More recent sources, such as the "Svešvārdu vārdnīca" (Jumava, 1999), indicate two word forms with two different meanings, but in different numbers: "Mediji [Lat. media - TV, radio, press]". "Medijs - intermediary between humans and spirits."

Again in the "Preses lasītāja svešvārdu vārdnīca" (Foreign Word Dictionary for Press Readers) published in 2004 (Nordik), both concepts are merged: "Medijs - intermediary; mass medium. Masu mediji (mass media)."

So why, if the word "mēdiji" does not exist in the Latvian language at all, is it used by so many publicly popular portals? Here are some of them -