Yet Another Crimean War
The extended expanded session of the State Committee for Information Policies, Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine held in Simferopol the week before last by committee chairman Ivan Chyzh showed that this sphere is plagued with serious problems. Chairman of the Crimea’s Supreme Council Boris Deich commented on this: “The Crimean public is tired of conflicts, extreme radicalism, and confrontation between various political forces. Unfortunately, this kind of radicalism is brought about by the mass media. Conversely, we favor a policy of common sense, a dialogue among all political and public forces, and awareness of the joint responsibility of all branches of government to Crimean residents and all citizens of Ukraine...” What should be done to make the peninsula’s media stop the “war” and become a factor of concord, not discord?
One can cite a host of examples of the Crimean information wars that constantly break out in newspapers and on local television and radio stations over the Ukrainian language, Ukrainian education, Ukrainian textbooks, the interests of the Assumption Monastery, the status of the indigenous peoples, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate), the erection of certain monuments, a one-channel budget, the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People, various factors from the history of the Crimea, Ukrainian passports and, accordingly, citizenship, and even over such a minor and reportedly solved problem as whether to write “in Ukraine” or “in the Ukraine...” The list is endless. Yet, the crux of the matter remains the same: confrontation over all the issues roughly follows to the same pattern as does the language of publication: there are 223 Russian, only 5 Ukrainian, and 8 Crimean Tatar publications here. As this is the Crimean Information Committee statistics, it is difficult to see the logic, for the same committee says that over 800 publications are registered in the Crimea, while only 684 actually are published. In what languages are the rest published? You can be completely certain that most of them are not published by in Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar but again in Russian: the functionaries have deliberately lowered the figure to make it look less damning.
The desire to embellish the linguistic picture runs through all the committee documents: for example, Budmo, Dzhereltse , and Krymsport are called Ukrainian- language newspapers only for quantitative considerations (to bring the figure up to five) because in reality they are part (inserted pages) of one newspaper, Krymska svitlytsia , and have no editorial offices of their own. Unfortunately, with due respect for this newspaper, we cannot share the committee’s claim that the latter “wields the greatest influence in the Crimea.” The information officials are clearly indulging in wishful thinking: with a circulation of 3,000 copies, without the premises and transport of its own, severely underfunded and undersized, Krymska svitlytsia is unable by definition even to react to the anti- state and anti-Ukrainian statements of some publications that display special hatred of all things Ukrainian, let alone compete with the host of ideologically opposed Russian-language publications with a pressrun of tens of thousands or influence the situation in any way. And, although far from all Russian-language newspapers are distinguished for this, the truly unbiased Crimean publications that deserve to be called media, rather than militant newsletters, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Therefore, high on the agenda is the question of not only the health of the Crimean information theater but also of the information security of Ukraine as viewed from the Crimea. Do the Crimean authorities have the political will to change the situation and will the broadened session contribute to this?
The Crimean parliament and government have recently taken a great step forward. It has revised its attitude toward the media. Chairman of the Council of Ministers Serhiy Kunitsyn says he is “convinced that the times of overt and covert information confrontation between the Crimea and Ukraine have moved into the past.” He thinks it is necessary “to discuss with the Crimeans the necessity of promoting the pride of our region as an integral part of a single Ukrainian state. This will also help us solve the problems of our budget and our administrative self-sufficiency.” Mr. Kunitsyn also said that “the current democratic laws do not make it possible to ban some newspapers to scare the Crimeans with Ukrainization, foster a negative attitude toward the official language and insignia, and try to set us against Ukraine’s central state bodies.” Nevertheless, the premier is convinced, “It is quite within our power to create conditions that the information field be full of constructive opinion on all these matters.” Mr. Kunitsyn also told the session it was time to do away with “information anarchy.” “I consider it advisable that the government shape its information policy by managing national or Crimean programs rather than by managing or just trying to manage the mass media...”
Chairman of the Crimean Republic Information Committee, Mykhailo Rohozhyn, said, “The lamentable state of the print and electronic media is one of the most serious factors that provoke conflicts in the Crimea.” He noted that special programs would introduce positive changes into the Crimea’s information space and announced that task forces of the leading Crimean academics were now mapping out four information programs to be discussed at special round tables as early as in July. He added that the round table discussions would be first attended by Crimean experts and researchers and later by representatives of political groups, parties, and political scientists.
According to Mr. Rohozhyn, “this year’s budget expenditures for the media are the same as the turnover of a nearby food store,” but changes could still occur in the future. “The result of the joint efforts of researchers, politicians, and deputies will be brought to the parliament floor as specific budget items,” he emphasized.
In addition, Premier Kunitsyn suggested establishing the institution of “press ombudsmen, i.e., independent auditors to mediate between the authorities and the press under the Ukrainian law and on the basis of the international experience of the democratic countries.” He said the relations between the authorities and the press were “not always smooth.” In his words, “disputes often have to be settled and the truth has to be established in court, with all that this implies morally and materially.” A press ombudsman could help solve such problems out of court. Mr. Kunitsyn said establishing this institution is an idea subject to discussion, but he thinks it will “find enough supporters in Ukraine and be backed by European press institutions.”
Ivan Chyzh, chairman of the State Committee for Information Policies, Television, and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, also said at the session, “Unfortunately, I, as a professional, can assess the quality of Crimean publications as rather mediocre.” In his opinion, “like in many other regions, the business is based on unconfirmed facts and muckraking... It is easier to put a murder or a rape on the front page than go to the field and see how the harvest is being reaped.” Such approaches “make journalists primitive,” and many district publications of the Crimea reminded him of “militant newsletters of the 1930s,” while he “would not at all apply the word newspaper” to some city council gazettes.
The Crimean Autonomous Republic is no case apart. A similar situation exists in Sevastopol, an independent administrative entity. “The information space of Sevastopol is being developed in an uncivilized way as well,” Ivan Levchenko, director general of the Sevastopol State TV and Radio Company, told the session. He gave an example, when, after redistribution of the screen time, both state-run city channels began to be dominated by Russia’s ORT. “And if you note,” he said, “that the city’s cable television is also dominated by a concentrator made on the Moscow government’s money and, accordingly, transmitting Russian programs, then the situation in the city’s information space can be called information intervention.”
Will this situation change anytime soon? Frankly, very few Crimeans believe in this. The reason is this. As is known, the State Information Committee also discussed the situation in the Crimean information space last year in Kyiv. In compliance with its decisions, the Crimean Cultural Center drew up a program of the development of the Ukrainian-language media, conducted a long series of roundtable debates, etc. But the words were not translated into deeds. Over the ten years of independence, the Crimean budget has allocated not a single kopeck for the local Ukrainian-language media, while generously funding Russian-language publications and various associations which, to put it mildly, are not overly tolerant of other organizations and their own state. Moreover, the Crimean Republican Information Committee never submitted any Ukrainian-language media development program to the government. The State Information Committee of Ukraine has now drafted an appropriate resolution for the Cabinet of Ministers. Yet, it is still an open question whether it will be adopted.
