It is clearly evident that media freedoms have deteriorated with several critical TV stations losing their broadcasting frequencies on technicalities and increased instances of journalist harassment and assault.
Whilst such deplorable behavior cannot be condoned, I pose the question: even before this deterioration, was Ukraine’s media ever really free from censorship?
Let me get my position straight. Media censorship in any form is an infringement of article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, to which the government of Ukraine is a signatory. Censorship is an attack on freedom and should be vigorously resisted.
During the era of ex-President Leonid Kuchma, journalists labored under the infamous “temnyky,” written instructions from the authorities on how to report a story. Then, the culprit was obvious and blame could easily be attributed, but today the authorities appear to be taking a different course that enables denial of culpability. A “temnyk” issued to any media outlet today would be all over the Internet within minutes, thus most of the censorship would appear to be via third parties or directly from the media owners.
A journalist wearing a “Stop Censorship!” T-shirt distributes a mock newspaper on June 6 in Kyiv, showing what news would be like in the future if censorship persists in Ukraine. Journalists gathered for a rally that day to stand up for their rights. (Yaroslav Debelyi)
But herein lies a dilemma. Most of the media owners belong to either the Party of the Regions or opposition factions. I can understand why those aligned to the government may have decided to toe the line, but why have the opposition forces done the same?
Surely they should seize the opportunity to use their media cannon to inflict the greatest damage possible on the new administration? But they haven’t. So one wonders who these invisible censors really are who wield so much power?
It is a positive step to see that the president has now ordered the state prosecutor to investigate just who is to blame? Perhaps it’s the prime minister, backed by the tax police, or media owners wishing to curry favor, or intimidation by the Security Service. In reality, no matter who the originator is, in the court of public opinion it is the reputation of the president and the nation that suffer.
One also has to ask why the president should be so upset with negative media comments. In his era, Russia President Boris Yeltsin used negative press comment to great effect enhancing his first election victory by some 5 percent.
The answer to this conundrum lies not with the president but with total failure, over decades, of the presidential PR team to do anything but try to cover the president’s back.
In the PR world of advanced communications, the battle between positive and negative news is won not by censorship, but by those who are the most professional. This lack of PR professionalism in the presidential administration press corps only fuels paranoia, the natural expression of which is censorship.
The administration would serve the interests of the president far more effectively if it were to create positive news to combat negative press rather than resorting to censorship to keep the lid on what is already a very open jar.
Commercial censors
Sadly, it is not just the authorities who act as censors. Editors themselves are subject to massive censorship from within their own organizations.
Only this time it is not some grey state official sitting in a dark corner. The culprit is the media owner or their own advertising departments. Today, in Ukraine, good news, particularly related to business and politics, is considered to be “advertising.” Consequently, advertising departments insist that such news should be paid for. Bad news, on the other hand, is considered to be “real news” and therefore worthy of coverage.
This is “political and commercial censorship” and it’s been going on for decades. If you want to understand why the international image of Ukraine is so bad, much of the problem lies with this particular media policy, as there is little good news getting out.
Unfortunately, during the past 20 years, Ukrainian publishers have learned precious little. Publications are only viable if they deliver stuff that is useful and informative. The public simply will not pay for other people’s advertising, no matter how well it is disguised.
Ukraine’s largest newspaper (Fakty I Komnentarii) has a circulation of 1.1 million, which is less than Ukraine’s larger women’s magazines, so the public are voting with their wallets. Despite this many papers still churn out the same political pap coupled with disguised advertising on the argument that they need the revenue.
If they got their business models right and delivered what their customers wanted, as opposed to following the edicts of their often political masters, then they would not need the revenue from paid journalism.
So where does all this censorship end… Will they turn off the Internet or introduce Chinese-style firewalls? Will they turn off all the mobile phones and reintroduce the Soviet style listening posts on the land lines? This would only do more damage and erode further Ukraine’s drive toward European values. At the end of the day, the government would be far better served by creating policies that earned positive comment rather that trying to return the nation to the dark ages.
Censorship in all its forms is an affront to any democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom from censorship are our cardinal rights but until the media owners take it upon themselves to end their censorship they have little moral right to complain when the government seeks to do the same.
Martin Nunn is the communications director for People First Foundation and chief executive officer of Whites Communication, a public relations consultancy in Ukraine.
