Did 1+1 name the killers or who hired them?
The Kyiv Appellate Court has two months to pass judgment in the 1+1 channel case, a little before the elections. This is prime time to keep the most popular national channel in suspense, making the management strain its ears for the smallest whisper, the slightest hint. In any case, this is what the situation looks like after the Kyiv Economic Court ruled to strip 1+1 of its broadcasting license.
One good result of the 1+1 license scandal, following the spectacular Yabluko picket show would be for the Kyiv residents to finally discover the whereabouts of the channel’s head office. Everybody is expecting this, yet no one is trying to downgrade what has come to pass. The economic court passed its ruling with the judge acting contrary to established legal procedures, insists Maksym Varlamov, head of the channel’s legal department. 1+1 is a third party in the case (with the National Television and Radio Council acting as the respondent), yet it winds up being the principal sufferer. This is a situation best described as grotesque. It is difficult not to suspect some kind of frame engineered by a confident ruling force, a political one because someone is obviously interested in incapacitating 1+1 for two months. And who might that be?
The subject was discussed by a press conference called by 1+1 management February 5. General producer Oleksandr Rodnyansky pointed to the well-known oligarch Vadym Rabinovych behind the attack on the channel. He owns the AITI channel which initiated the proceedings in the case (remarkably, that same day a newspaper where Mr. Rabinovych figures as acting chief editor, carried a front-page “expose” of 1+1).
“He is the man that has for several years described himself as a former proprietor of our channel. I don’t know anything about that man except that he has a criminal past, except that he is barred entry into the United States and Great Britain. That’s none of my business. In the past three and a half years his main purpose has been to harass our people. I don’t think that this will get him what he wants. Not one attempt to discredit us has succeeded,” said Mr. Rodnyansky, adding, “Who can influence the decision of the city’s economic court? We believe that such people resort to methods that come down to attempts aimed at finding temporary employers and forming temporary alliances. Let me remind you that at this time last year one of our channel’s stockholders was barred entry to Ukraine courtesy of former SBU head Leonid Derkach. This year, he [Rabinovych — Ed.] has a new boss, Oleksandr Omelchenko. I am personally convinced that this man, reacting so painfully to criticism (our channel has never made secret its critical attitude toward him and what he is doing with this city), had every opportunity to set in motion the city economic court machine.”
When asked by journalists what could have touched Oleksandr Omelchenko’s especially sore spot, the general producer replied that the channel has sought to give every political force an equal share in its programs. Vyacheslav Pikhovshek, head of 1+1’s information service, stressed that the channel, while offering its explanations of what is happening, has not finally identified anyone; that all this is just so many allegations concerning possible involvement with the judge’s decision. This, however, does not mean that the press is free to interpret the said allegations in whatever way it likes — as was the case immediately after the adjudication had become public knowledge. Quite a few media outlets agreed that Vadym Rabinovych wants his NTV-Ukraine on the second national channel.
Meanwhile 1+1 supporters keep calling and visiting to confirm their readiness to help the favorite channel; many say they are willing to go out into the streets to protest, TSN news hostess Alla Mazur told the press conference.
