The documentary, shown on ICTV on March 16 has drawn criticism and discredited opposition candidates
A documentary on the murder of journalist that aired on Kyiv television on March 16 has drawn criticism that the program was slanted and discredited opposition candidates.
But the film’s creator, Charles Clover, former Kyiv bureau chief for London’s Financial Times, said the documentary was merely meant to prompt debate about killing that sparked a national scandal 16 months ago.
The documentary, shown on ICTV, puts the Gongadze murder into geopolitical context, with Russia and the United States depicted as fighting for larger control over Ukraine. Gongadze was killed in the fall of 2000, and the opposition accused President Leonid Kuchma and his subordinates of involvement in the affair. Gongadze’s killers have not been identified.
The film, called “Piar,” was commissioned by East European Media Project, Inc. and produced by the Maryland‑based Momentum TV LLC production studio. The film attempts to focus on the role played by the United States, Russia and a number of local politicians in the Gongadze scandal.
The film suggested the United States sought to use the scandal to replace Kuchma with former Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko. It said non‑governmental organizations funded by the U.S. government and U.S. financier George Soros were actively involved in promoting the audiotapes that purportedly link Kuchma to Gongadze’s disappearance. The film described Oleksandr Moroz, an opposition leader and a key figure in the Gongadze scandal, as having the “unofficial support of powerful forces in Russia.” The film cast doubt on the idea that Kuchma could have been involved in the murder.
In a statement issued on March 20, the U.S. Embassy called the film’s conclusions concerning U.S. foreign policy “inaccurate and misleading.” The embassy said that while it does not usually comment on media reports, “the allegations raised in the film require a response.”
The embassy said it does not support political leaders or groups. U.S. assistance to Ukrainian non‑governmental organizations is subject to review by Ukrainian government bodies including the Presidential Administration, the National Security and Defense Council, the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the State Security Service.
Opposition figures criticized the film following its premiere on local television, saying the documentary was an attempt to discredit them shortly before parliamentary elections on March 31.
Volodymyr Chemerys, a coordinator of Ukraine Without Kuchma, an anti‑presidential movement founded during the scandal, said the film was an example of the “Soviet approach to historiography,” where facts are chosen to back up a thesis.
Chemerys, who was interviewed for the film, said his quotes were taken out of context and edited to lead viewers to believe that the U.S. government supported anti‑presidential protests in 2001. Chemerys, who is also a board member for Respublika, a non‑governmental organization, said he actually told the film’s creators that though Respublika did receive funding from Freedom House, a U.S. government‑financed non‑governmental organization, it did so after the protests and for an unrelated project.
In a statement issued on March 20, Freedom House said that the documentary’s suggestions that it had supported political movements in Ukraine were unfounded. Freedom House did disclose that it gave the Respublika Institute a $21,050 grant under its Partnership of Reform in Ukraine program, but said the grant had long been a matter of public record and had been posted on the Freedom House Web site.
Freedom House said that approximately $15,000 of this grant was spent between April 1 and Sept. 31, 2001, on four public hearings, office expenses related to the project, staff salaries, communications costs and Web site design and maintenance. The statement said that approximately $6,000 would be spent to publish a book on ethics in journalism.
Chemerys said he believed the film targeted Viktor Yushchenko, Oleksandr Moroz and Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko appears in the film in connection with her business ties with former Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko and accusations of bringing energy sector under personal control during her work in the government.
Yushchenko, a former prime minister and leader of the Our Ukraine election bloc, said March 18 that his lawyers were considering filing suit against ICTV for broadcasting the film’s allegations that Western sources funded his bloc. Yushchenko said he was convinced the film was “ordered and made” in Ukraine.
“I’m disappointed that such material has started to frequently appear on the channel managed by the president’s son‑in‑law…,” he said, referring to Viktor Pinchuk, a businessman and reputed owner of ICTV.
Officials at ICTV would not respond to the Post’s request for an interview.
In an e‑mail response to Post inquiries sent from Afghanistan, Clover denied the accusations that his documentary was an effort to discredit the opposition and to whitewash Kuchma’s image.
“What I said in the movie is what I honestly believe, that Kuchma is innocent,” Clover said. From that standpoint, he said, the rest of the campaign to oust Kuchma seemed wrong‑headed and aimed at destabilizing civil society.
Clover said that he was “dismayed” that people would think that he would need to be paid to believe in Kuchma’s lack of complicity in Gongadze’s murder.
He said Pinchuk became interested in the documentary when the film’s authors were asking him for assistance in getting an interview with Kuchma. Clover said he did not participate in the discussion over the rights but agreed to show the film on ICTV.
He said the East European Media Project financed the film. According to an Internet site promoting the film, “Piar” is the project’s first effort. The Web site said the group intended to produce a series of documentaries highlighting issues pertinent to Eastern European countries. Information on the Web site claimed that former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Peter Tufo established the group in cooperation with filmmaker Peter Powell.
Clover referred inquiries about the group to board member Paula Scott, who was not available for comment.
“I knew the film would cause a scandal,” said Clover. “But for me this was a way to start a debate about issues which, I think, are very important for the international community and for Ukraine, and which I would never be able to raise in any other forum.
“That issue, simply put,” he said, “is that coverage is all that matters.”
