Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Freedom of Speech and Information Committee Oleksandr Zinchenko (SDPU{o} fraction), thinks that the daily televised “Parliamentary Diaries” is the best form of covering Verkhovna Rada proceedings. He does not think it fit to broadcast the whole plenary session in full, Interfax reports. According to the deputy, the “Diaries” can go on the air “2-3 times a day, 10-20 minutes each” and concisely inform the public about what was discussed and what bills were voted during the sitting, as well as quote “the most characteristic utterances” of the deputies. Mr. Zinchenko did not rule out that the journalists accredited to Parliament might be divided into two categories: those present at the given sitting and permanent (higher level accreditation). Information-access priority could be given in particular to the permanent correspondents of this country’s leading information agencies.
The committee chair also admitted that the activity of an information agency can be of a certain commercial nature, for example, while disseminating exclusive information, interviews, etc.
The Day asked some Ukrainian and Russian journalists to comment on these changes, as Mr. Zinchenko said, in the organization of work of the media in Verkhovna Rada.
Vyacheslav PIKHOVSHEK, “Epicenter,” 1+1 :
“We can welcome the establishment of the Rada Television Company but only if other media are not limited access to the Verkhovna Rada information they are interested in. Otherwise, this will mean violation of the citizens’ right to know. It is no secret that Parliament has currently accredited many journalists of different levels and political attitudes, but is up to the Deputies themselves to grant or not grant somebody an interview. The attempt to divide journalists into good and bad ones causes me to ask a host of questions. What is still vaguer is the possible commercialization of the media’s work in Verkhovna Rada. This has not happened up to now.”
Hryhory SYMANOVYCH, ORT channel press service chief (Russia):
“It is common knowledge that Western rock stars often demand to be paid for an interview. But if a certain politician demanded money from the media for it, he would immediately be kicked out of politics. I can only express my personal viewpoint, but I think that Deputies elected by the people to the highest body of this country by the people have no right to turn their budget-remunerated work into a side job. This is a matter of criminal law. This does not exist in the Russian Duma. Quite the contrary, politicians sometimes unofficially pay journalists so that the latter feature them.
“As to the division into two categories of accreditation, in my country all accredited journalists enjoy equal rights. The only point is that, say, an ORT or Komsomolskaya pravda journalist will surely get accreditation, while a certain provincial newspaper might be not.”
Natalia KONDRATIUK, ORT Ukrainian bureau :
“The statement by the honorable chairman of the parliamentary Freedom of the Press and Information Committee prompts me to ask why? What is the sense in dividing journalists into friendly, correct ones who cover the proceedings ‘the right way,’ and the ‘alien,’ unpredictable ones who might tell something the way it is. If this is the case, it makes sense to rename the committee Mr. Zinchenko head something like ‘committee for restricting the freedom of the press and doling out information.’ Of tremendous interest also is the hint about a commercial relationship between the press and commentators who get exclusives. However, it is not clear here who pays whom and what for: either the Deputy is paying for being shown on the air or media outlets are paying Deputy to hear his point of view. If we do not put up artificial obstacles, any journalist can interview any deputy without outside interference. Then why should we put up such barriers? As far as I see it, this committee’s function is to observe, not restrict, the freedom of expression.”
