About This Newspaper

The first issue of Den came off the presses three years ago (September 11, 1996). Not too long a period, but it all depends on how one counts the time. We all know that we live at a special time and extreme circumstances. Because of this each year sustained by the modern media should be recorded as at least three. Newspapers emerge these days like clouds in the sky, floating, moving in whatever direction, at times darkening threateningly, casting lightning bolts, then imperceptibly changing shape, and suddenly vanishing before one's eyes.

Many (my friends included) reproach this newspaper for what they consider to be excessive politicization, a fact hard to deny. But who is not politicized in our society these days? Listen to what people talk about on public transportation, while shopping in a street market, and while on vacation: the same as in Parliament. Even our women seem increasingly less concerned about things like the price and quality of food. Instead, they are anxious about who will be elected our next President or discuss the government's permanent economic incompetence and helplessness. The Day is chock full of politics, yet in important, dramatic situations this newspaper always finds it in itself to rise above politicking or inter-party squabbles. A good example is its response to Vyacheslav Chornovil's tragic death («Death of the Sentinel,» March 30).

Partisan or not, this newspaper has never lowered itself to any chauvinistic manifestations, unlike certain other periodicals where one often comes across articles saturated with pathologic hatred of people with different ethnic origins, religion, or denomination. One can only sympathize with journalists having to work for such publications. But who knows, maybe there is something to the saying, «Tell me what newspaper you work for and I will tell you who you are.»

Making the first tentative steps, every newspaper works as if in a vacuum. We were no exception. At first, we could sense or see no response, one way or the other. Every effort we made seemed to fall down a bottomless well or sounded like a cry in the wilderness. Slowly but surely, we encouraged our readers to respond, welcoming their comments, actually inviting them to cooperate. Now we boast a very special circle of readers: intelligent, experienced, and genuinely concerned about what is happening in Ukraine. We are especially gratified to receive letters from young people — college and even high school students. It was thanks to this newspaper that I happily changed my opinion about the younger generation as hopelessly lost, indifferent, and licentious. The signs are there, of course, but the overall impression is grossly overstated. Also, our readers are very exacting; they will never let pass hasty judgments, discrepancies, or even misprints. And the newspaper never hesitates to carry critical commentaries in response to its publications. In fact, if need be, we openly and expressly admit that we have erred.

Under the Soviets, most information systems, especially public education and the mass media, were habitually oriented toward the statistically average person, one without any special aesthetic wants, knowledge, or skill. This is probably why, contrary to the surviving Soviet prejudice, we have dropped behind so much in terms of education, culture, and technology (barring military production, of course). Unlike many other newspapers, The Day has always tried to uphold its intellectual level, present serious material, requiring its readership use his head rather than consume cheap pie-in- the-sky stuff. In fact, one could compile more than one collection of topical studies using its articles — historical, economic, political, etc. Is this bad?

Journalists I know, who work for other newspapers, now and then complain that they cannot bring issues home, that they would not dare show them to their parents, children, or spouses because of the sort of materials and risquО illustrations they carry. Indeed, some of the publications we have on newsstands are not meant for family reading; they are careful to select from the whirlpool of life all that which can only give rise to disgust, fear, or serious doubts about the validity of the Ten Commandments. A journalist is not always lucky enough to work for a paper that can be brought into any home and offend no one.

I would like to say one thing more. There is work to do and there is «production necessity» as part of the realities found in every business, media included, of course. Personally, I can testify with gratitude that in the three years with Den I have never been pressed to write anything contrary to my own views. Long live Den !