Does political journalism exist in Ukraine? What does political
journalism mean to you? What do you think of the advantages and disadvantages
of two possible stands a political journalist may take, keeping off the
battlefield or being openly partisan? Should a journalist stick to the
unbiased analysis of a given situation or highlight the ideas of a certain
political group? Is a journalist’s personal stand his professional Achilles’s
heel or a plus?
The Day addressed these questions to Ukraine’s leading
political print and television journalists. The Editors believe that stratification
is a process currently embracing not only society as a whole or Parliament
in particular, but also journalism. During the elections the principal
boundary line ran between the so-called opposition and openly pro-government
media. Presently, new interests have appeared in both these monoliths.
First, this implies greater freedom of expression and a broader choice
for journalists. Secondly, it serves to enhance competition among publishers,
thus forcing them to seek more varied information and offer different views,
in other words, producing in the end greater pluralism and higher professionalism.
Third, however, the information-defamation wars among different — in terms
of interest rather than ideology — groups are becoming more aggressive,
with facts and arguments they use becoming progressively more biased. Simultaneously,
Ukraine lacks the conditions for the emergence of unaffiliated, truly independent
media, including business and political interests. So how do Ukrainian
political journalists feel under the circumstances, now that they are increasingly
aware of the need to take a clear stand of their own with regard to what
is happening? The Editors further believe that this discussion will be
interesting to the readers as the addressees, consumers, victims, and even
sifters of the information being provided by the media. How, in their opinion,
can a journalist’s personal stand affect this information? Please send
your messages to the Media and Public Opinion Department (tel. 414-91-26;
e-mail: [email protected]).
Oleksandr KRYVENKO, chief editor, PiK (Politics and
Culture) Magazine:
Life is crueler than meets the eye. On the one hand, a
journalist ought to follow in the traditional BBC footsteps, remaining
above the situation, outside the process, giving both sides their say,
then leaving it to the reader, listener, or viewer to draw his own conclusions.
This is perfectly normal, standard practice, but happens mostly in countries
like Great Britain with democracies dating back centuries. In today’s Central
European countries (let alone those of Eastern Europe), this approach is
reduced to verbiage about the common good. The purity of the experiment,
albeit relative, can be secured only in the West. Reading the Financial
Times, particularly what it has to say on Ukraine, we understand that
this is not a stand taken by a given journalist. We can guess that those
journalists are driven by something stronger than a child’s sincere, naive
desire to share the news about his stomachache with Dad and Mom or that
he is hungry. In reality, what they write is meant to hit home somewhere
and that’s the reason they write it. Thus, in response to your question,
I think that one of the advantages is that a journalist should distance
himself from events, lest he become a mouthpiece for a certain political
group. That is my position, yet it can also be very useful for a journalist
to have a public position, and that this is very important for our profession.
It is something else whether this stand needs to be stated like divine
judgment on every occasion, waving it like a red cape before the audience
like a bull at a bullfight. But a journalist has to have such stand so
as to provide information in a certain way, otherwise the poor devil might
get confused and proceed to write pap reflecting the views of his audience
for which he writes.
As for whether we have political journalism in Ukraine,
the answer is that we do. Just turn on your television and watch any of
Pikhovshek’s programs. This might be cited as a graphic example of what
I said. With all the outward attributes of a Western unbiased approach,
he obviously has certain persuasions as a host. He does not impose them
on you, but they are easy to see, adding a certain flavor and color to
the program, making it really interesting for the audience.
Iryna POHORELOVA, Politicheskie Khroniki:
Of course, there is political journalism in Ukraine. It
will be here as there are political topics. This notion is not one of value
but of fact. As for what we call a journalist’s stand, there can be more
than one. I think that it would be more professional not to stand above
a conflict (this prerogative of the Lord God is usually adopted by political
scientists) or on either side of the barricade (for it is then that propagandistic
journalists degrade, turning into image-makers and technicians, callings
that have nothing to do with journalism as an information-gathering profession)
but are within a process, which more often than not has nothing to do with
struggle or confrontation as such, but with the designation of goals, looking
for mechanisms, bargaining, negotiations, and compromises. In my opinion,
a journalist’s personal stand can consist in only one thing: a passion
abnormal in an ordinary person or even a politician for new facts and events,
especially for new ideas, goals, mechanisms, and so on. If the journalist
gets hold of all this information single-handedly, analyzes and interprets
it, without posing as one of those on the inside, such a personal stand
will never turn this journalist into someone’s tool. This, however, can
simultaneously be a journalist’s Achilles’ heel and advantage, as is true
of any professional cretinism: those that know too much are disliked and
feared. Even the toughest journalist may have his favorite politicians,
but never for ideological reasons. It is just that a journalist is always
fond of politicians that keep their doors open to the press and tolerate
any views expressed about them, without trying to impose any restrictions
on the freedom of expression. Since there are few such politicians in Ukraine
— or anywhere else in the world — one might think that journalists who
favor certain politicians are simply on the latter’s secret payroll. Yet
text is what always exposes the difference between genuine affection and
venality. As for ideology, it runs in every professional journalist’s blood
and boils down to liberalism, because this is the only ideology that secures
the primacy of the freedom of expression.
