Editor's Note: Threats to journalists and restrictions on free speech were common during the era of President Leonid Kuchma, sometimes referred to as Ukraine's first dictator for his authoritarian rule from 1994-2005. President Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014), of course, would be the second dictator. While Pislyamova anchor Oleksandr Tkachenko was criticized for taking his program off the TV airwaves after unspecified threats, the murder of another journalist three years later -- Georgiy Gongadze in 2000 - shows what can happen when independent voices criticize politicians in that era.
An independent public affairs television program has abandoned the airwaves until the March parliamentary election, citing unspecified threats to its host and network.
Pislyamova anchor Oleksandr Tkachenko announced this week that political pressure from politicians of all stripes made it impossible for him to continue with unbiased broadcasts.
‘Political pressure turns into a war for the time of election campaign. And we do not know how to act in the time of war,’ said Tkachenko in an interview on Wednesday.
Tkachenko said Pislyamova’s objective outlook on Ukrainian politics had led to threats to ban its broadcaster, the Studio 1+1 company, from the UT-2 channel, where it currently broadcasts 12 hours a day.
‘We decided to sacrifice the program not to put the whole channel under threat,’ Tkachenko said.
Among the obvious threats to the channel, Tkachenko and Studio 1+1 head Oleksandr Rodnyansky named recent Parliament decisions to give air time on UT-2 to the new TV company HURT, and to forbid companies with more than 10 percent of foreign capital to sell political advertisements.
Studio 1+1 is half-owned by Central European Media Enterprises, a public company led by U.S. tycoon Ronald Lauder.
Tkachenko said he and Rodnyansky have been receiving more and more threatening anonymous phone calls at work and at home, though the callers did not make specific demands.
He refused to identify the politicians who exerted pressure on the network, saying that he had no hard proof. Tkachenko said that under these conditions, his program had a choice either ‘to keep silence and look for the ways to come back, or to join somebody’s side.’
Not everyone agreed.
Tim O’Connor, resident advisor for ProMedia, a U.S.-funded organization created to support freedom of the press, said that the program could have and should have stayed on air.
‘This program did not have to shut down, it chose to shut down. It’s not easy to be a journalist in high-pressure situations. But the existence of threats does not mean you cannot have freedom of press, although it does make the job of the journalist very difficult,’ O’Connor said.
Other observers were more forgiving.
‘Pislyamova managed to find a very honorable way out of the situation. Because under the circumstances like these, mass media either start fighting and, as a rule, lose; or give in to those who attempt to take them under control,’ said Vitaly Shevchenko, deputy chairman of Parliament’s Freedom of Speech Committee.
Iryna Polyakova of the Kyiv branch of the European Institute for Media, the organization that studies mass media across Europe, said Studio 1+1 ‘is a commercial channel, and they have to go the way that allows them to stay alive and develop.’
Tkachenko said that the program’s independence irritated politicians spanning the ideological spectrum. ‘Everyone is used to the fact that this or that media supports politician A, and criticizes B, C and D. They are also guaranteed protection from politician A. But when we give the point of view of two or even three politicians, nobody likes it,’ he said.
Tkachenko said he realized he was making an unpopular decision by suspending the broadcasts. ‘I doubt that if we took the side of a political force [many people] would condemn us,’ he said.
