Freedom of speech or mere words? Volyn accents

One can only guess what irritated Volodymyr Nalkovych so much on the eve of May 23. Perhaps the not-quite-"convenient" interviews and analytical pieces on the occasion of his team's 100 days in the local and regional press. Perhaps the troubles with the prosecutor's office and other law enforcement agencies that do not wish to submit and continue to push their own line. Or maybe the scandal with the newly appointed — on the governor's nomination — acting rector of Lesya Ukrainka Volyn State University, to whom the Academic Council of VDU unexpectedly expressed no confidence...

However, having started with the economy and blaming the "inaction of the previous regime" for the failure to fulfill the budget in the first quarter of 2005 (although the quarter ended under Mr. Bondar's own leadership), the Volyn governor suddenly "switched" to the media, stating directly that he "does not like the work of covering the OSA's activities in the media." In his opinion, journalists caused an inadequate perception of the authorities' activities over the past three months. We quote Mr. Bondar:

"A study was conducted, and I look — there is unsystematic policy there, there is no policy at all there... Although we look at our work, and at least something has been done... If it exists, then it was obviously done not in the way that would be correctly perceived by our viewers, or listeners, or the population..."

Very eloquent words. Apparently, Mr. Bondar really thinks that the objective assessment of his team's work is the one it gives itself? And journalistic analysis, it turns out, is done "not in the right way"...

Continuing his tirade at the journalistic fraternity, Mr. Bondar did not miss the phrase he had already used in his "anniversary" interviews: "I have not yet called a single newspaper and told them how this or that article should look..." So now he will "call"?

In the end, it hasn't come to phone calls yet. It came to the point where, right in front of the TV cameras, Mr. Bondar began lecturing television journalists on what and how they should show, remarking that "there are certain norms for presenting official information," "glasnost and democracy are not permissiveness!", and that he "will not tolerate the presentation of distorted information." Quite specifically, the television journalists of the Volyn State Television and Radio Company were "recommended" to introduce special segments covering the OSA's work in specific areas (which has already been done). Presumably, so that the viewer gets an impression of systematicity in the work of the oblast state administration...

One doesn't want to think that Mr. Bondar is ready to blame journalists for all his problems. That is certainly not the case. However, to understand that the new Volyn governor does not "breathe" indifferently toward "journalists," it is appropriate to cite one of the fragments of an interview with the newspaper "Volynski Gubernski Vidomosti," in which journalist Natalka Slyusar asked the governor rather uncomfortable questions. Answering them, Mr. Bondar "opened up":

"You think I don't have the temptation to call your editor and tell him how our interview should look? I certainly do. And you think I don't have the appropriate phone or leverage? (clearly a hint at the founders — Author). Believe me, I would find it. But I don't do this. Because I understand: the question is not how you write it, but that I give you the opportunity to speak the truth..."

These words were published on May 12, about ten days before the quoted "operational meeting." So how then to understand what he said afterward? As a betrayal of principles? Or maybe Mr. Bondar simply wasn't being frank then, was speaking for effect, practicing his rhetoric? Or is there some other, deeper reason?...

Incidentally, the same journalist responded to Mr. Governor's rhetoric with a short remark under a rather eloquent headline: "One hundred days have passed. Is freedom of speech enough?" The remark did not go unnoticed, as it fell on fertile ground. After that operational meeting, surely more than one Volyn journalist would have liked to say exactly the same thing, if not something worse...

Corporate support...

In order to feel confident in the chair of the region's leader, one needs to clearly understand certain things that politicians who "govern" from parliamentary seats in the capital are not at all obliged to observe (before his election as governor, Mr. Bondar was one of them). No high-ranking official will become a regional leader until he understands the elementary truth: his main task as a leader is to find common ground with the regional elite. And above all — with representatives of the intelligentsia, who have always been the most sensitive and most perceptive regarding the emergence of any new trends in socio-political life.

Representatives of the most effective detachment of the intelligentsia — journalists — are the first to sense possible changes in the regional balance of forces. If their opinions are heeded, mistakes can be corrected. But if they are criticized for their criticism — one can tomorrow fly off the soft chair and then never understand why it happened...

New trends in the realm of freedom of speech did not escape the attention of the editor of the country's most respected newspaper "Volyn-nova," Honored Journalist of Ukraine Stepan Sachuk. Already in the May 26 issue, in the column "From a Publicist's Point of View," the veteran of Volyn journalism published an analytical article "What Prevents Us from Being Independent?" In it he reflects:

"It seems everyone agrees that with the arrival of the new government, relations with the mass media have become more trusting and democratic, the notorious temnyky have disappeared... But there is not yet complete confidence that, so to speak, irreversible changes have occurred, that the information sphere will be built according to civilized standards.

For now, we are not receiving, for example, complete, self-critical information about the authorities' activities, the nature of those mistakes and problems that arise, in particular, recently, and which certainly cannot be written off as a bad legacy. Instead, there is a pronounced concern for one's image, exaggerated assessments of what has been done. This was especially evident when summing up the results of the first hundred days. Generously and indiscriminately, excellent marks are handed out to almost everyone in a row. Officials, as a rule, evaluate themselves, but it would be better if people did it. Isn't it too early that we have so many excellent students?...

Yes, there are no temnyky now, but there are recommendations, advice on what and how to write, warnings not to engage in so-called carping criticism, petty awkwardness, under-the-carpet showdowns, sorting out relations, etc., because this, they say, discredits the new government. And from this, as is known, pressure on the media begins.

There are many manifestations of the new government's intolerance toward criticism, toward alternative points of view, as evidenced by the President's unrestrained reaction to questions he did not like during the last press conference... I would say that the opposition is not properly represented in the press, on radio and on television. And this is also an undesirable symptom that to some extent resembles what we had, only in an inverted, so to speak, form."

It should be noted that the cited newspaper and its editor do know the true price of freedom of speech. A little more than half a year ago, before the presidential elections, this newspaper was threatened with court by representatives of the Party of Regions: for allegedly publishing hidden anti-advertising against the pro-government candidate, although in reality the newspaper contained evaluative judgments. Immediately after the elections, nationalists accused "Volyn" of publishing articles against the opposition candidate and demanded the lustration of the newspaper's leadership. For the affirmation of freedom of speech, the latter picket did invaluable service: the journalistic fraternity instantly saw the light and sobered up from the "orange wine," realizing the possible consequences of such lustration.

... and not quite

"Sadly, in these situations there were media outlets and fellow journalists who supported the initiators of these crude attacks against freedom of speech, provided them with their tribunes for settling scores and for defaming the staff of 'Volyn,'" states Stepan Sachuk. "Money, it turns out, doesn't smell and can do anything... But I want to say with gratitude that we felt support from colleagues in difficult times... If only we all, always and in everything, acted so organizedly, showed corporate solidarity in defending our rights, our main values — how much stronger we would be and how much we would gain in the eyes of our supporters, all people."

At the international journalistic scientific-practical conference "Political Journalism and Elections," which recently took place in Lutsk, Kyiv professor Vasyl Shklyar rejected the concept of journalism as the "fourth estate." He called journalists the "first public authority." At the same time, he quite rightly determined that a journalist must always be in opposition to the authorities, protect the interests of society, not officials, be truthful and a little ironic. Given the division of Volyn journalists into "stringers" and "propagandists," it is not hard to predict another attack by the latter on the former. Elections are already at hand, so the money of parties or administrative resources should open the way for the "fifth column" in the first public authority. Or have they already opened it? Through the "back door"?

As for corporate support for journalists, the key word here should still belong to the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, which is called upon to stand guard over the word and protect the freedom of expression of everyone, especially direct members of the NUJU. If this is not happening, perhaps something is wrong in the regional unions...

Actually, the polemic that has been raised has exposed another problem directly related to freedom of speech. It concerns the future of city and district newspapers. Recently, a letter signed by the head of the NUJU, Mr. Lubchenko, was sent to the heads of local authorities. It states that, in agreement with President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine will consider the issue of reforming communal mass media within two years. Suddenly it turned out that the opinions of the main political players in the region regarding the future of communal media differ fundamentally.

Volodymyr Bondar (from an interview with the newspaper "VHV" of May 12, 2005):

"- As a consumer, are you satisfied with the level of these media? Would you buy them? I wouldn't. This applies to 90% of district newspapers. You don't want to pick them up because they are wall newspapers from the communist era. And at the same time they don't want changes? Then let them change the form of ownership. As for the property... I disagree that the district newspapers received state premises where their editorial offices are located for free use..."

This topic was not bypassed in a live broadcast on Volyn Television on May 27 by the head of the Volyn Oblast Council, Vasyl Dmytruk:

"- I believe that today we have a sufficiently effective system of communal media — the editorial offices of city and district newspapers. In every city and district there are people knowledgeable in journalistic work who perform it successfully. There is property, premises, and finally, the founders of these publications — district councils and district state administrations. Even a cursory analysis of publications in these media, and I familiarize myself with them daily, gives grounds to assert that the pages of these publications promptly contain information about what is happening in the respective territory. People learn about certain work experience, make their proposals, their points of view. And even if someone speaks critically about the authorities, this should be perceived responsibly and responded accordingly, without taking offense at such things..."

"Dosvitnya Zorya-2" — "Revenge of the Sith"?

The editor-in-chief of "Volyn," Stepan Sachuk, touching on the problem of denationalization of the media, gives an example:

"While talks about this are ongoing and programs are being developed, the Zaporizhzhia governor, our current former colleague-journalist Yuriy Artemenko, has already taken a decisive practical step, announcing that the oblast state administration will withdraw from the co-founders of the oblast newspaper 'Zaporizka Pravda.' A courageous step, it must be said, on the eve of elections.

Here we see something different — under the auspices of the oblast state administration, a new newspaper is being created with budget funds. Supposedly with the best intentions of expanding glasnost and openness for the authorities, but timed for the elections. At the same time, a plan to liquidate district newspapers is being hatched. Isn't it too early to write them off? Reforms in this sphere are needed, but such matters are resolved very carefully and thoughtfully; one cannot cut from the shoulder here. All the more so since there are many creative teams in the districts capable of producing good newspapers.

For now... there is a danger that even after denationalization one may fall into dependence — if not on the authorities, then on rich uncles and money bags, which is no better. There is no denationalization yet, but hunting for newspapers by various forces and clans has already begun, to take them into their own hands..."

Here it is worth explaining something. The essence of the problem is that on the basis of the bankrupt oblast newspaper "Dosvitnya Zorya," whose co-founder was the Volyn OSA, plans are being hatched to create a new mouthpiece of power. If one believes that Volodymyr Bondar declares in his circle that they "were placed here in order to make the next elections," then it is not hard to guess how this will be done. Probably by the same methods by which last summer, from an initial circulation of 7 thousand, subscriptions for more than 39 thousand copies of the old "Dosvitnya Zorya" — the mouthpiece of then-head of the OSA Anatoliy Frantsuz — were made. That is, the use of administrative resources, forced subscription, preventing materials from journalists who do not sing hosannas to the authorities from getting into the newspaper, obstructing subscription campaigns of other newspapers, etc.

But that is what the not-so-much-new as young and resourceful government is like. An innovation of denationalization in the Volyn style could be the closure of "district newspapers" and the creation on their basis of correspondent offices of "Dosvitnya Zorya-2." What does this give? First, it seemingly keeps at least some district journalists employed. Second, a significant portion of premises will be freed up, and there will always be a use for them. Third, people in villages read their newspapers, love and know their journalists. If the latter start writing for another newspaper, their readers will subconsciously start subscribing to that very "one-and-only" one. And it will come out not twice or three times a week... Machiavellianly brilliant! Everything like in George Orwell's "1984" — Big Brother (or rather the governor!) sees everyone and there is one newspaper for all. And the "house-to-house" subscription, under the calls "Yes! Yushchenko!" will traditionally be done by the youth landing force of "Our Ukraine." Isn't that so?

Incidentally, to the journalist's question from "VHV" about whether Mr. Bondar needs his own newspaper, he replied: "The mass media are needed by everyone and always. I see nothing problematic in this. I will not forbid covering anyone's point of view, but at the same time I will have the opportunity to speak about my own... And having easier access to the media, I will always be able to express it..."

It is hard to disagree with Mr. Bondar's logic. Especially when, with budget funds, only one, "correct" newspaper will be distributed across the districts. What then can be said about the administrative resource of your predecessor, Hero of Ukraine Anatoliy Frantsuz, and his mouthpiece — "Dosvitnya Zorya"? They didn't read Orwell. And they probably haven't seen the third part of "Star Wars" — "Revenge of the Sith" — either. A pity. Worth watching. And for the brilliant plan, given the significant portion of Polissia villages where televisions and radio points quite often don't work and the only source of information is a newspaper, here not a hero, here twice or even three times a hero should be awarded! Mr. Bondar has so far been honored by Leonid Kuchma only with the medal "For Merit" III degree...

It should be noted: at the operational meeting on May 30, Volodymyr Bondar was already significantly more restrained. Although in one episode he still could not resist interrupting a speaker's report with the phrase: "Please, I address the media, record these words..."

Symptomatic. This means the temptation to place accents in one's own way remains. Although, as some Volyn political scientists note on this matter, "it is not a governor's job to place accents in journalistic TV stories"...

However, one thinks that the resonance raised by journalists in response to the new trends of the new government will, at least for some time, cool hot heads a bit...

P.S. Only with the main electronic mouthpiece of the OSA's current work — the official website of the Volyn Oblast State Administration — some strange things have recently begun to happen. An electronic poll has been launched on the website: "How do you assess the first 100 days of activity of the new leadership of the state and the region?" The voting is very interesting, since participation in it is usually taken by representatives of the regional elite — owners of personal computers who are not indifferent to the fate of their region and, accordingly, the ratings of its top officials.

As monitoring has shown, as of May 21 of this year, the number of electronic respondents reached 185. Moreover, the votes of sympathizers and antipathizers almost equaled: "entirely positive" — 46, "rather positive than negative" — 31, "hard to say" — 35, "rather negative than positive" — 34, "entirely negative" — 39.

But just a few days later, on May 26 of this year, the poll ratings suddenly changed noticeably: "entirely positive" — 52, "rather positive than negative" — 37, "hard to say" — 39, "rather negative than positive" — 24, "entirely negative" — 24. At the same time, the number of respondents unexpectedly... decreased to 176!

Why on earth would the number of voters decrease in the middle of a weekday? And why did precisely the votes of those who voted for the "negative" disappear... But, after all, we have freedom of speech. Including electronic. It would be improper to deprive Mr. Governor of his lawful right to express his opinion...

Vitaliy Buryak, Western Information Corporation