The Ukrainian National Union of Journalists (UNUJ) enjoyed its highest prestige in the stable Soviet times, when admission to the union was considered at least as a milestone in one’s career. Although the union headquarters, 27 Khreshchatyk Street, still requests information be faxed rather than emailed, and most of its current members were admitted before independence, the union still defends the interests of journalists “on all fronts.” Its president, Ihor Lubchenko, is simultaneously a diplomat and a fighter by nature. He has been urging the Prosecutor General’s Office for many years to revise controversial cases, scourging the Ukrainian Mail for overpriced rates, and coming to the rescue of regional television and radio managers. At present, the indefatigable Lubchenko insists that there is no alternative to denationalization of the media and tries first of all to make things easier for the provincial press. Here follow some extracts from the interview UNUJ President Ihor LUBCHENKO was kind enough to grant The Day.
INEVITABILITY
“Your open letter in support of media denationalization is written in a style very emotional, like a manifesto. Still, some of its provisions and slogans seem either utopian or premature.”
“The bill to denationalize the mass media is in fact an instrument for one to get rid of a rival. My and our union’s fundamental standpoint is that there is no alternative to denationalization. We must do it. But not everybody understands what it means to publish newspapers at state budget expense. In particular, there is no clear distinguishing line between state-owned and communal newspapers.”
“As is known, state-run publications stand rather scanty chances of being taken over by those who work there. Besides, the journalists who work there are the least paid. For example, at the newspaper Shliakh Illicha of the 20-20-Bis Coal Mine in Shakhtarsk, where you once worked. Moreover, denationalization could leave them jobless. Does the UNUJ take these factors into account?”
“I head a union of journalists, not anti-journalists, so I am supposed to consider where and how these people will be working. One must lay the economic groundwork for denationalization because if newspapers are put up for sale, those who work there will be unable to buy them out at 50% cost. We therefore suggest that editorial offices be just handed over to the journalists. Do you remember the way they were built? Earlier, all the newspaper’s money was pocketed by the regional press department. At the time, even district-level publications made a profit, for they used to come out three or four times a week with a circulation of 15-20,000 copies. Then the funds were spent, for example, to build a print shop in one year and an editorial office in another. In other words, these offices were funded by those who worked there. This is why we believe they should be handed over or, in a very disputable situation, leased out for fifty years free of charge. Another option is to preserve the existing rent of one hryvnia per square meter for such publications, for God’s sake.”
“Would it be better to take an evolutionary path because the number of state-run media is dwindling with each passing year? While six months ago the state-run electronic media accounted for 3.8% of all publications, now they do 3.1%.”
“Unfortunately, the state-run media outlets that rely on local administrative bodies are just barely breathing. Local authorities often give 5% of what is needed. I was recently in Balakleya, Novotroyitsk district, Kherson oblast. The local newspaper staff had their salaries delayed for nine months, while the founder, the local authorities, pay just half the print shop bills.
“Another example. There is a newspaper Bukovynske viche in Chernivtsi. This newspaper, owned by the oblast council, has not paid journalists a cent in the past three years, thus running up a huge debt of 140,000 hryvnias. Now the oblast council has quit the board of founders and demands that the premises be vacated and property returned.
“The UNUJ takes a position radically different to that of the Ukrainian Association of Periodical Press Publishers led by Mr. Weisberg. While his idea is that the authorities should cease to be founders and all newspapers should be put up for auction, we say no. First give the premises and property back to editorial boards, and then if those who work there want to... But we do support the association’s proposal that if the founders have not been giving money over the past three years, the regional press department can just strip them of their rights as founders on the grounds that they have failed to fulfill their duties. This is also our suggestion.
“I met district newspaper editors in Poltava oblast. The meeting was also attended by deputy chairpersons of the oblast administration and a district administration chief. Most of those present admitted after debate that denationalization is inevitable. Editors now see that denationalization is economically beneficial. Newspaper people think that they are always chasing money that the authorities have to give us anyway. But our estimates show that if we publish the available materials at the least possible cost, we’ll eventually earn the same money.’ Yet, they fear that administrators will take away their editorial premises, property, and cut the funding altogether. Although the editors sometimes couldn’t stand each other, they agreed that denationalization was in the air.
“The UNUJ negotiated with the Kyiv-based editors who had written indignant letters to Holos Ukrayiny over denationalization. They, too, understand — sometimes with a cry in their voice — that this is unavoidable.”
PLANS AND ACTIONS
“And what pensions will be paid to denationalized newspapers’ staff?”
“We also keep this in mind. We have drawn up a special law whereby pensions of the staff of newspapers founded by those who work there or research and educational institutions are comparable to those of civil servants.
“Unless this is done, we will not support any kind of denationalization. This should be a gradual process begun, first of all, in the collectives that are willing to do so even now. It is on the basis of their experience that we could perfect the mechanism of further actions.
“Here is a positive example. The Bilhorod-Dnistrovsky city and district newspaper has been coming out five times a week since July 1, while it was just a biweekly in January. The newspaper makes do almost without governmental support. The city and the district provide together a mere 3.2% of the funds needed. Look: they exercise 100% control but give just 3.2% of the money necessary!
“People don’t know how to earn money. This is why we are setting up a school of young editors. We are going to gather them together once every two months for classes in business training. They will in turn put this experience to work in the provinces. We have already held a newspaper business seminar for oblast newspaper editors. The problem is that many editors, especially at the district level, are of retirement age. Obviously, it’s hard for them to change.
“When I was vacationing in Myrhorod, I went to visit the district newspaper. They complained to me, ‘Back in Soviet times, the circulation was 18,000 and now it’s 2-3,000.’ Then I conducted a market research. I bought the available local publications from a newsstand and summed up the circulation. It came to 16,000. So nothing has changed, only the newspaper market has been divided up differently. I had to reproach the sluggish journalists, ‘You should have thought up something like a popular district tabloid and make it your supplement. This would be an alternative source of earnings for you, and you would be much better off.’
“Now an altogether different example from my native Izium, Kharkiv oblast. A local newspaper had been circulating on subscriptions alone. The young editor made a retail sales deal with three rural and one urban post offices — now they are selling 200 extra copies. The mayor began to read letters to the editor every month. At first, the district chief was furious: he said those poignant letters were prearranged on purpose. But now he has understood that he must answer them. Yet, he still opposes denationalization. He’s afraid the paper will be against him. So a newspaper denationalization law would be much to the point. The newspaper prospers without state aid: since the New Year it has been publishing an advertisement-cum-information supplement for Izium and two neighboring districts. Undoubtedly, the problem should be addressed only in the interests of society and journalists.”
“CATCH AND PUT INSIDE!”
“Wide coverage was given, not in the last instance thanks to you, to the dismissal of regional television and radio managers who came into conflict with the authorities. Did you manage to have at least one ‘prodigal’ manager reinstated?”
“The point is not so much in conflict with the authorities as in the imperfect law. Local authorities refuse to renew contracts with television and radio managers. If these companies are subordinated to the State Television and Radio Committee, what do they have in common with the oblast administration? And, in general, why is the general manager on contract? For the rest of the staff is guided by our labor law: for example, a cleaning woman cannot be fired unless this is provided for in the labor law, while a manager can just have his contract terminated. This happened to a television company manager in Bukovyna. The same occurred at a Crimean channel because a so-called undesirable candidate was allowed to appear on screen during the election campaign. If the manager had bowed to the local authorities, he would have breached a provision of the election law.”
“In general, is journalism a dangerous profession in Ukraine?”
“It is. Our organization’s Kirovohrad regional branch has just been in session. Three journalist were beaten up in Donetsk and one in Kirovohrad last week.”
“The UNUJ promptly responds to anti-journalist terror. Do prosecutors heed your protests?”
“The tragedy is that law-enforcement bodies always try to brush it off as commonplace mugging. Ihor Hrushetsky died in Cherkasy: he allegedly fell and hit the back of his head. Maybe, he did. Yet, since 1997, when I was elected chairman of the Union of Journalists, I’ve been urging prosecutors and interior ministers to reopen investigations in controversial cases. So let the officer in charge of the case come to the union and answer the questions of the journalists who worked together with the victim. Maybe, this will dispel some suspicions.
“Law enforcement officials have thus far been claiming that only one journalist, Borys Derevyanko, died in the line of his professional duty.
“There also are some stranger cases. The president has instituted subsidies for children of killed journalists. But a subsidy can only be awarded if there is a document confirming that the death occurred in the line of professional duty. And Ihor Aleksandrov’s children cannot submit such a document because the court has passed no ruling to this effect.
“Prosecutor General Piskun now says there were six journalists who died in the line of duty. We demand that the Prosecutor General’s Office invite Union of Journalists representatives to a special session to discuss journalist death cases. Should such a session occur, we will raise again these pressing problems. It is important that the representatives read the cases of all the killed and wounded journalists.
“There was the case of Ihor Aleksandrov. They have already forgotten the death of UT-1’s Vadym Boiko in 1992. The official version maintained that the gasoline can he kept under his bed exploded. But the blast made the ceiling beams bend. Those who studied this case — journalists, not law-enforcement— believe that if this was true, he could not have been lying the way he was. There are many such controversial cases.
“When asked what is to be done to keep journalists safe, I always say: catch the killer and those who hired him, put them in the dock and behind bars. One, two, three, and the fourth will perhaps think twice whether to get entangled with these journalists.”
“And what has the public and journalists learned from the Gongadze affair?”
“I’m afraid the public and journalists have learned nothing at all, because it’s become a matter of politicians rather than society as a whole and journalists. Look, it is practically only the politicians who talk about this.”
“What can be done to give less biased coverage of the presidential elections?”
“In connection with next year’s presidential election, the UNUJ insists that Verkhovna Rada impose a moratorium on any media checks. This was agreed upon with Mykola Azarov in December 2000, when he was chairman of the State Tax Inspection. The same promise came from Vice Premier Dmytro Tabachnyk during last year’s parliamentary hearings on the freedom of expression.
“To tell the truth, we know, thanks to the good relations we maintain, the plan of media checks, beginning with January 15 every year. The plan is published in the journal Bulletin of the Tax Authority.”
“Which of the well-known journalist contests do you think is the most authoritative?”
“None. I never go to them. They are nothing but shows. First they award a trophy, and then we see the designers and the makers of this statuette squabble.”
NEW GENERATION OF JOURNALISTS
“Every time I visit an educational institution I ask teachers what kind of life — what kind of Ukraine, reality, legislation, and social processes — are they training future journalists for...”
“In Soviet times, five institutions of higher education and two Communist Party schools trained staff for a thousand media outlets. Now there are only two institutions for 6,000 media outlets. This is why the media quite often recruit laymen, although even specialized institutions also often produce non-professionals.
“I once asked some third-year journalist students what newspapers they contributed to. Only one of them named The Day. ‘OK,’ I said, ‘and what radio and TV programs do you listen to and watch, what newspapers do you read, what are you interested in?’ I had never heard this kind of pin-drop silence before. The same with other students. So whence the professionals? But when you meet students in Zaporizhzhia, Lviv, or Rivne, you notice big interest in the profession they chose. Regional students are more active than their metropolitan peers.”
“As to The Day, I can say we employ a lot of our own former trainees. Our ambassador in Turkey asked me recently, ‘Where do you find your journalists?’ He named those he reads, likes, and respects. I answered, ‘I can say without exaggeration that we ‘produce,’ not buy, them.”
“I am also sometimes haunted by a rebellious idea: why not close these university departments and do like in Japan? In Japan, they announce a media competition in March, with up to 100 people compete for one place. They appoint the winner to the humblest position, still giving him/her an opportunity to grow. Unaware of this, I requested to arrange a meeting with journalism department students. I was told that such departments do not exist and that universities train only journalism researchers.”
HOW TO COMBINE COMPETITION AND SOLIDARITY
“You know, I suddenly understood that Vladimir Lenin was right to say the press performs the function of an organizer. This may be open to all kinds of derision, but there are certain stages in the development of a young and still unstable country, when journalists can organize civil society. They can agitate for and propagandize it.”
“Yes, but I also wonder if people will come out to defend the freedom of TV the way they did in Prague.”
“When The Day was collecting materials for Chernukhy, Skovoroda’s birthplace, it was the public, not the journalists, who came to assist us. Other publications were not exactly enthusiastic. The same with the case of Walter Duranty, the New York Times journalist who won the Pulitzer Prize for lying about the 1933 manmade famine (as we were going to press, we knew nothing about the reaction of New York Times publishers to Duranty’s lies —Ed.) We appealed to all editorial boards and television channels to join us, so that more Ukrainians might urge the Pulitzer Committee to revoke the prize awarded for lies. This could also be a good school for today’s journalists because one cannot live a lifetime of lies.”
“You’re right. A lie can make itself felt many years later, though. This is what I constantly tell journalists. In due time, your children and grandchildren will come and ask what you wrote and propagandized, whom you supported and opposed. So we must work in such a way that they won’t be ashamed of us.”
“Everybody is aware of this, but not all know how to do this. Others know that somebody else knows how to do this, but they don’t know how to listen, see, and follow this. We must learn to keep up with the best in this field. In a competitive world, one must be able to reach and outstrip another. We have top come to an understanding about our common values. Before building a state and practicing politics, you must define your state. The same with journalism. Our press and TV are full of assessments and conclusions made from the viewpoint of anything but the Ukrainian state, while everything should be viewed through the prism of the latter.”
“The trouble is that we do not have information as such. We have compositions on the subject of information. Sometimes, to know what exactly happened, for example, during a Verkhovna Rada debate, one has to soak up reams of so- called printed wisdom.”
