Government and Media in Ukraine: Difficulties of Coexistence
The coexistence of such dissimilar but interrelated social institutions as journalism and government is a problem that has existed everywhere and at all times. In countries that are commonly considered to be democratic this question no longer poses any serious difficulties. What changes, if any, have taken place in the relationship between Ukrainian journalists and politicians since the change of leadership? This question dominated the roundtable discussion entitled “Informational Openness of the Ukrainian Leadership: What Is It, and What Should It Be Like?” organized by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Institute for International Security Problems. Some excerpts from this discussion follow.
Anatoliy HUTSAL, first deputy director, Institute for International Security Problems:
“The people want a responsible government. In turn, responsibility is directly related to transparency and informational openness. This connection is so close that sometimes these notions are confused and accents shift. At the same time, we should not overlook the reverse side of the government — its secrecy, which enables it to retain power even under the direst circumstances, and occasionally even to evade responsibility. Thus, it guards its sacred secrets closely.
“They say power corrupts; the kind of power that is hidden from public scrutiny, and which is informationally closed off and irresponsible. It is now time to break this circle. Governmental power should not be a hostage to its informational openness or reticence. A real government should always maintain a balance between these two extremes. By its nature a government is an exact reflection of society. Perhaps the ratio between openness and reticence is the key constant of social culture. The fundamental question is whether this constant can vary and within what range. Perhaps real cultural changes can take place only in the tumult of revolutionary transformations, when a critical mass of bearers of this new constant is being built. Today, on the cusp of revolutionary processes, the leadership is declaring its intent to be more open and transparent, and most importantly, responsible to the nation and the international community. However, there is a large gulf between intentions and passionate resolutions, and specific deeds. A transparent reciprocal process is required.
“Today we are facing the moment of truth as far as the mass media are concerned. Ukrainian society has seen for itself that the word can become a potent weapon in the hands of the modern mass media. We must realize that using more powerful informational weapons requires greater responsibility in terms of a new culture. That’s where opinion polls come in handy.”
Olha BALAKIRIEVA, director, Social Monitoring Center:
“Surveys of experts as part of a study by the Social Monitoring Center, which I represent here, were conducted in Ukraine as well as in Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Experts sought to evaluate the current state of integration processes in the post-Soviet space, the level of public awareness and familiarity with opportunities for cooperation, in particular within the triangle of government, business, and society. The overall conclusion was that integration processes lack adequate coverage, and information about them is restricted to the level of experts’ competence.
“It’s important to shape a positive image for integration processes in all sectors and ensure informational openness of government structures. A major obstacle is the high level of corruption among those vested with power. Ukrainian businesses do not feel secure on foreign soil, which is due to inadequate protection from both the government and president and from foreign mass media. Representatives of the business community are unconsolidated and incapable of presenting their demands to the government. While the prevalent belief among Ukrainian businessmen is that the trade turnover is rising, their Russian counterparts worry about unwanted labor migration, which is intensifying. For Kazakhstan, integration means a common cultural space. Compared to others, Ukrainian experts are the most optimistic about integration prospects in the post-Soviet space. Public opinion confirms this belief. However, there is a certain degree of ambivalence in society. Integration ideologemes (value-laden utterances) are widespread, such as the extreme politicization of integration issues, growing fears of losing independence and the revival of the Soviet Union, and the rise of dominant Russian interests. There is a visible disparity between European integration and integration processes within the post- Soviet space. Against the backdrop of an ambiguous government policy, there is a contrast between Kuchma’s old policy and that of the new leadership, along with accompanying expectations of it and the official endorsement of cooperation between the government and mass media.
“In Russia 23% of respondents perceive Ukraine ‘as a friend’ and 17% ‘as an enemy,’ according to a poll conducted by Yuriy Levada’s Analytical Center. While Ukraine is trailing Germany and India on Russia’s list of friends, it is ahead of countries that suffer from internal hostilities marked by the involvement of the Russian military. This poll reflects shortcomings in the government’s policy and the absence of a full-fledged dialogue among the government, media, business community, and population.”
Vsevolod LOSKUTOV, envoy and aide at the Russian Embassy in Ukraine:
“There is an increasingly unfriendly attitude toward Ukrainians and Russo-Ukrainian relations among the Russian public. This is very dangerous. Why is this happening? The mass media are also contributing to this process, for example by negatively portraying the Single Economic Space initiative. There are, however, very interesting analytical publications, the kind that appear in The Day, but there is also purely negative coverage of this project, which does not correspond to reality. Second, active efforts are being made to draw a sharp contrast between the European and Eurasian directions of integration. Third, our relations are complex, because they are part of a living organism, hence the complex problems that have emerged and will continue to arise. The media tend to overemphasize such problems, presenting them not as discussions but as conflicts or scandals.”
Larysa IVSHYNA, chief editor, The Day:
“The Orange Revolution gave birth to many new hopes and myths that are quickly beginning to fall apart. While we provided the country and our politicians with a large credit of trust, we forgot to get to the bottom of things. In my view, Ukraine as a nation state began its process of nation building very late; it only began to form at a time when many countries in Europe and worldwide had already moved on to integration processes. Therefore, we are facing two questions that appear to be mutually exclusive: How do we combine the creation of a nation state with openness? And how do we preserve our identity without closing ourselves off from integration influences from outside? Should these questions be of interest to the mass media? Yes, absolutely. After all, if we do not analyze events within an appropriate system of coordinates, we risk confining ourselves to narrow systems that will broadcast only those things which politicians and spin doctors want society to hear. If we do figure out these important things — national interests and the media sector — any other attempts, even seemingly well intentioned ones, may occasionally bring about contrary results. Of course, to some extent the mass media assisted the people in the new government, the president, and other officials in their rise to power. So, in what way should the press be held responsible for creating images that sometimes have little or no bearing on reality? This is not only a question of morals and ethics, but professionalism: together with the public, the journalistic community must learn to respond to hard facts and arguments without succumbing to emotions and sentiments.
“We are using information that in one way or another can be permitted by those in power. While the previous regime was closed, there is no compelling reason to believe that the current regime is open. At least we have decided for ourselves that we will not spread hypocrisy and will try to describe the real state of affairs with less pomp and artificial embellishment. As for more practical cooperation between the new government and media, the first attempts to establish contact were not quite successful, in my view. The first impression was that the representatives of the new government, enchanted with their own image, were not paying attention to anything. Now the smoke is clearing. I think there is increasingly more room for coordinated efforts by the journalistic community in keeping with the principle ‘what we want from this government’ in a shift from the old principle of ‘who favors whom.’
“The people who flocked to Independence Square no longer have their mouthpiece. The middle class as such has disappeared from news reports and other television programs. Instead, herds of politicians are once again migrating from one channel to the next. Here we face the fundamental question: When will Ukrainian journalists finally stop focusing all of their attention on politicians? Will they ever explore their very rich and interesting country and keep an eye out for major events and signs of profound internal problems no matter where they work: in provincial towns like Kozyn or somewhere in Sumy or other cities, or even in Kyiv’s Solomyansky district. New leaders are born where there is public resistance to injustice.”
Ihor LUBCHENKO, chairman, National Union of Journalists of Ukraine:
“We are repeating the mistakes from 15 years ago, when journalists brought a wealth of new people into the government and parliament. They shaped their image and turned them into public figures, expecting that this would have a profound impact on all our future accomplishments. And they believed in this. Months have passed since the orange euphoria, and I suspect that only the head of state has preserved this sense of euphoria. He is certain that the movement toward an independent press has already started. I am very skeptical of such claims. A few years ago I said that Ukraine has administrative censorship, when the media are pressured and stifled; economic censorship, when maverick media outlets are subjected to incessant crackdowns from inspecting authorities; and, most horrible, ‘censorship of the bullet.’ A case in point is the recent impetus that was given to the investigation of the ‘Gongadze case,’ although I am very skeptical of claims that it has been solved. Nonetheless, I think that we will see no more such atrocities. Perhaps there will no longer be economic pressure put on the media. By all accounts, the current leadership will not resort to this. However, there is still administrative pressure. Don’t regional officials who pressure media outlets by demanding that their editors resign realize that they are unleashing an opposition against themselves with their very own hands? This is my first experience of leaders for whom building an opposition against themselves is a question of principle. I’m not going to recommend anything, because making recommendations is a thankless business. Yet journalists must have a clear understanding of their role in society. The Day is one of the few quality publications that understand their role. But very often such publications cannot find public support. This is further proof that the government must pursue a dialogue with journalists at a qualitatively new level if it really intends to build a democratic state instead of a totalitarian one.”
Valentyn KOROLKO, chairman of the Theory and Methods of Public Relations Department, Kyiv Mohyla Academy National University:
“We are again facing a very interesting set of circumstances. Is there a middleman between the government and media? Is there someone who in one way or another is making a contribution to the manipulative scheme, attempting to create a better image for a government that is not professional enough and to influence the mass media in a certain way? We are often caught in a vicious circle, where the government exists on its own and uses nothing except administrative resources and pressure, while somebody, a newsmaker, assists it by creating the news it needs. Of course, political struggles are never-ending, but in this case the mass media are hostage to artificially created events that are often orchestrated by spin doctors. Thus, it seems to me that the mass media should be the middleman in this sequence: government — mass media — public relations.”
Mykola OZHEVAN, chairman of the Information Security and International Information Relations Department, National Institute for International Security Problems:
“The media in fact cannot avoid cooperating with various political forces; they cannot distance themselves from the state or the business community. Moreover, if media outlets are not businesses, they automatically become dependent. But the catch is that if they are too preoccupied with making money, they are also losing themselves in the direct sense of this word. Excessive politicization, let alone excessive dependence on the government, also brings into question the very self- identity of a media outlet.”
Volodymyr RIZUN, director of the Journalism Institute, Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University:
“Speaking of the relationship between the government and media, it is clear that there are very significant social meanings and purposes within this context. Both the government and the mass media must be open because they are serving a common cause. Whether society can be open to those journalists who use their jobs to engage in mudslinging is another question altogether. Can such journalists be considered open? That is, in my considerations I proceed from the eternal notions of dignity and honor, conscience and ethics. Therefore, when journalism is ethical, one can become open to it. If the government is ethical, it will open up. The rest is questions of growth, formation, and upbringing.”
Oleh VUSATIUK, Ph.D., Institute for International Security Problems:
“Is Ukrainian society capable of achieving a state of openness? Essentially, the country is witnessing a war for the redistribution of property and information space, a war that will determine the model of further social, cultural, and historical development. And war is war. Therefore, I think we shouldn’t expect total openness from the warring sides. In my view, the question here is not of openness, but rather of the characteristics of the informational curtain that the enemies are building in this war. I can’t see any break with the old government, because a demonstration of openness is not openness per se.”
