Since this battle may well have spelled the end of the channel as we knew it, the solidarity shown by the journalists who resigned en masse is certainly welcome. On the other hand, the blow was probably fatal precisely because from the outset there were two distinct camps presenting mutually exclusive versions of the situation.
TVi had come under attack many times over the last three years, and the uses made of the National Broadcasting Council, the tax authorities, and Internet providers convinced only those seriously wishing to be duped. This attack has apparently come from within, and the lack of serious protest from the West is possibly in part due to consternation over conflicting versions from people who until recently seemed to share the same agenda.
This agenda, it should be stressed, was one of journalist independence and honesty, hard-hitting questions and investigative journalism, not a political stand.
That ended on 23 April, when one of those journalists Artem Shevchenko announced that he was the new general director and that the channel had a new main shareholder, a little known New York-based businessman Alexander Altman. Confusion intensified when Mykola Kniazhytsky came out in support of this position. Kniazytsky had been the general director through most of the previous onslaughts and was himself, as representative of TVi, facing criminal charges over alleged tax irregularities just a year ago. Then mass protest both within Ukraine and abroad probably made the authorities back off.
The TVi team, including general director Natalya Katerynchyk, but excluding the self-titled new general director, Artem Shevchenko, were confronted with a fait accompli and serious contingents of strongmen there to enforce it. This already makes the claims that all was above board questionable. Altman could not provide the power of attorney entitling him to gain a controlling package; Nikia Ortodoksy, director of the Cyprus offshore Wilcox that supposedly sold it to Altman, claimed that the latter’s documents were faked and said she would be approaching the law enforcement bodies in Ukraine, the UK and the US. Altman and Kniazhytsky have both claimed the controlling shares were bought to prevent Konstantin Kagalovsky (former or present owner) from selling the channel to those close to the current regime. True or not, this squalid tale firstly highlights a lack of transparency regarding media ownership. Ironically, Kniazhytsky, now an opposition MP, is one of the authors of a draft law proposing strict measures to ensure media ownership transparency.
Just not, it would seem, in this case.
We should bear in mind that the sums mentioned and apparent hallmarks of a company seizure are over a TV channel which everybody knows was a money-losing enterprise. This gives weight to suspicions that those close to the “Family” (Yanukovych, his sons, and those close to them) are involved. However, it makes Kniazhytsky’s intense activity in support of the takeover incomprehensible, just like the lack of response from other opposition politicians.
With scant information and no proof it seems senseless to run through all the hypotheses presented over the last 10 days. One scenario, however, is worth mentioning, namely that the channel could continue to give coverage to the opposition, but change the focus of their investigative projects. Ligachova and Siumar mention this scenario with reference to Serhiy Arbuzov, now Deputy Prime Minister and a close friend of the “Family.” It is suggested that he could use the channel for “investigations” against his enemies – Serhiy Lyovochkin from the President’s Administration and Dmytro Firtash, the millionaire with close links to the present regime.
One of the problems in Ukraine is that shocking revelations are simply ignored by those in power and do not lead to any changes. With officials’ reputation already tarnished, many journalistic investigations could continue, with others – apparently exposing those few politicians and civic organizations with reputations still to be destroyed – deftly inserted.
Such fears make the resignation of virtually the entire TVi team (around 31 journalists) and current negotiations underway to create a public Internet resource particularly encouraging. Ligachova and Siumar stress that such a project must receive wide support from very different people so as not to simply become a grant-funded project.
How much a TV channel with limited numbers of viewers could seriously threaten the increasing monopoly over the media is questionable. What is not in doubt is the destructive impact of the confusing conflict and behind the scenes deals. Whoever orchestrated the demise of TVi has most to fear from civic solidarity and journalists’ commitment to professional standards in their work. The positive example demonstrated by the TVi team is indeed vitally needed and must be supported.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. The article can be accessed at this link http://www.khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1367698299.
