Nobody Ever Called the Guarantor of Freedoms a Friend of the
Free Press
We remind our readers that on May 3, World Press Freedom Day, the New York-based
Committee to Protect Journalists published a list of the ten greatest "enemies
of the press," including President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma (The Day,
May 12). We polled some well-known Kyiv journalists, who appraised rather
liberally our President's "success" in this nomination. Was it because
the charms of Kyiv's "parquets" distorts any idea of the true situation
in the country? So we also decided to ask more of our colleagues to voice
their opinions. And it turned out that many other journalists sided with
the assessment of Serhiy Rakhmanin from Zerkalo nedeli, who said
the decision of the American Committee to Protect Journalists was absolutely
fair.
1. Is it fair that the US Committee to Protect Journalists included
President Kuchma in the list of "ten enemies of the press?"
2. Was his reaction adequate (to be more exact, that of his spokesman
Martynenko, who mentioned the possibility of suing that non-governmental
organization)?
Iryna POHORELOVA, Politychni khroniky:
1. Yes, for a number of reasons. First, their principle of dealing with
the media - "whoever is not for us is against us" - is operating flawlessly.
Secondly, Mr. Kuchma, as person rather than President, often demonstrated
his personal scorn for media people, and his rude manner of addressing
journalists and ministers testifies not to familiarity but to utter disdain:
this is the way a master treats his menials.
Finally, the conclusions of the US Committee to Protect Journalists
that the President's tax policies are detrimental to freedom of the press
are absolutely correct not only because the President is the guarantor
of and responsible for all that is happening in the country. American observers
must have watched closely the way the President has intervened in Ukraine's
tax legislation over the last year by his decrees, while his other decrees
staged a coup in Ukrainian television and radio broadcasting. At the same
time, he vetoed all press-related laws passed by Parliament.
2. Well, the question "Who are the judges?" really makes no sense. Freedom
of speech is an absolute, not relative, category, and whoever does not
understand this will sooner or later be hoist on his own petard without
additional court proceedings.
Oleksandr TKACHENKO, chairman of the board, New Channel, host, "Face
of the World" program:
1. It is wonderful that there are such organizations as the US Committee
to Protect Journalists which can assess the situation in society and the
state irrespective of anyone's opinion. But for them, many opposition figures
would not even have been able to survive. But, in spite of fundamental
problems with the press in Ukraine, it is hardly fair to place our President
among the worst enemies of the freedom of expression. I have visited a
lot of countries, including our neighbors. The situation in Uzbekistan,
Belarus, and even in Russia, except for Moscow and Petersburg, is completely
incomparable to that in Ukraine. Our President is obviously far from being
among the top ten stranglers of free of expression.
2. As to the spokesman's position, that was no more than a clearly polemical
reaction.
Mark SHTEIN, information chief, Kharkiv-based Simon radio:
1. The President of Ukraine's being put on this list means that the
situation in Ukraine in this aspect is unsatisfactory by all accounts.
But, in principle, I do not like the words "enemy of the press" as applied
to our President. They are too harsh to reflect reality. Rather, he is
unfriendly to and wants to subjugate the press, but, I am absolutely sure,
he is not an "enemy." The Ukrainian press, especially in the regions, is
now so afraid of possible trouble that it fears to reveal its potential.
And I think it is to the President's liking...
2. When I read about this, it struck me as somewhat funny. When they
say the President has apparently nothing to do with the closing of opposition
newspapers, for we have an independent judicial system, everybody understands
that the real situation is different.
Bohdan HALIUK, editor-in-chief, Halychyna (Ivano-Frankivsk
newspaper):
1. My personal opinion as an editor is that I don't feel any pressure
on the newspaper. Just the contrary, the executive power helps us in many
respects under the present difficult conditions. It is unfair to include
Kuchma in the list of enemies of the press.
2. It is his personal business how to react.
Zoya KAZANZHI, editor-in-chief, Slovo (Odesa newspaper):
1. I think the condition of the press has deteriorated under Mr. Kuchma's
presidency. Hence, this committee has a right to such a point of view.
2. I think so. Such a reaction is possible in the civilized society
we are striving for. And Mr. Martynenko's reaction could not have been
different. Should there be a trial and the spokesman or the President's
proxy prove this is not so, I think the President would only gain from
this.
Serhiy PRAVDENKO, editor-in-chief Holos Ukrayiny (newspaper
of Verkhovna Rada):
1. This is, unfortunately, a negative assessment for Ukraine. It is
perhaps a sign of whether or not the West supports our President, for they
never do anything by chance. The Vatutyn district court in Kyiv has begun
to hear the case of Pravda Ukrayiny's former editor Oleksandr Horobets
(Mr. Pravdenko is a lay defense counsel in this trial - Ed.). What
does it mean? Our zealous Minister of Information Kulyk once illegally
forbade the printers to print the newspaper. Our zealous city prosecutor's
office framed up this case, thus setting up the Prosecutor General and
impairing the President's image. This fact must also have contributed to
the rating. For Horobets is behind bars today. It was painful for me to
see a colleague of mine languishing in prison since September 30, for almost
eight months. What for? I repeat, the city prosecutor's office bestowed
a very dubious boon on our honorable President through its servile zeal.
And I think these enemies should be taken seriously, so that they think
a thousand times before turning again on someone working in the press (or
anyone else for that matter).
Mykola USPALENKO, editor-in-chief, Ukrayina-tsentr (newspaper):
1. I personally think there are no such grounds in Ukraine. If the Americans
do have such grounds, they should made them public and not just whip up
hysteria. Let them explain why.
2. I think it was adequate.
Bohdan VOVK, editor-in-chief, Za vilnu Ukrayinu (Lviv newspaper):
1. Freedom of the press in Ukraine is not the subject of discussion
at all. We have shed, to some extent, political dependence, but we have
received an economic, perhaps even a tighter, bridle. The press in Ukraine
is under a severe economic dependence, and the state's top leader is too
unfriendly to the media. So I think our American counterparts were quite
right to put Mr. Kuchma's name on the list.
2. The President's spokesman voiced the words of his master, but they
forgot that you cannot successfully sue the press as a public phenomenon.
You can punish one or two objectionable newspapers, but you can't fight
them all.
Ivan KOSTIUK, correspondent, Radio Liberty (Ivano-Frankivsk):
1. No doubt, such an authoritative organization as the US Committee
to Protect Journalists would not put unfounded blame on a high official
of a certain country. So, with due account of the existing situation in
our society and, in particular, the attitude toward the press, the inclusion
of Mr. Kuchma in the list of the top ten enemies of the press is not at
all groundless. If we bear in mind that there are various brush fire wars
against disobedient journalists in the provinces, then these wars often
turn into reprisals against disobedient media on the national level. We
have had lots of examples of this kind over the past few months alone.
This is why every honest journalist asks himself, writing a new article,
if he personally or his editors will be the next victim.
2. Again, we live in the times that the poet Vasyl Stus so aptly characterized
several decades ago: "To howl like a beast, to drink vodka from a bottle
and not a glass, and show the world an inebriated subservient face..."
Of course, one could sue that non-governmental organization. But it would
only make more tragicomic the situation in which the current rulers are
today. Perhaps it would be better to bring to a logical conclusion the
investigation into the murders and beatings of journalists? Or is perhaps
a "subservient face" the most pleasing mask the rulers want journalists
to wear?
By Danylo KLIAKHIN, Anatoly LEMYSH, Taras TKACHUK,
Valentyn PUSTOVOIT, Yuri TYMCHUK, The Day
COMMENTARY
The opinions of our colleagues about the inclusion of Mr. Kuchma on the
enemies of the press list vary. But one cannot but notice that none of
those who disagreed with the decision of the Committee to Protect Journalists
called our President a friend of the press. This is quite revealing in
itself, if we recall that he is guarantor of the Constitution which lays
down a clause on freedom of expression. Is he guarantor of the freedom
of expression but not a friend of the press?
Of all pros and cons, we tried to select the most interesting and original
ones. Now some statistics. Out of 25 persons polled, a quarter (6) declined
to answer. This is in itself impressive. But even more impressive are the
motives for refusal: "...Our newspaper is already being printed in a different
city... ," "I can't speak frankly and don't want to lie. Sorry... ," and
"It's not a confidential poll but something to be published? Then change
my answers..."
We do not judge our colleagues. We only state sadly that their refusal
also bears witness to the state of freedom of expression in this country.
Valentyn PUSTOVOIT, The Day's Press Club columnist






