Freedom of expression or farce?
On November 17, the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution to hold parliamentary hearings on freedom of expression in the regional mass media with the participation of representatives of government agencies, regional mass media, NGOs, and creative associations. The Day asked its experts to share their views on what parliament should discuss in the first place.
Apparently, there is nothing coincidental about raising this issue. The status of this freedom — rather its open wounds — was brought up during the election campaign, whereas for five previous years the freedom of expression was regarded as a fait accompli, despite numerous facts of violations of journalists’ civil rights, the existence of municipally owned media, vulgarization of television programs, the primitive dictatorship of television channel owners, limited availability of the press, let alone the Gongadze case that remains unsolved (along with other similar cases).
The National Commission for Freedom of Expression and Development of the Information Industry attached to the president of Ukraine recently voiced its concern over “the situation that is emerging in the Ukrainian information space and can eliminate the achievements in the sphere of freedom of the press.” The commission attributes its concern to the active phase of the presidential race. Its statement reads: “Backstage party arrangements, deals and other hand-in-glove relations between politicians and mass media, obstruction of journalist work, ungrounded dismissals of journalists, editorial office censorship, new forms of contracted journalism, bans on criticism, economic dependence, and newly introduced restrictions on journalist rights are becoming weapons in political struggle.”
As the election campaign gains momentum, the main figures of the Maidan are struggling to divide between themselves the length of shagreen of the largely illusory freedom of speech. Viktor Yushchenko, on the one hand, and Yulia Tymoshenko, on the other (largely on Channel 5), keep telling us that we owe this freedom only to him/her. In other words, we, the Ukrainian people, have nothing to do with it.
Being able to ask a ranking bureaucrat an embarrassing question is indeed an achievement, although practice shows that such an opportunity can mean working without cameras and microphones. At worst, in response to a critical remark a journalist may even get a personal injury — exclusive from an MP.
The media people obtained freedom of expression, while bureaucrats, freedom of physical assault. None of the latter cases has been brought to its logical conclusion in court — and this involves not only journalists. Criminal investigations that expose specific persons and their specific wrongdoings end at the freedom-of-expression phase.
On November 30, Den’/The Day’s editor in chief Larysa Ivshyna spoke on Radio Liberty, saying that over the years of independence the Ukrainian information space has not been put in order: “How are the resources being distributed? Are any of them in the hands of people who know what a socially responsible business in the information sphere is all about? … We wasted the time when we should have put the information sphere in order… Our information space is like a [Soviet] communal apartment.
“We have lived like this for the past 18 years, exposed to all these winds, both global and local, that have been blowing away the weak sprouts of common sense and national revival… For example, Den’ can publish within one week three front page news items which we consider of major importance for the whole country, while for most other media they mean nothing, simply because these stories do not come from another capital city, as has been the tradition… The degradation of the information space led to the stagnant condition of the media’s consciousness. They don’t seem to realize that there is a certain ‘tree of values’ on which one must pin any news; they don’t recognize these values, so they keep saying that such things don’t fit into their format.”
That was why the Inter Channel thought nothing of playing its regular Quarter 95 show in prime time, on the night of the Holodomor Remembrance Day, so as to add to his ratings. This is how the freedom of expression, won in the course of painful democratic transformation, is being implemented in Ukraine.
Few other democratic values have been mentioned as often as this freedom. Freedom of expression as an ability and skill to adequately and timely respond to the country’s needs and problems, reveal, describe, and help solve them — this could be a formula that would be acceptable, and even vital, for Ukraine. Weren’t James Mace’s newspaper articles the most vivid manifestation of the freedom of expression? Wasn’t Gareth Jones this freedom incarnate? Another example is Serhii Naboka, mentioned by Larysa Mudrak on Radio Liberty. Finally, is it possible to have freedom of expression without a solid, effective journalist community, when there is only the right to speak anything in any manner?
In what follows journalists and experts share their views on how free the regional media feel they are in Ukraine.
COMMENTARIES
Volodymyr PRYTULA, head of the Public Monitoring Committee for Freedom of Expression in the Crimea, Simferopol:
“Freedom of expression is now on a considerably higher level in Ukraine, including the Crimea, than in 2002–03. This is the result of public awareness and comprehension of the value of this freedom as a guarantee of all our liberties and our democracy as a whole. Our public committee has played a very important role in this process; we have been assisting journalists legally and procedurally, holding training courses and publishing the annual White Book, which records all cases of violations of this freedom in the Crimea.
“Regarding journalists’ access to information, the higher the rank of a body of authority, the more accessible and transparent it becomes. For example, the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers of the Crimea are operating in a rather transparent mode. Getting information from village councils is the hardest task. The reason is the low professional level and politicization of the local bureaucrats who fear openness and information leaks that can be used by their political opponents.
“Another problem is that most of our society and law enforcement agencies have not as yet sided with the journalists; they fail to secure the legal aspects of the freedom of expression. In other countries journalists are also physically assaulted and obstructed in the line of duty, but every such case is investigated and brought to court and the guilty party is immediately punished.
“In Ukraine, cases of physical assault on journalists remain open for years. For example, Lilia Budzhurova’s home in Simferopol was set on fire in 2005, but the case has not been closed yet. In 2008, representatives of a political party attacked the state television and radio company DTRK Krym, disrupting a live broadcast and endangering the ambassador and international figure Michel Duray and other participants in the program. A criminal case was opened on charges of obstruction of journalist professional activities, but the investigation was never completed.
“Government-established media are still a factor that restricts the freedom of expression. At a certain stage the process of media denationalization somehow came to a halt and never resumed. Journalists working for such media find themselves under the dictatorship of bureaucrats who represent the ruling political forces; they are spoiled by bonuses for writing what they are told to write. An especially negative aspect is the government status of regional television companies, including DTRK Krym, which serve the interest of the government rather than the public. I think it’s high time to denationalize all regional channels and reorganize them into a public television network of Ukraine that would secure the freedom of expression in a balanced manner for all social strata and would work for the benefit of the state and the people.
“For several years now the Verkhovna Rada has been unable to regulate the legal aspects of providing information in response to inquires from editorial offices. This allows wrongdoers to ignore journalists and take advantage of the inadequate Law “On Information.” Nor can we tolerate the existence of periodicals that are filled with nothing but written-to-order articles. Such publications do not conform to the status or mission of the media; they are a parody of the freedom of expression.”
Oleh LIVINSKY, journalist, head of the Department for Sociopolitical Information, Ternopil Regional State Television and Radio Company:
“The government-run media take a stand that is a mirror reflection of that of the ruling political force. In fact, no other programs get on the air. The privately owned media outlets echo the views of their owners, be it an individual or a sociopolitical or economic force. As simple as that. In principle, the freedom of expression hardly exists on the regional level, while the media in raions are totally dependent on their founders.
“Public opinion is actually ignored because there is no room left for it on newspaper pages or in broadcasts. That’s why most district newspapers and wire radio stations are so boring. There is more democracy and freedom on the republican level, for here one has to reckon with the opponent’s view, even if to make the program more interesting.
“At one time I headed the district radio company Dzherelo. It was run by the Ternopil Regional Council. It was the only time in the 16 years of my journalist career that I felt free to act as I thought best because the head of the local self-administration allowed me to do so. I started in journalism on the payroll of a government-run periodical and later worked for commercial ones. One such newspaper was co-owned by a department of the regional state administration and a private business. We had to voice their views first and those of the public came second. For example, we did not write about such a large-scale project of the time as ‘Ukraine Against Kuchma.’”
Natalia Chorna, journalist, Ternopil-based regional public-political newspaper Vilne zhyttia plius:
“I feel free as a journalist, because I can raise any issue I like; there are no restrictions except for the dictates of my conscience, heart, and ethics. I’m working for an independent public-political newspaper. We have our finger on the pulse of the problems our society is faced with. During the election campaign we are not pressured by any political forces; we can take our choice and offer room on our pages to all political parties and individuals who respond to our publications. We’re receiving a great many letters. No one censors our readers’ views. We publish them regardless of which party the author supports. Our newspaper serves as a kind of public rostrum for everyone.”
