“In your opinion, is the present criticism of the government by many media outlets a sign of information war (as the recent Rukh statement has it) or an indication of political pluralism?”
Heorhy POCHEPTSOV, Professor, Chair, Department For International Communications and Public Relations, Institute of International Relations, Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University:
“Typically, we tend to perceive any criticism as a sign of information war, but those who stick to this view become combatants in that war themselves, for by so doing they neutralize criticism, focusing not on the argument but on the opponent. Alternative points of view have a right to exist in society. If such views exist, it is only natural that they be voiced. The trouble is that the government has little basis of political support, with only vociferous, albeit numerically weak parties now weighing in on the its side. The government can hardly be blamed for this, for it is part of our political system when the government is formed outside the legislature. On the other hand, information wars have been and will continue to be waged, and we in Ukraine should learn not only how to attack (a skill we have already acquired), but also how to repel such attacks (a skill more difficult to master). Just as in the coal, oil, and gas sectors, the government must learn how to operate using information resources.”
Robert OPALENYK, 1+1 television correspondent:
“I would rather not limit the discussion to the two options offered. I believe, the current criticism is the price that the government is paying for its democratic convictions.
“All the former governments have not been viewed as reform ones. They were authoritarian governments. Basically, given constructive criticism, the reaction of the present government to opposing opinions is quite correct. It is quite possible that, following the present barrage of criticism, picking at the government may become standard procedure, with all future governments becoming more open to criticism. I don’t think what we have now could be described as information warfare. Nor do I believe that all the attacks on the government are aimed only to remedy or correct it. There may be something more behind such attacks but, in essence, this is a normal thing.”
Oleksiy MUSTAFIN, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Information and Analytical Service, Inter Television:
“I believe that criticizing the government is common practice in any democratic country. If the press does not criticize the government, this raises doubts as to how democratic and free the mass media are. Obviously, government officials should accept such criticism as something normal, without the pot calling the kettle black. Blaming journalists for the officials’ own shortcomings is a Soviet-era tactics that must be rejected in a democracy.”
Zinovy KULYK, journalist, political analyst:
“It would be stretching it, to put it mildly, to define the existing criticism as an information war, for the small-scale skirmishes initiated by some mass media outlets could hardly be called an information war. On the other hand, the present-day pluralism of opinions in the press reflects only the ideology of the political and business groups behind theese mass media outlets. The rare exceptions are those publications that report various points of view, but they are the exceptions to the rule. In broad terms, any government, despite its positive track record, could be a target for criticism. Let’s take a scenario: the Yushchenko government gets a windfall tomorrow in the shape of foreign loans allowing it to repay all pension and wage arrears by the New Year. I’d bet that already on the third day after the New Year the mass media would start saying that this is no achievement at all, that this is, generally speaking, routine work and the government must show such work every day of its tenure. The major problem, as I see it, is not that the government has repaid its arrears and began paying wages and salaries on time, the major problem is that salaries must be three, five, seven, or ten times higher. This is just an aside. Speaking about global decisions, we must admit that the interests of political/business groups directly affect the policy of not only every information agency, but unfortunately have a serious impact on the legislative process and the executive itself.”
Oleksiy PLOTNYKOV, Ph.D. in economics, Professor, Chair, Department for International Currency Financial Relations, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences:
“I would call this pluralism bordering on information war. I wouldn’t call it a war. It is still pluralism, but in some ways it goes beyond the bounds of ethics.”
Oleksandr CHEKMYSHEV, Deputy Director, Institute of Journalism, Kyiv Shevchenko National University :
“In my view, the criticism of the government by the mass media indicates the media’s involvement with various political groups, which are sometimes called clans and oligarchs. With such groups confronting each other, the editorial policy of mass media outlets is affected by this contention with the result that there is hardly an outlet in Ukraine that can boast quality reporting. In other words, not a single broadcast or print outlet in Ukraine can offer Ukrainians a level of reporting sufficient for making balanced choices and realistic decisions on major political, economic, and other issues. Ukrainians lack adequate information to be able to make reasoned decisions and thus to become a basic factor of reforms, to be in the center of reforms.”
Volodymyr SKACHKO, Correspondent, Chas MN:
“I think, this really is an information war. The current situation in Ukraine resembles a paradox, with apparently all the major mass media outlets, especially television, owned by opponents of the present government, that is, by groups whose interests were ignored during the formation of this government. And now these groups are trying to make use of their monopoly ownership of the mass media to sling mud at any steps taken by the Yushchenko government. The Yushchenko government should be criticized, but not for everything. The oligarchs cannot forgive the UAH 4 billion which the government made them cough up to pay pensions on time. The climax of this war came when one Kyiv-based newspaper carried a filthy story which contained cynical references and jibes by an unscrupulous journalist made on the day when Yushchenko’s second daughter was born.”
Olha TAUKACH, General Director, Gravis Television:
“Looking back on the last ten years of Ukraine’s independence, this is not the first day the government has drawn criticism. In all probability, not a single government has managed to escape basically deserved criticism. Thus I would not define it as an information war, because there is definitely a wide enough range of mass media outlets reflecting various shades of criticism, with various economic sectors and their various representatives coming under fire. This is why I wouldn’t speak of an information war. I think, the truth is somewhere in the middle.”
Mykhailo POHREBYNSKY, political scientist:
“There are two welcome positive elements related to the freedom the press has to analyze the government’s record. There is also a negative element related to the lack of adequate information on the government’s performance, the blame for which should be shared both by the government and mass media. The lack of information has been caused by two reasons: first, due to their lack of professionalism and, second, their bias. Let me explain. While watching a television news item on Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to Moscow, rather than being informed about the agenda of the talks, what agreements have or have not been made, I was fed a full spectrum of opinions, ranging from complete fiasco to complete success, and leaving me wondering what had really happened in Moscow. Only using my own sources could I get the information that enabled me to make my own judgment. This is abominable. First of all, facts should be reported separately from commentary. Only by doing so can the mass media proceed to cover public opinion and finally give a it correct interpretation. The mass media can be overly biased, and let them be so, since in such a way they will represent all points of view. Clearly, various opinions must be reflected, with no one becoming a monopoly opinion. Whether to call it war or criticism makes no difference to me.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Day expects that our survey will spark interest among readers, as in the final analysis our living standards depend on how well the Ukrainian government does its job. Can the government work effectively without being criticized, harsh criticism included? What is your vision of justified and unjustified criticism? We look forward to hearing from you.
