Some changes are occurring in our society if, for instance, government officials can say out loud that our mass media have lately turned into channels of communication between oligarchs and authorities or that our press, television, and radio are "pressured" not by the government but exclusively by financial clans because of their purely commercial interests. The author of this piece heard these views at a recent round-table discussion with sociologists, journalists, presidential administration representatives, and mass media managers. The discussion focused on the impact of the mass media on the current political developments in Ukraine.
Such statements automatically mean an acknowledgment of the fact that our government is nothing more than a puppet in the hands of those oligarchs and clans. For seven years of Ukraine's independence, every Ukrainian citizen has had ample chance to witness that no businessman (including those in the mass media) would be able to survive in our country without some kind of government support, and any disobedience is severely penalized. The examples, as they say, are at the point of the pen: the million-hryvnia libel suits against Kievskie Vedomosti and its eventual eviction from its editorial premises, the shutdown of Pravda Ukrainy, the government's military action against regional television and newspapers in Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, the Crimea, etc. But if, as it turns out, the executive branch indeed has nothing to do with it, and all of it is just the vices of the "financial clans," then it is clear what the real role of this government is.
Yet, there is nothing new in defining political leaders as puppets – puppeteers worldwide do not sit in presidential or ministerial seats. What is really disturbing though is that all this non-traditional argumentation was used in this particular case not for an accurate and objective portrayal of reality, but for presenting our current presidential power as some kind of an innocent lamb, whose innocence and exclusively good intentions are always let down by monsters – the oligarchs and the venal mass media. Meanwhile, for the naive executive bodies, one word by Alla Mazur in the Television News Service or, for example, one headline in The Day is enough (according to another revelation by another discussion participant) for the President to have a fight with his subordinate, and the irresponsible media, being well aware of that, still keeps provoking. (If this is really the case, then the mass media worldwide could indeed only dream of such a powerful impact on the political developments in the country).
Let alone the ludicrousness inherent in the present attempts of the political higher-ups to present the oligarchs as scapegoats, as if up to a certain moment they all had not been growing up in a touching unity, like Siamese twins, linked by the same circulatory system of mutual sponsorship. As far as the fact that some oligarchs have clearly stood in the way for a long time now, that is what the elections are meant for – the courtiers can quickly wash their hands and put on white gloves.
I hope both the readers and the discussion participants will forgive me this "total" irony, especially since it is difficult to disagree with many of the arguments made. For example, with regard to the fact that if the state has determined for itself the importance of some values, it should have some sort of a Ministry of Truth that would in some way implement those values in society. I fully support sociologist Olha Balakireva, who believes that advertising, including political advertising, has become the defining, leading genre in our mass media, and that overt promotion has taken the place of both objective news coverage and analysis, which shape healthy public opinion. But can we really charge only the private, politically dependent mass media with this kind of policy? Which, for example, TV channel is still the most odious with respect to political competition? You are not likely to name, say, 1+1, Inter, or ICTV, where interests of both the "oligarchs" and the government structures are, no doubt, present, but in a more glossed-over, civilized, muted way, with face saving. And only UT-1 with its "Seven Days" and Ukrainian TV News with its "Government: The Hour of Action" or "Relax, You're in the Show" and the like still scares away the normal, thoughtful audience by both overt political propaganda and competitive swaying with the line and party (clan?) currently in favor in the king's court.
Meanwhile, the mission of the Ministry of Truth as a promoter of universal human values is being taken on (at least to some extent) by the private channels that air low-rating, yet socially and spiritually significant shows like "Telemania," "Olha Herasymiuk's Versions," "Monologues (1+1)," "Impreza" and "Photograph" (ICTV), "Theater in the Palms of Your Hands," "Give Me Five," "Thirty-Five Minutes of Jazz," or "Ukraine's Immortal Treasure" (TET). These programs are of the level and quality that make them a true image of their channels – they really shape the face of the channel. And in what way do such "cultural" and "educational" shows as "Svichado," "Oranta," and "Osnovy" shape the face of UT-1? ("Osnovy," with its new host Khrystyna Stebelska, has lately acquired some modern tonality in the anchor's commentaries, but the footage itself remains as primitive as ever.) And what about the blunt arrogance of "National Hit Parade?" The products of acceptable quality, which UT-1 has yet very recently been putting on its air ("Vitrazhi," "Secret Histories With Dmytro Kharytonov”) are also released by private studios.
The same holds true for the print media – white sheep are also found mostly among the publications openly established on private capital. They aim not only at facilitating redistribution of political power in the country, or, say, at pursuing commercial interests, but also at influencing the public conscience in more fundamental ways. They rightly believe that society should have a struggle of ideas and not of incriminating evidence. Different ideas of the way the country should develop (and not of personal capital) must be in free circulation, backed up by objective and full coverage of information, profound analysis, specific, directed criticism, and rejection of both the philosophy of intrigue and the philosophy of "simple decisions." And, finally, the mass media must also be held accountable for the ethical values they declare.
