• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

IMAGE MAKING OR DECEIT?

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

The Russian President was upset recently at the private mass media. He was also angry at the TV channels for reports on the miners’ strike.

The Ukrainian mass media ignored this scandal in view of the hard financial crisis in Russia. Moreover, the development of events concerning Boris Yeltsin’s speech at the congress of the International Institute of the Press and the following meeting with the managers of three Russian TV-channels — NTV, ORT, RTR — is significant for Ukraine. At first, Yeltsin had some changes in his position, caused by the harsh reaction of the mass media on his violation of the right of free speech.

It is commonly known that Yeltsin’s dissatisfaction with the independent mass media was caused by the fact that they refused to accept his decree on creating a state media holding company based upon the Russian TV and Radio Company. The journalists considered this an attempt to put more pressure on the non-state TV-channels. Hence, after his speech at the congress, where Yeltsin accused “privateers” of being the “worst censors”, the President received another portion of “complements”. At the same congress Oleg Dobrodeev, director general of the NTV channel, called Yeltsin’s statement insulting and Boris Berezovsky expressed certainty that only the independent mass media can be most objective and that is why the power of authority lies in strengthening the power of financial capital. As a result, instead of the expected argument, there was the meeting of Boris Yeltsin and Ksenia Ponomariova, director general of ORT, Oleg Dobrodeev and Mikhail Shvydky in the Kremlin turned out to be peaceful and quiet. Yeltsin spent most of the time trying to assure his interlocutors that the establishment of the holding company does not threaten private channels. He also called their covering the miners’ strike too dramatic. Moreover, Yeltsin dedicated his speech on radio to the relations between the state and mass media. He also promised to assist the development of both state and non-state publications.

Here it is obvious, that those who control the Russian mass media have won the battle. They forced the President not only to try to explain himself, but also to talk with instead of fighting them. They managed to defend their right to their own opinion regarding events in Russia.

Are the top-level officials of Ukrainian mass media capable of similar decisive actions? When President Kuchma waived a finger at the domestic non-state mass media, not a single TV-channel bothered to voice a word of indignation regarding the presidential attitude toward free speech. Unlike the press, the television put on the mask of neutrality, when Pravda Ukrainy was closed and TV- program, Your Choice, was taken off the air. What can we say if even such a powerful TV program as Pisliamova (epilogue) was canceled, when Kuchma became angry with Oleksandr Tkachenko. And whatever words the 1+1 studio management uses to state their apolitical position, it is still clear that private capital in the mass media sphere is totally controlled by the state and does not even think of an independent position. The programs on the private TV channels lack any kind of criticism of the authorities; they are so sweet and glittering that they do not even look like real analytical programs. In this a question about the responsibility of the mass media arises, because hidden behind the mask of neutrality is a personal moral choice, made in favor of the managers of the channels due to their personal interests. This kind of choice damages our society.

The Russian example here is also valuable. In an interview with Kommersant, Oleh Dobrodeev admitted there was the pressure of moral responsibility, taken by the NTV journalists for Yeltsin’s second term. Both he and Vladimir Gusinsky made it clear this should never happen again. Of course we understand that such turns in the business world can be caused by the new game — the third presidential elections in this case, in which the media bosses see no place for the elderly and sick. However, it is a good lesson. Oleh Dobrodeev said that the feeling of belonging to a certain electorate is unneeded for professional journalists just as the synonymous position is not expedient from the standpoint of reputation. Reputation is closely tied with the cost of one minute of commercial TV time.

Obviously, commercial time in Ukraine depends more on the state’s attitude toward the channel than on its public reputation, which speaks not only of the political realities of our life but also of economics. The absence of any kind of economic reforms like a vicious circle shows that society and the state do not need an independent press and that there is no objective chance for it to be established. Ukraine does not have a middle class, which could be interested in unbiased media analytical research.

Not everything is smooth in Russia either, which can tell us something about the time period post-Soviet states need to launch real reforms. In spite of the power and weight of private channels in Russia, Yeltsin managed to say though hesitating: “We have the right, ... well, not to demand, but ... to ask you (private channels) to carry out state policy through our channels. Do you agree?” Ksenia Ponomariova discharged the tension by nodding her head after President Yeltsin repeated his question. Oleg Dobrodeev and Vladimir Gusinsky declare that nothing will change in the policy of NTV. Nevertheless, the fact that the country’s leader could ask such a question shows how fragile democratic freedoms are.

The question of Kommersant journalist Natalia Gevorkyan to Oleg Dobrodeev became an actual test for the whole system of the Russian mass media. “What does the President look like?” she asked the manager of the channel, where she can see Yeltsin almost every hour. In other words she understands that the mass media does not mirror the real face of the state, it only turns either the purchaser’s fantasy or its own dreams into reality.

Remarkably, it was a Russian journalist who said that compared to Ukraine all information about their President is open. And this is not only about reports on the President’s condition during operations, the Russian press was free to describe presidential adventures during his trips overseas.

What can we say about Ukraine, where we cannot even dream about the adequacy of the TV image to how the President actually looks. When on TV, Leonid Kuchma always has the mask of the heroic reformer among the people’s enemies. It is not important which reforms are meant and that to spot them is impossible unless you are blindly devoted. And the President heroically fights Parliament and bravely hints that he knows about the spots on the clean reputation of his former adherents. He grows cucumbers and easily punishes those who do not understand which party they chose.

Non-state channels like Inter, ICTV, 1+1, and Gravis use the absorbed coloring of Interfax when describing presidential actions. Only STB allows more vivid colors from time to time.

The actual image-makers of Leonid Kuchma do their best to make the President look great, though he does not have an imposing appearance.

I think back to a well-know phrase: “If Napoleon had our kind of mass media, no one would ever know about his defeat at Waterloo.” What Ukrainian Waterloos do we not know about?

Photo by Viktor Marushchenko, The Day:

Putting the last touches on the last of the reformers?

 

Rubric: