• 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

Watch Out For Vicious Television!

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

 "We have the freedom of expression and the presence of mind not to use it." This casuistic formula was invented by Soviet journalists even when the empire seemed strong and there to stay. Today, the notions of freedom and presence of mind remain antonymous for the media, particularly television, even though most TV companies are no longer government-run. Here the good old adage the he who pays calls the tune is still in full force. Perhaps different people pay, but the same characters order the music. Censorship is automatically discarded, replaced by the instinct of self-preservation. And I mean not journalists but owners. Now the owner is free to act as he sees fit, isn't he?

It is like affixing a note reading "Careful! Vicious Television Outside" over one's door, making the tenant almost invulnerable, proud, and quite influential. He is visited by neighbors humbly requesting the privilege of serving him. Of course, remuneration is stipulated in every such case. However, the host is very touchy, because television is expensive, and, after all, he does have to make a living, doesn't he? A Ukrainian television tycoon has vast opportunities, provided he learns the rule: you can bite the hand that feeds you only once. Because if you do it again, you will follow the well trodden path to Calvary: Tax Inspection, Finance Ministry, Procurator General's Office... In the end you will kiss good-bye to your business and will consider yourself lucky if you can flee and become yet another emigre. Hence certain notions in the television business that are best adhered to (like the Health Ministry's warning on every pack of cigarettes). These notions are not too sophisticated and relate only to the upper echelons of power. Roughly, they can be summed up as follows: The President is good, sometimes very much so; he is severe but always plays fair (private or "non-governmental" television companies are advised to show him at least three times a week and the government-run ones at least three times in the first ten minutes on the air). Parliament is packed with bad guys. It is wicked and should be portrayed so. It has always been bad and now is even more so, because it is throwing a monkey wrench in the President's good works. Parliament loves to enact all kinds of preferential terms and hates to pass effective bills. Reforms are wary of Parliament, so they just don't work. (Note: government-run TV companies mull this over until the viewer is sick and tired and very sarcastic; private TV companies do not, because they have little to lose, especially if their owners do not have the "mandate.") The Premier is not bad, especially when portrayed shortly after his appointment. He is trying to help the President, but Parliament is always there doing everything it can to mess it up. Shortly before the next Premier's retirement he gets to be a very bad man; he holds back wages and is concerned only with building up his own image; he does not cooperate with Parliament and takes a dim view of the IMF. (Government-run and private TV companies, depending on the season, show him always beside the President in the fall, then among angry miners, against the backdrop of bungled harvest campaigns, tightening the screws, followed by an eye-opening interview with the Procurator General – with private companies throwing in the IMF point of view.)

Those doubting the validity of this pattern now work not on 3rd but 35th channel or switch to features about Western politicians, the safest topic under the circumstance.

What I mean is that a modern Ukrainian TV magnate has little room for maneuver, if any. Except probably televised verbal duels between political contenders or lashing out now and then at a minor politician. Or, for want of anything better to do, run an edited rival company's program, just to show one's own importance.

Naturally, all these schemes, all this dependence and interdependence are a heavy burden weighing down the creative process. Thus when we say that our television is primitive, journalists are the last ones to blame. Here is a very simple example: Channel X runs a program clearly showing that politician Y, according to the author, is heavily involved in a series of contract murders. Politician Y counters, using printed media, that the owner of Channel X is no better. A scandal? Sensation? Somehow, all this ends there and then, for no one in the television field seems eager to investigate and prove who is who. The viewer and the reader are left to draw their own conclusions: either both are playing dirty games or maybe the whole thing is a set-up. Why no journalistic investigation? Because journalists are too well aware: the Channel X program did not raise the rating of the Clean Hands soap opera. It is only that the paths of Channel X owner and politician Y crossed somewhere, but both will sort it out among themselves eventually. And an overly inquisitive journalist will simply wind up, at best, unemployed. In other words, seeking the truth is a process subject to strict unwritten rules. This example is so typical that it is no longer discussed but taken for granted. This is hardly the first case we journalists have found ourselves being used by opposing sides for settling accounts and no to find the truth. There is not a single recorded case of a ranking official being made to resign after his abuse of office was exposed. In such cases either the facts supplied the press turn out fake or the long hand steps in. Shoot-outs between bosses and the predominant mentality nipped have nipped in the bud and corporate journalistic loyalty. Either because of misconstrued loyalty or inbred obsequiousness journalists are not averse to hurling buckets of dirt at each other to please their bosses, all this in front of an audience of millions or readers and viewers. Under the circumstances, the term fifth estate sounds very ironic, because the original notion implies its independence from the other estates.

And it looks as though such "affiliated" journalism suits everyone concerned just fine. Whenever I hear accusations of venality hurled at the media, I am tempted to say, "Are you any better?" Journalists were not the ones to establish the rules of the freedom-of-expression game. They simply offered no resistance, because the transfer from party- to boss-controlled periodicals and TV/radio companies was too rapid. They tasted real freedom in between, but it was short-lived, so much so that many do not even realize they ever had it.

By Natalia Kondratiuk
Rubric: