Research, Update

English

Policy Documentation Center

Hearing for hearing?
No. 4/205, January 22, 2001
«...There are facts of overt neglect and violation of laws, also by state executive bodies... Censorship,
open and hidden, is aiming not at protection of principle state interests, but at protection of interests
and image of certain political forces and politicians <...> Facts of persecution of journalists for their
professional and creative activities, including assaults on them and attacks on their property, are
becoming increasingly common.» This statement represent the Recommendations of participants of the
1st Parliamentary Hearing on the status of freedom of speech in Ukraine on April 10, 1997.
According to then chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Freedom of Speech Ivan Chyzh, «in
1997 in Ukraine the total [claims made] in lawsuits against the media and journalists amounted to UAH
90 billion, and the courts did make them pay UAH 1.5 million (Vechirniy Kyiv, December 14, 1999).
The situation continued to deteriorate: «... in Ukraine, with the help of the executive authorities, as well
as the Office of Attorney General and some courts, there has been increasingly common practice of
persecution of the opposition [media] and other media [and] their officials that have been critical about
the state executive bodies... Political censorship has in fact been spread by various means,» read the
parliament's Resolution «On Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Other Bodies of State
Power in Terms of Ensuring Freedom of Speech, Providing for Information Needs of the Society and
Development of the Information Sphere in Ukraine» (February 16, 1999). The Resolution became one
of the key documents discussed during the three-day parliamentary hearing in April 1999. Then,
according to most of those who took the floor at the session, information policy was mainly based on
«the telephone law and censorship scissors» (Den, April 13, 1999).
«Lately, we have witnessed attempts to introduce political censorship at the national level as well as
locally; the pressure of state authorities on the media in order to make them change their political
course; destruction of the media with claims of unjustifiably high compensation for moral damages;
manipulation of mass consciousness; selective support by the state power, and creation of uneven
operating conditions for information subjects,» Oleksandr Zinchenko (SDPU (o)), chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee for Freedom of Speech and Information and a major shareholder of the Inter,
a national TV channel, stated in his report to the parliament on «Problems of Information Activity,
Freedom of Speech, Compliance with the Law and the Status of Information Security of Ukraine» on
January 16, 2001.
All in all, according to the Association of Journalists of Ukraine and the Parliamentary Committee for
Freedom of Speech and Information, in 1999 alone the media were challenged with 2,258 lawsuits that
claimed the total of over UAH 90 billion as compensation of «moral damages». The amount is almost
three times as much as the Ukraine's national budget.
However, the lawsuits are by far not the only problems with the media freedom in Ukraine, linked to
the general lack of respect for human rights, constitutional guarantees and laws in this state. The above
quotation of Mr. Zinchenko's speech to the parliament contains only one inadequate word: «lately». As
a few recent years have demonstrated, the problem has deteriorated into a major chronic disability that
has transformed the Ukrainian «fourth estate» into a badly dependent, ailing and paralyzed sphere.
Supposedly, it goes without saying that «the Ukrainian law guarantees freedom of speech. However,
while everything is more or less OK here with the freedom of public expression, the [ability] to receive
unbiased information depends mostly on a specific politician, state official or media owner,» Speaker
of the Ukrainian parliament Ivan Pliushch argued at the recent parliamentary hearing. The reference to
«some media owner» in the context of ability of the media to provide accurate and unbiased
information does not sound convincing. According to statistics quoted at the recent parliamentary
hearing, in early 2000 there were about 10,200 registered media outlets in Ukraine, while only about
6,500 of them were really produced. Speaking to the parliament, Vice Prime Minister Mykola
Zhulynsky announced that «most common founders who register [media] publications [include]
commercial entities (58%) research institutions (11%), NGOs, associations (9%), educational
institutions (6.3%). «80% of newspapers are privately owned, and it does matter for us what money
they are published for, what political purposes their owners pursue; <...> only few of them use services
of the National Information Agency of Ukraine, other sources that provide objective information,» the
Vice Prime Minister announced. While political preferences of private media outlets' owners are their
own business as long as they are within the law, and no criteria of «objectivity» are good enough to
disallow any interpretation, the statement seems to challenge the declared rejection of censorship and,
particularly when made by the top government official in charge of the area, may sound as an attempt
to impose the official opinion and censor other views. Meanwhile, views of the owner(s) have a critical
impact on the general tone and preferences of specific media outlets, and practice has shown that any
tensions or lack of understanding between media owners and relevant state agencies have almost
immediate results for their media.
Another iceberg of media problems is closely linked to the mixed «censorship vs. pressure»
relationship between media owners and/or sponsors with the state authorities. Quoting «briefly» the
record of high-profile cases of violation of media rights and pressure against the media in Ukraine,
Oleksandr Zinchenko referred to the halt on publication of the Silski Visti, the liquidation of the
Polityka newspaper, and the «arrest and seizure of the print run of the Svoboda, the Tovarysh, the
Ukrainsky Burzhuaznyi Natsionalist», the harassment of the Vechernie Vesti newspaper by the tax
administration, the suspension of publication of the Pravda Ukrainy, followed with dismissal and overt
pressure on the newspaper's editor-in-chief Horobets.
Obviously, what was said during the parliamentary hearing is not news at all. Here are some of the
most demonstrative examples. The problems of the Pravda Ukrainy began in early 1998, when the
newspaper openly supported Pavlo Lazarenko and his political party, the Hromada. The scandal
exploded on January 28, 1998, at the height of the parliamentary election race, when then Minister of
Information of Ukraine Zinoviy Kulyk issued Order No. 7 prohibiting the state-owned publishing
house, the Presa Ukrainy, to print the Pravda Ukrainy newspaper (Vseukrainskie Vedomosti, January
30, 1998). Long court procedure followed, and the scandal dragged for months and escalated to
criminal charges against the editor-in-chief, Mr. Horobets. It took a year before the renewed Pravda
Ukrainy was published again on January 19, 1999, with a new person as the editor-in-chief.
Similarly controversial were the efforts to close down the Polityka newspaper. The campaign was
started in 1998 and did not contain any explicit political charges, although the newspaper was known
among its readers and most of representatives of the political community for its blunt publications
about a number of leading Ukrainian politicians. The newspaper was dragged into constant trials. The
case, initiated against the Polityka by the law enforcement authorities was probably the most notorious
one of its kind in Ukraine. In June 1997 the newspaper published an editorial titled «The Spy Novel»,
disclosing intelligence actions of some military unit deployed in Odessa, reportedly, against some
NATO member states. The Security Service of Ukraine, SBU, reacted immediately by initiating a
criminal lawsuit against the Polityka, claiming that the newspaper had given away the state secret. On
October 6, 1998 the Pechersky borough court of Kyiv satisfied the demand of Deputy Attorney General
of Ukraine, and the newspaper was closed down. The official verdict was to terminate the publication
«for disclosing a state secret». Remarkably, the Polityka staff found out about the lawsuit and the
judgement only on December 8, when the term of appeal had almost expired. According to editor-in-
chief of the Polityka, Oleh Lyashko, the true reason for actions against the Polityka was the publication
of an article by Yuri Karmazin, MP, about corruption in President Kuchma's close circle. However,
later on Lyashko publicly stated: «in this case I do not see the President's hand in it, I think the people
who have been acting deliberately want to let Leonid Kuchma down in order to show him as a
constrictor of the press» (Zerkalo Nedeli, December 12, 1998). In March 1999, after a new round of
trials, Oleh Lyashko wrote on behalf of the editorial board: «We have every reason to believe that the
developments involving the Polityka occur to the knowledge and permission of Mr. Kuchma. If so, our
best «response to Chamberlain» [a Soviet-time set phrase used to denote readiness to face the
challenge] is to make a good newspaper» (Polityka, March 10, 1999). However, the next issue was not
published. On March 20, 1999, following the judgement of the Moskovsky borough court of Kyiv, the
publication was terminated as guilty of «disclosing a state secret». The editorial board responded by
challenging the judgement with an appeal, but the appeal was rejected on June 23, 1999. On June 21,
1999, the Pechersky borough state taxation administration ordered to block the newspaper's bank
accounts. Critics of the executive branch pointed out to political motivation of repression against the
newspaper. Ivan Chyzh, then chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Freedom of Speech and
Information, accused the executive branch of exerting political pressure on the newspaper and argued
that the executive branch «having monopolized a number of media outlets, started an utmost offensive
against democratic gains in the information sphere in order to bring Leonid Kuchma to presidency
again.» In one of his statements he referred to the termination of the Polityka in the same context as the
pressure against the Pravda Ukrainy, and described the two cases as «closing down the media outlets
[that are] unengaged or oppositional to the executive branch» (Vecherniy Kyiv, August 14, 1999).
The parliament's Human Rights Commissioner Nina Karpachova, delivering her annual report to the
Verkhovna Rada at the end of 2000, referred to a rather unusual - for anyone who is not acquainted
with Ukrainian media realities - combination: «while speaking about the freedom of speech, [we]
remember the procurature, the police, the taxation administration, the CRU (i.e., the key fiscal Control
and Verification Department], the UBOZ (i.e., the Department for Fighting Organized Crime].» Hence,
visits of tax inspectors to newspaper editorial offices and TV stations remains a rather effective method
of harassing the media. The practice was particularly widespread during election campaigns, though
such case were not rare in the periods between elections either. A recent example of the 2000 is the
«tax evasion» case of the Silski Visti, a major opposition newspaper. From the purely legal point of
view such cases may not be interpreted as repression only, but rather can be viewed as efforts to make
tax evaders pay up their tax debts. In this context the statement of chairman of the State Taxation
Administration Mykola Azarov that «neither taxation pressure on the media nor on businesses exists»
(Den, October 16, 1999) may be taken as logical. From the formal perspective, inspections by the tax
police, fire inspectors and sanitary safety control officers are not against the law. While in some cases it
is inappropriate to blame taxmen or fire inspectors of exerting pressure on the media, during election
campaign periods some cases of «fire-fighting» provoked suspicion, as they were applied selectively
only to the media that demonstrated their opposition to the regime. In this country's emergent market-
oriented economy, economic methods of pressure have proved to be far more sophisticated and
effective than political repression against the media.
It is worth noting some comments about the relations between the state authorities and the opposition
media, made in 1999 by editor-in-chief of the Den newspaper, Larysa Ivshyna: «For three years that I
have been the head of the newspaper, I have never received a telephone call from power bodies
demanding that published or did not publish a particular material, or changed position; [I have] not
been told whom the newspaper should support and whom it should criticize. Nowadays the authorities
have other methods of pressure or influence on the opposition press - on fairly legal grounds a taxman
or a fire inspector can come to the editorial office and give you hard time» (Vechirniy Kyiv, December
14, 1999).
The opinion is shared in 2001 by chairman of the Association of Journalists of Ukraine Igor
Lubchenko: «as soon as a publishing house prints an issue of the Svoboda, it immediately gets
surrounded by taxmen, firemen and other similar structures.»
Let's consider the opinion from outside Ukraine. The special interest shown by «taxmen» and
«firemen» to the Ukrainian media in the context of the media relations with the Ukrainian state was
noticed by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe during
the 1999 election campaign. Then members of the Monitoring Committee suggested that the Ukrainian
authorities announced «a moratorium on suppressing the media, particularly refraining from inspection
of the media by tax and fire inspectors» (Vechirniy Kyiv, October 7 1999).
Apparently, the January 16 parliamentary hearing was a rehearsal of the forthcoming hearing on the
media freedom in Ukraine, scheduled to take place at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe on January 25, 2001. Speaking to the Ukrainian parliament at the January 16 hearing, member
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Andrzej Urbanczyk stated that the PACE was
extremely worried about the situation in the Ukrainian information sphere, particularly about the
investigation into the disappearance of journalist Georgy Gongadze (Ukrinform, January 16, 2001).
Andrzej Urbanczyk was also quoted as saying that «Ukraine is also Europe, and Ukrainians are
Europeans; therefore, these Ukraine's internal problems are, one may even say, internal problems of
Europe. The fact that I have heard so much criticism during these debates, and [the criticism was] so
frank, means that there is also a will to improve the state of affairs» (Studio 1+1, TSN, January 16,
2001). Some manifestations of the will always exist, particularly when Ukraine may be facing a
challenge of being excluded from the PACE.
Obviously, the quoted statistics for frequency of visits of taxmen and fire inspectors to selected media
outlets cannot be compared with other data that are far more relevant for the description of the status of
media freedom in Ukraine. According to the Association of Journalists of Ukraine, «from August 1991
in Ukraine 38 journalists died, their deaths being connected to their professional activities» (Holos
Ukrainy, January 16, 2001). The sad list was started with the tragedy of Vadym Boiko in 1991,
followed by a number of his colleagues, including more recent cases of Borys Derevyanko, Petro
Shevchenko and Georgy Gongadze.
After visiting Ukraine in January, PACE representative Hanna Severinsen stated: «we see [that] in
Ukraine journalists are afraid of speaking critically» (Den, January 12, 2001) and, therefore, of telling
the truth and performing their professional duties adequately. Yet, it is worth noting that four years of
organizing parliamentary hearing have produced some change in the officials' attitude to them and the
general contents of the events. Today only collectors of parliamentary «antiques» may remember that
at the first parliamentary hearing, «Freedom of Speech in Ukraine: Status, Problems, prospects» (April
1997) only 37 MPs stayed in the session hall one hour after the hearing began. The second, three-day
parliamentary hearing was ignored by leaders of the government but attended by their second deputies.
The attitude clearly and symbolically indicated the general attitude to the problem.
The parliamentary hearing of January 16, 2001 was more impressive in terms of both contents and
official representation than previous efforts to get the state accountable for the status of media freedom
in this country. Meanwhile, MPs failed to secure the nationwide radio broadcasting of the event by the
national radio channel, UR-1, and too many MPs left the session hall after the break. Obviously, the
hearing was not the result of the newly-adopted constructive position of the authorities, nor of a feeling
of shared responsibility for ensuring respect for a universally recognized human right, but rather a
follow-up to the tragedy involving Ukrainian independent journalist Georgy Gongadze. «Ukraine
already has some experience: the journalists' «wave of freedom», the re-start of the Silski Visti, the
tremendous social response to the «Gongadze case» - all these are signs that the conscious community
does not want to be the state authorities' toy. It shapes its own opinion and demands on all branches of
power to abide by declared democratic principles,» Oleksandr Zinchenko stated solemnly from the
parliament's podium. However, such actions, no matter how important and representative they may be,
are bound to remain traditional «air-shaking» unless the adopted decisions are enforced, unless there is
respect for, and compliance with the law by all.
Quite often comments about suppression of freedom of speech in Ukraine are countered with a cynical
argument that discussion of the lack of media freedom itself means that the freedom does exist.
However, such «freedom» is rather limited in scope and predictable in impact it is able to produce. A
variety of newspapers and electronic media, state-owned and state-controlled included, have repeatedly
complain that laws that guarantee the media freedom do not function properly. Hence, it is not the
matter of laws and special measures of «state support» of the media, but rather the attitude of the
system to this fundamental human right.
P.S.: Meanwhile, in accordance with Article 34 of the Ukrainian Constitution, «Everyone is guaranteed
a right of freedom of thought and speech, free expression of his views and beliefs. Everyone is free to
collect, store, use and disseminate information orally, in writing or through other method of his
choice».


Hearing for hearing?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center