Skip to main content

WILL THE PRESS ENDURE GOVERNMENT PRESSURE?

10 November, 00:00
Corruption in the media is no secret. Some journalists are known to receive envelopes from certain People's Deputies who want to see themselves on television. Can such people be expected to have an unbiased approach? This is not political affiliation or the government trying to exert a pressure. This is a nationwide mess, with all the official vehicles of livelihood being out of commission.

The Day, perhaps like no other newspaper, attaches such importance to the freedom of the press in Ukraine. We do so not only because we consider the independence of the press a must for a truly democratic society past the point of no return to authoritarianism or as a guarantee of fair play during the next elections, but also because we want every journalist to be aware of his/her responsibility for the democratization process in the media being oriented toward benefiting the people, readers and viewers, rather than turning into yet another evil like the old Soviet "unanimity." Being the "watchdogs of democracy" (to use a pet phrase by Anatoly Moskalenko, director of the Institute of Journalism) by no means indicates a free-for-all among various political and financial groups on newspaper pages or on the air, forgetting journalism's most important principle: For what or whom? By the same token, it is necessary to help stabilize the situation in Ukraine using fair play, seeing that this society is not led astray by political forces working for their own ends to the detriment of others' interests. The Ukrainian media must adopt a uniform code of ethics, remaining unbiased in narrating facts and free in commenting on them. This is a stand whereby no one can brand and accuse indiscriminately or bow and scrape like someone's lackey. Only after taking and asserting this stand shall we have the right to say: Yes, the journalists of independent Ukraine are ready and able to help people look for and find the best solution to the problem of our crisis, for the whole of society to change its skin.

These issues are clearly pressing, so The Day's Chief Editor Larysa Ivshyna set the tone of the next round table under the motto, the media and power: aggressively straightforward, with straight questions to the most important straight questions.

  Larysa IVSHYNA:

Is there anyone in our society capable of telling the public the truth? Do we have consumers of such perfectly truthful information? I mean not the media market demand for primitive accusations, but well argumented observations and challenging commentaries based on hard facts. Such issues and the media's overall approach are always very important. However, cardinal changes are a period full of strong temptations. How do we endure them?

Now that we have a year separating us from the next presidential campaign the question is whether we media people, particularly those running the television channels, prepared to defend their right to objectivity?

SEVERE COMPETITION WITHIN THE REGIME PREVENTS RETURN TO AUTHORITARIANISM,
SAYS

  Oleksandr RODNIANSKY, General Produser, 1+1 Studios

 I am sure that we are prepared, I would even say that this approach is the only one to secure the existence of our media in general and our television channels in particular. But we must have an adequate legal framework to protect the journalist's and media's rights on the one hand and all those directly involved in the political struggle, on the other. This is a two-way street, so one cannot feel sure that journalists or TV channels are the only victims. Politicians may well be entered in the list of casualties. This legal framework should protects all the parties concerned.

There also should be a certain atmosphere, often called a corporate-collective one, particularly with regard to the journalistic corps or all those showing a tolerant approach to other, often polarized views. Now take responsibility. This is a purely individual notion. How many of us can take a perfectly independent unambiguous stand when a journalist or a television channel is not a participant in the political struggle as such, but acts to enable others who claim the politician's status to reveal their potentialities? And the third factor: How much can the media implement this, given its financial or other dependence?

L. I.: In view of the presidential campaign this readiness of ours acquires special importance. It is a weighty indicator of the level of public thought  and of how much a given TV channel is dependent on what its audiences want to see and know; how all those in power are functioning and what pressure they can bring to bear on the media. Don't you feel that the democratic process could start to fold up in Ukraine?

O. R.: No, I don't. If one compares the situation  before the previous presidential campaign to the current one, I think that Ukraine has made a big step forward, from absolute government control over the media in all political issues to a situation which I would identify as patchwork freedom of expression. I don't think that we have periodicals really striving to provide well-balanced  and well-argumented  accounts of various views on what is going on here - except perhaps The Day. However, we do have what we call an information field - or theater - representing media entities that reflect different stands.

  Volodymyr NECHAYEVSKY, President, STB Television Channel:

There is a difference between objectivism and objectivity. Objectivism as a way to impose one's opinion using an impersonal cover. I think it would best serve everyone's interest if we discussed our media's impersonal approach, meaning primarily voluminous coverage, whatever the target. We media people often tend to interpret the impersonal approach as preparing a certain item, feature, or program to go on the air or be printed in a newspaper. But this information, provided with an adequate accompanying analysis is like shooting a blank in a cheap Western. What I want is for us all to adhere to the principle of objectivity and present every information item on a wide scale.

  Mykola TOMENKO, Director, Institute for Political Studies:

In recent years our media has become structured using support from various political actors. Today's political situation is an intrigue marked by ruthless competition among different teams operating in the upper echelons of power, including the President's entourage. Several groups today claim the status of the President's political team, saying something like, "We've got so many television channels and periodicals under control, also FM radio channels, financial resources, so that business entities like the Husynskies & Co. are child's play, nothing else... We are the only ones who can guarantee the 'right' outcome of the election campaign." Personally, I consider this normal competition and a positive factor. To start with, one or several teams, tired of fighting for their place in the sun, may take the opposition's side. Secondly, ongoing severe competition at the upper echelons of the state stimulates an authoritarian approach to the media. These factors still prevent the authorities from crossing the line separating today's low-level democracy from authoritarianism.

At the same time, the Ukrainian media's analytical and informative standard is declining. What we have now is a kind of symbolic language understandable only to the political players, leaving the general public completely in the dark. It has got so that this language of signs and symbols is used by political groups as a secure inner channel, barring all "unauthorized" access.

L. I.: This seems to be a new epistolary genre...

O. R.: In fact, that's what they say about the Italian press. The latter is regarded as a channel using which a certain group in power can send signals to other aspiring groups. I wouldn't call this an absolutely Ukrainian issue.

COMBATING MEDIA BIAS: A ROAD TO MEDIA
INDEPENDENCE?

  L. I.: Mr. Zynovy Kulyk as our Information Minister is supposed to be in the forefront in fighting for the freedom of the press in Ukraine. Any comment, Mr. Kulyk?

Z. K.: With your permission I would like to begin by answering the very first question, because our discussion seems to have veered off course somewhat. Is there any danger of folding up the democratic process in Ukraine? My answer is no, there isn't.

There is, however, another threat. Talking about the relationships between the media and those in power, one must clearly define what media and what power one has in mind. Assuming that today's power in Ukraine is a certain single whole, inferring   the impossibility of a revival of totalitarianism would be a grave mistake. What we have now is power wielded by the President, Cabinet, Verkhovna Rada, and local self-government authorities - and I mean here only the external political attributes. In terms of actually exerting influence on media audiences, we have different patterns of power in Ukraine. Thus, using the notion of power one ought to be certain about who is wielding this power over whom, using which forms. Mr. Rodniansky touched on the subject but then sveered off.

L. I.: Perhaps because the subject is a dangerous one?

Z. K.: Why dangerous?  I think the greatest accomplishment registered in recent years of relationships between power and media is that the media feels perfectly free to broach any subject, handling it whichever way it chooses. I think that this inference is perfectly justified, considering the shock we receive sometimes, reading things in the newspaper or watching and listening to them on the air. In fact, this would have never taken place in any of the developed democracies. From this standpoint, I agree with what has been stated previously and I think I could be categorized as an optimist in this sense.

As for objectivity, I am definitely a pessimist, and an inveterate one. Why?  Let's start with the legal framework. To reach the ideal of objectivity, proceeding from existing law, Mr. Kniazhytsky has the best conditions in terms of televised coverage and channels. He gets a certain time on the air schedule agreed with the Central Elections Committee and kept in strict conformity with the law. He must give this time to all officially registered presidential candidates. He has no alternative.

L. I.: But he could play around with the newscasts.

Z. K.: Yes, but only a little. There are different techniques, but I suggest we focus on outward manifestations and conformity with the law. He is legally obligated to provide equal air time to all the candidates, precisely as provided by law. Will this be unbiased? Hard to say. Will it be objective? I say yes, it will, without reservation. Talking of the government-run channels, I daresay they can never show either objective or objectivistic approaches. And I mean at the present stage.

Mr. Tomenko said that different political players have different media potentials. They reflect certain stands taken by structured political parties. Still, there are those operating free of political affiliation, controlling certain periodicals or TV channels which they can afford. There are different methods. Some can buy a channel or an FM radio station in advance. Others buy time on the air whenever they need it.

L. I.: Is this good or bad?

Z. K.: It is good at the present stage. Moreover, we have to face it: independent media will be possible only given nationwide economic growth, stepped-up output, a thriving domestic advertising business, you name it. And then we could discuss having everything that has been mentioned at this round table: high moral standards, professionalism, and so on. Now we all are only too well aware that what is left of our independence is quickly disappearing with further advertising budget reductions, for our major advertisers prefer to invest in media entities with patterns of ownership other than public ones. The rest of the scenario would be something like one-third of the media biting the dust, despite public outrage about their being financially strangled. The survivors will find themselves dependent even more on certain financing political structures, meaning that their bias will increase accordingly. If anyone present thinks differently, I would be happy to hear it.

Will all this benefit our readers and viewers? Yes, but only the well-to-do ones. Those with modern expensive television and radios, able to browse channels, picking different views and comments and analyzing them, or those who can afford to buy enough newspapers and magazines.

Personally, I have no doubt that there will be different views printed, viewed, and heard, and I consider more evidence that we have a democracy. I am equally sure that these views will be biased, but again they will reflect the current stage of our political and social mentality - and of course, our lamentable economic condition. Yes, there could be a decent journalist employed by a biased publisher and he or she could resolve to publish an unbiased report, contrary to the publisher's set policy. So what? At best, this zealot would be sent on a four-month refresher course in the States, so he or she would return after the presidential campaign. At worst, he or she could be fired

Hence, by way of an intermediate inference, I wish to say that reaching an objective balance in covering the presidential campaign sounds very ideal, something all of us should aspire to. Perhaps a lobbying campaign while Verkhovna Rada debates amendments to the presidential election law. This would be a good chance to test our corporate spirit and have our professional interests expressed and confirmed in legal terms. Another objective could be moving on along the same road we are following now, forming a rational number of political parties, so they could turn into a tangible component of our political life, also forming a majority, and so on. All this could make it possible for Ukrainian media to become truly independent.

(to be continued)

Delimiter 468x90 ad place

Новини партнерів:

slide 7 to 10 of 8

Subscribe to the latest news:

Газета "День"
read