Serhiy ZVIERIEV, director, Institute of Mass Information:
The very fact of the hearings is very important. People could voice their suggestions and remarks. As to their effectiveness, the resolutions passed will show. The main thing is for the legislature to finish work and pass resolutions, not just let everybody get it off his chest.
The bad thing is that there is no business, for what we have cannot be called business. It’s a clannish allocation of property, hence control over the advertising market. A free businessman that doesn’t have to take orders from any bureaucrats will order ads and commercials any way he sees fit. Our “business structures” do it as told above — they won’t send their ads to where it is “not recommended.” Media business cannot be free unless the principle of free enterprise is actually implemented. I hope out lawmakers heard this.
Eduard KASHTANIVSKY, chief editor, Kocheharka [The Boiler Room], Horlivka, Donetsk oblast:
I think that we need such hearings, but they must solve their tasks. Too bad the current topic is being debated for the fourth time in 11 years of independence. I don’t think that these hearings will change anything. It has to be done legislatively, and I’d place denationalization of the press at the top of the agenda. Kocheharka became an independent newspaper in 1990, founded by the working collective. Ever since we’ve had no freedom of expression problems. The mayor calls now and then, but only for help, although he runs his own periodical. Why? Because we broach relevant subjects. Indeed, the city authorities have sued us, but they lost, because we were right. If the editor and staff really care for their publication’s image, there won’t be any problems with the freedom of expression. They posed the right kind of questions at the hearings. The main thing is not to let them get lost in the censorship-freedom-of-expression maze.
I think it’s our mentality, but this will change with time. People are gradually used to the new way of life, discarding their socialist ways. Of course, the private media face a number of problems. Periodicals founded by state structures are in an advantageous position, they are financed by the state budget. When all periodicals are placed on an equal legal and business footing things will straighten out, I’m sure of it.
Oleksandr VOLOSOV, chairman of the Mass Media Union of Kharkiv oblast:
Actually nothing has changed. So what if there were hearings? Once again someone will capitalize on this politically. We must realize one thing. No one has ever given anyone any freedom. Freedom has always had to be won. Now everything depends only on the media. If they overcome their fears — not by setting up strike committees but by taking specific steps — the situation will change. When establishing our union, we invited not only creative staff but also technical personnel to join it. This is very important, because if they fire a journalists the viewers will watch movies instead of an information program, and this will be taken care of by technical personnel. Our approach makes protests in such cases more tangible.
In principle, it’s a business these days. Previously I was editor of Ukraine’s only cooperative newspaper, Oriyentyr [Landmark]. It was a profitable business, but we’d had to walk the gauntlet between the Left and Right to get there. The main thing was that we remained unaffiliated in the end. We had a print run of 150,000 copies, fantastic for Kharkiv oblast. At present, all the local media have their bosses, their staff is on payroll. One can all it business, albeit with reservations. A newspaper claiming the status of a commercial project must be free in the first place.
Vitaly SHEVCHENKO, member of the National Television and Radio Council:
Whether or not these hearings will have an effect depends on the journalists. If they can develop enough team spirit and professional solidarity, everything will be fine. Today it is the biggest news. If the journalists report for work and give it due coverage, others will pick it and in the end the authority will press for the desired items twice less, or maybe they will stop pressuring them. In other words, they could create a background against which the Verkhovna Rada would adopt certain amendments to legislation in the next couple of months. Otherwise everything will remain on paper and tape.
I’ve come out with the motto Ukraine without Government-run Media! I think this one of the problems. Another one is the absence of public television and radio in Ukraine, but that’s part of the information market. It is important, of course, but not as much as the first one. In dry figures it is a huge sector. By retaining it the state dictates the rules of the game in the information market that every media must observe. Meaning that this rudiment should be eliminated. Let alone what you can hear from young journalists. They believe that it would be best to hand the media leading society astray over to foreign magnates, claiming it’s a short cut to real freedom. A very alarming sign.
Bohdan KUFRYK, journalist, Ekspres, Lviv:
What happened in Verkhovna Rada now won’t change much in the Ukrainian media market. Such hearings are becoming traditional. Now it’s fashionable to discuss the freedom of speech from parliamentary rostrum, hoping that someone will hear you and draw some conclusions. There have been other such hearings and nothing has happened. I scanned the guest list this time, mostly people from press services of regional state administrations, regional councils, and government-run television companies. Very few practicing journalists, especially from the regions where the freedom of speech is really a problem.
Our media will become just another line of business only when our journalists — especially their employers — realize that the media are not only a way to express one’s views on one problem or another, but also a way to make money. When we realize this we’ll have better quality media. We’ll have projects that won’t serve the interests of a given oligarch but will be meant to earn money, the way it’s practiced in the West. When we hear about violations of the freedom of expression or obstructing journalist pursuits, we shouldn’t cry on someone’s shoulder but bring the matter to court. When our courts are jammed with such lawsuits, like I did (Bohdan Kufryk sued the mayor of Lviv who barred the journalist access to a news conference; the third hearing of the case is scheduled for December 18 - Ed.), I think some officials will think twice before meddling in the journalism business. Especially when one quotes Article 171 of the Criminal Code. Then the attitude toward Ukrainian journalists will be different.
