On May 28, the Russian thugs shelled Ukrainian fortifications near Krasnohorivka. The shelling was carried out with heavy artillery systems of 122 mm and 152 mm calibers. This fact was made public by spokesman of the anti-terrorist operation headquarters Anton Myronovych. In turn, soldier Andrii Shor published photos of the pieces of shells coming from the militants. Overall, 20 attacks were recorded in Prymorske area which resulted in seven Ukrainian soldiers wounded on that day.
Figures of attacks and casualties have long since become mere statistics for the public, inured to them by three years of war. What was perceived as terrible and unacceptable in the first half of 2014, now looks as a sad, but mundane frontline report, lost among other messages. “Another flare-up” has become a stock phrase. Sometimes tragedies overshadow even festive events, as it was during the Eurovision. Let us recall that the Russian thug formations shelled Avdiivka on that day, killing civilians. However, nothing interrupted the fanfares, not even a minute of silence. Maybe it was done so as not to politicize the contest with a reminder of the obvious fact: Ukraine suffers from the aggression of the Russian Federation.
Ukraine was unprepared for war in 2014, including in the information field. However, are we prepared for the challenges offered by the aggressor now? How should journalists work in wartime? Where should the line be drawn between objectivity and military expediency? What should be journalists’ priorities, and what should take precedence – national loyalty or profession?
MP from the People’s Front faction, chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Culture and Spirituality Mykola Kniazhytskyi said: “Concerning the media community, I do not really imagine what it is like. For me, there are people who I trust as professionals, read them, and take their opinions into account. All others just do not interest me.”
“Do not forget that the structure of the media community shapes other phenomena, including public opinion,” The Day heard from representative of Ukraine in the working group on security of the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk Yevhen Marchuk. “There are several levels of assessment and perception of the media community. Firstly, it is about information. Secondly, it affects citizens’ awareness of what is happening around them. Thirdly, we have experts. Above all, we must understand what it means to have the current Ukrainian media community during the war. In my view, the Ukrainian media community is unaware that this country is at war even today. The perception is that there is no war in Ukraine, but only a daily chronicle of catastrophes and horrors that exist in any country. For example, there was a deadly nightclub fire in Lviv. This was certainly a tragedy and should have been covered. The news broadcasts had that news first, and then a frontline report was read out, mentioning that so many people were killed at the front. The deaths of people in the club were certainly a tragedy, but how dared they to start with it instead of the frontline report, where people die almost daily? Thus, the focus is shifting away from the war, as if it was no more.”
“Russia, in turn, says that it is not involved in this war, but in practice, the Kremlin and Russian media’s starting point is its participation in the war,” Marchuk continued. “The entire Russian media machine is set up for it. I monitor about six Russian TV channels. From 2 a.m. to 10 p.m., one masterful talk show replaces another, all involving experts and video records, including those of Ukrainian TV channels. That is, Russia TV troops were established long ago and have been involved from the very beginning of the war in 2014. We prefer peace and calm instead, and even crime reports. Almost no Ukrainian media are interested in the answer to a fundamental question: why did Russia invade Ukraine? And most importantly: why did Ukraine prove unprepared for this? A superficial (while correct) explanation is that Viktor Yanukovych and his team slowly destroyed the defense and security sector. This is truth, but not entire truth. Why did Vladimir Putin dare to attack Ukraine? Why was he not afraid of anyone? He was unafraid of Ukraine’s resistance as well as of the reaction of the world including NATO. Immediately after the annexation of Crimea, Russia published a multivolume history of Crimea with maps and historical documents, explaining in every manner that Crimea was rightfully Russian. How did Ukraine react? It did not. In Ukraine, who did delve into the historical patterns making it clear that we needed to be ready for a war with Russia? Unfortunately, few people in power inconvenience themselves by embarking on in-depth studies of the history of Ukrainian-Russian relations. I can say that this topic is systematically examined only by Den daily, including through its powerful Library book series.”
“When we talk about banning Russian social networks, our starting point should be the recognition that Ukraine is in a state of war, and that war is spreading,” Marchuk explained. “The war is spreading from the military component to the economic, media, and other ones. To say it frankly, it will not end soon. Putin will not wipe away tears and apologize any time soon. So we have to work with these realities. I wonder about something else: why do we lack thorough, accessible explanations of certain actions, including the aforementioned ban on access to the Russian social networks? I do not see the damage from these networks as ideological in nature. The real threat is different. All data about users is stored neither in Ukraine, nor in Europe or in the US, but in Russia. Imagine a critical situation, where Russia uses its puppet militants to attack Mariupol in order to establish a land corridor to Crimea. It is an idee fixe for them. How many subscribers do Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki have in Ukraine? There are millions of them. When a person receives an SMS from a stranger, they do not care much about it. Meanwhile, the social networks can transmit information instantly to millions of people in uniform using channels they trusted before. This information can be a comment, a defamatory message, etc. Thus, the danger is not propaganda, but rather the ability to access tens of millions of Ukrainian citizens within seconds. That is, we do not really need to restrict Ukrainians’ access to the Russian social networks, but rather to restrict the aggressor’s access to Ukrainians.”
