Oligarchic Solidarity vs. Journalistic Professionalism

September 8 was the Day of the International Solidarity of Journalists. A holiday not too well known in this country (unlike the Day of Workers' Solidarity!), which we think is very characteristic. Moreover, it is hard to say where the point is: either the rulers successfully level off the principles around which journalists should in fact rally (suffice it to recall the recent extravaganza of dishing out presidential awards exclusively to the loyal «workers of the pen and lens»), or society itself has not yet matured to accept the principle journalism as such is supposed to protect: to monitor the rulers' actions on behalf of society. The Day has asked, in the no comment mode, some well-known political scientists and colleagues from various media, sometimes holding opposite political views, to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent is Day of the International Solidarity of Journalists relevant for Ukraine?

2. Is the involvement of Russian image makers in the election campaign of some Ukrainian presidential candidates a manifestation of the international solidarity of journalists?

Mykola TOMENKO, director, Institute of Politics:

1. The problem of Ukrainian journalists is that they are interested, subconsciously or theoretically, in forming a guild of closely-knit mutually-supportive trade unions of journalists. But the fantastic poverty, dependence, and corruption of our state de facto foil all these ideal patterns. Today, I do not believe in the possibility of creating a solidarity-linked association of journalists.

There is a certain phenomenon we discovered during the last parliamentary elections: voting with one's brain and one's heart. Voting with their hearts, people did so by force of their persuasions and values. Voting with one's brains is voting for considerations of practical expediency and everyday existence. An old woman in Chernihiv or Cherkasy oblast would come to a polling station and cast two ballots. She inserted on one her heart and voted for the Communist or Peasants Party, while she used her brains to cast the other ballot for a certain businessman or even a criminal baron because he had already given her ten hryvnias and then promised another ten. And I think Ukrainian journalism, as a whole, does not differ much from that old lady. A journalist writes and thinks daily with both his heart and brain. A great many people I know tell me today that, in their heart, they are «against» Kuchma and «for» Moroz, Marchuk, etc. But, on second thought, they have to write «for Kuchma,» although they will of course vote against him.

There can be no solidarity under such conditions, for if I am closed down today as a television company or a newspaper, all journalists are with me in their hearts, for they are aware that the same could happen to them. But they are also aware that they should write in their rival publication something of the kind: I was closed down not necessarily for political considerations, I may indeed have had some financial problems. The case of Mariana Chorna was classical in this context. There was no journalistic solidarity. On the contrary, we showed the extent to which the journalistic milieu was divided in conformity to financial, political, and other divisions in Ukraine. Nobody spoke about the purely journalistic side of the matter, few spoke about the fantastic immorality of the actions of the law enforcement bodies and Verkhovna Rada Deputy Speaker, who submitted documents, withdrew and printed letters, for which they should have been prosecuted. Instead, various journalistic groupings began to settle scores with each other. I regard this as a classic indicator of Ukraine still being overwhelmed with economic corruption and political cynicism. Solidarity, in the true sense of the word, cannot exist yet in Ukrainian journalism. Unfortunately. One must change the current system and regime to pave the way to hard and fast rules of game on the political and economic levels, which will accordingly form clear cut rules of game on the media market. In this case we will be able to say that every journalist, no matter who his employer is, is above all a journalist as such and only then a journalist working for Surkis or Rabynovych.

2. The work of Russian mass media people in the current President's election campaign can indeed be considered as the international solidarity of post-Soviet oligarchic groupings: their solidarity lies in the desire to see Leonid Kuchma stay on. This meets the interests of both the Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs. The Russian media experts who came to Ukraine are in the same situation as their Ukrainian counterparts. They came to earn money in a country just as messed up as Russia, taking advantage of the international solidarity of the political oligarchs.

Valery LAPIKURA, «Accents» program, National Television Company of Ukraine:

1. The idea of journalistic solidarity in this country is, pardon me, a lie. There are individual journalists who try to do their business without jumping on or standing in the way of anybody, and there also is the gutter press. It is characteristic that journalists of one clan will almost never stand up for their colleagues in another clan. Although there have been so many cases of journalists being assaulted and accused of God knows what, the media only ventured to make a sensational announcement. What kind of journalist solidarity can there be if we happen to have publications and television companies without a single professional journalist? For the corporative spirit begins with professionalism.

As to international solidarity as such, there is not the slightest trace of it here. We haven't the faintest idea of what is going on in international journalism in general. Do we read any foreign articles in addition to those from Russia? Do we watch their programs (besides various shows standing a mile from journalism)? Do we have foreign correspondent core points where we could draw information, instead of getting it second hand? Accordingly, we are also little known abroad: their journalists are not interested in Ukraine.

2. The involvement of Russian image makers again confirms the old maxim that journalism is the second oldest profession. I see nothing terrible in enlisting the services of foreigners in pre-election battles, the only negative point being our distrust of our own national forces.

Olha TAUKACH, director general, Gravis Television and Radio Company:

1. No doubt, a day like this is necessary. But, with due account of the degree of our democratic development, we cannot consider it a big holiday for ourselves. And the case of the STB television channel is another example of a situation where democracy and freedom of speech can fall hostage to the security agencies or central authorities in general. I agree to many of The Day 's views in this respect. It is too early for us to speak about true international solidarity: we must first think about journalists' solidarity in this country.

2. I strongly object to such a thing as foreign image makers in our election campaign. This gives credit neither to those who invited them, nor to themselves, nor to Ukrainian journalism as a whole.

Mykola RIABCHUK, editor, monthly Krytyka:

1. Frankly speaking, I am disappointed by the fact that most Ukrainian journalists are taking it lying down, when dealing with power. So much oppression, so small a degree of understanding civil liberties in our society and in journalistic circles. This is why I can hardly see any journalist solidarity.

Mary MYCIO , manager of the media legal protection and education program, US Agency for International Development:

1. I can say nothing about the international links of Ukrainian journalists. These may exist, as an exception, on a personal level. Ukrainian journalists have not entered the international stage and remain too provincial. This may be due to the fact that Ukraine as a whole still shuns the world stage and becomes more and more marginal. This is regretful and does not correspond to the country's potential.

As to domestic solidarity within Ukraine, I wish it existed to a far larger extent. There were a few attempts in the early 1990s to set up journalists' clubs, but they failed both for external reasons and due to their leaders' ambitions. Since then, all attempts to pool journalists together have been thwarted. This can be partially explained by the intense internal competition in journalism and partially by the existence of strong clans and virtual absence of a corporative spirit.

2. Image making has nothing to do with journalism. Of course, an individual can work as a journalist and then turn to public relations. But this means s/he has already changed professions.