Larysa IVSHYNA: “In today’s politics the main conflict is between Ukrainian fundamentalism and Ukrainian modernization”

“Ms. Ivshyna, given the current state of our nation’s politics and journalism, at the end of the day is the editor-in-chief a journalist or a politician? In what proportion do you combine these two sides?”

“I think he/she is both a journalist and a politician, which is obligatory for an editor-in-chief, especially that of a nationwide sociopolitical publication. Maybe the politician prevails in me, but only slightly and in a different, not applied meaning. To make a newspaper that will be interpreted as a political factor and a source of credible information, you must have certain views, persuasions, and a system of coordinates. Sometimes I even tediously repeat: to be flexible, you must have firm principles. And I think we’ve demonstrated these principles throughout the last five years.”

“Now some journalists choose to become pure politicians. Have you ever received proposals to take part in the elections?”

“Yes, I have. With all its drawbacks, our journalism remains more independent than political novices. Gone is the time when politics, as well as journalism, was made for free. So journalism provides more opportunities for one to be independent and protect oneself.”

“For all these years you have striven to make a newspaper that thinks. Watching how our society lives, do you have a feeling that yours is a labor of Sisyphus?”

“I believe in effort. Purposeful effort and patience are of great importance in our situation. Do you remember a fable about two frogs? Before 1999, we could really struggle like a frog in a milk jug, whipping up cream and trying to escape. But it became clear as time went by that what is in the jug is not milk but something that does not whip up. So it was necessary, after the 1999 elections, to change tactics, find and firmly stick to a position. For by no means every newspaper, which supports ‘its own candidate’ who did not win the presidential election, can under our conditions find enough strength to live and work on in order not to lose the trust of the thinking reader. The current degree of trust shows that we have found a proper way and the latest poll of our readers confirms this. While before 1999 the common assumption was that Leonid Kuchma was to blame, after 1999 it is clear that society itself is to blame, so one should not be fixated on the president alone as some of his belated opponents have suddenly begun to do... This is, incidentally, a separate subject that must show how to apply the experience of past mistakes with today’s practice, show the stages through which Ukrainian society has passed such as ruins, being engulfed by neighbors, internal rivalry, mass extermination of the elite, and rejection of our own wisdom...

“It might seem to somebody that what we do is a labor of Sisyphus... But we are determined to sow the values of civil society, trying to express various viewpoints and giving the readers a chance to express their own views either on the special letters to the editor page or during the functions we sponsor. Such functions as The Day’s Expert and Civic Forum have discovered new contributors and become the mouthpiece of the proverbial vox populi, which some people so often pretend to care about but very seldom listen to. I think we give everybody who is not indifferent to this country’s destiny an opportunity to speak out, thus nurturing the sprouts of a new civil society. By performing this enlightening mission in society, we thus establish the centers of, so to speak, human crystallization and an entirely new mentality. At least our readers say so. Yet, we would like these centers to develop faster and perhaps have a greater say in political decision making. More often than not, servility in the corridors of power keeps people from doing things the way Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh recently did: he personally called Vitaly Kniazhansky over a highly acute problem the journalist had raised.”

“Five years ago, virtually every newspaper was biased toward a certain religion or denomination. Why has The Day’s editor-in-chief allowed and adopted the policy of fair and unbiased coverage of our religious life without linking the newspaper to a specific denomination?”

“I am sure we managed to because we orient ourselves toward the reader who has an ecumenical vision of his own. Our readers are very sensitive to any publications on religious matters. For this reason, with due respect for the rights of our compatriots to satisfy in one way or another their spiritual and religious needs, we look on the church as an instrument to satisfy these needs without unduly making it a fetish, for which you have my special thanks, dear Klara Gudzyk.”

“Have you ever had a sensation over the past five years that all the efforts you and your team make are futile? On the one hand, you said that we cannot influence the authorities as we would like. But the impression sometimes is that we are equally unable to influence public opinion to which the media are supposed to appeal. One can say, of course, that our people are without initiative or inert, but perhaps we ourselves are to blame? Perhaps we are probing the wrong pressure points or are unable to properly present them? Have you had such a feeling?”

“Above all it the voter who determines the degree of freedom, including that of a publisher. So I listen with healthy skepticism to the tirades of people who say, ‘You are now not so radical as you were during the election campaign.’ This reminds me of a different reproach: that we are not so actively licking somebody’s boots. I reject these reproaches for the simple reason that there was a certain scenario in the development of Ukrainian situation before 1999, and we did our best to show society some alternative. But society reacted the way it thought best at that stage. I want to recall “The Election Night” on 1+1 television. I said then and can repeat now: it is the quality of the so- called elite that is to blame for the inadequate pace and depth of our transformation. The point is not in the personalities of those who run this country: what I say became even more apparent after Leonid Kuchma was elected president. We saw the mutations occurring during the tapegate in the people who had only recently offered him ostensibly fervent political support: this could cause nothing but disgust. Earlier opponents ended up as strategic allies in crucial matters. This tapegate dealt an unbelievably hard blow to this country’s prestige. Moreover, we are in a civil war, we are trying to establish certain criteria in society. We tried to prove this during the election campaign; then, after the elections, we can say, ‘All right, we did not win, but we still must do something to put across what we consider right.’ But only few know how to do so: it is far more difficult to find strength to live than to find strength to struggle. I still consider that this country’s competitiveness will depend on what conclusions will be drawn from our previous dramatic mistakes.”

“The new Ukrainian journalism is often based on sensationalism. What phenomena, events, and tendencies do you think deserve being called a sensation?”

“Indeed, our front page stories are often different from what other newspapers offer. Take, for instance, the recent tragic event when a Ukrainian missile downed a Tu-154. We also reported this, but we did it in an entirely different way, emphasizing the necessity of making political conclusions from this situation. On another occasion, we preferred to analyze the systemic crisis before telling about lost bank deposits. We discussed the causes and the likely consequences for millions of people. According to this principle, our press can be divided into one that still hopes to rear a new elite in this country and one that has abandoned all attempts to build a full-fledged state and is full of information that can be called chewing gum for the brain because it comprises not a single element of development.

“Many of our politicians, who have visited The Day, say that we conduct interviews unlike other newspapers. What’s different here? Only that our questions carry a different level of generalization. It is our view on a problem that makes a problem worthy of being placed on the front page. This is also a sensation. What matters here is not whether somebody has deliberately narrowed the limits of freedom but whether the journalists of a newspaper know who they work for, hear the opinion of an individual who paid thirty to fifty kopecks for them, whether they believe that what they are going to write for this individual will have public repercussions, and be followed by a certain decision.”

“Answering our questions, you always refer to the readers. But how can a reader influence our newspaper or another? By his/her opinion. Yet, unlike in Ukraine, in Poland all newspapers are published by public liability companies: they throw their shares onto the market and the reader votes for one newspaper or another not only by subscribing to it but also by acquiring its shares, i.e., becoming its co-owner. What do you think about our newspaper turning into a public liability company?”

“But what is the growth rate of the Ukrainian economy? How soon is it going to catch up with the Polish economy?”

“I think in five years or so.”

“Only provided we make more strenuous efforts than now. We receive many letters in which our readers say they have gotten used to us and the whole street reads our newspaper. Yet, they wonder why, despite all this, our circulation is only about 60,000 copies. For many of them have been reading serious newspapers since Soviet times and know the taste of quality. Then they ask us to subscribe them to the newspaper. Of course, we try to help our most devoted readers. But you will agree this is a topsy-turvy economic relationship. While Polish readers deliberately try to become shareholders, often in this country shrewd readers fall out of the money circulation process. I wish we had what you talk about, but this cannot occur in isolation from the ongoing economic processes, as a head cannot live without a body.

“Unfortunately, now after a revolutionary breakthrough (national democratic liberation movement plus the fall of communism) we are going through a period known in history as a restoration. If the parliamentary elections do not show any new combination, it will be very difficult, for the ideologically based parties have failed to get off the ground in Ukraine, with the possible exception of Social Democrats (united) who, despite all accusations about their oligarchic nature, not only show signs of life but also display determination to set up a party organization. In addition, they have adopted an absolutely clear ideology. As to whether or not somebody likes their leaders, the drawback of our politicians is that they make everything a matter of emotion instead of making a systemic and structural analysis of events and actions. It is the absence of an ideologically based opposition that makes it possible to establish such unpredictable blocs of what might be called mutants... I was never a fervent anticommunist in the times when it was extremely fashionable to be one. Yes, there are things the Communist Party can be accused of having committed in the seventy years of its unopposed rule, but the relatively liberal years of Brezhnev gave impetus to internal Party processes that finally crystallized a progressively minded wing. Failure to follow the so much advertised path of China became a drama for these people. At the same time, Ukraine had the most conservative Communist Party. And it is an open secret that the 1991 events occurred from fear of Boris Yeltsin. Perhaps the fact that everything is rotting instead of developing is the price of Leonid Kravchuk’s 1991 compromise. Now he is one of the few politicians who said frankly he does not understand the Constitutional Court decisions about the Communist Party and thinks the decision was made by gowned politicians. Even if this might have been stated too emotionally, nobody else has spoken on this subject. Although there is such an excellent occasion as the election campaign, neither of the Rukhs, nor Yushchenko, nor For a United Ukraine have said a word! This is not the question of currying favor but of the inability of showing one’s cards, one’s own position. Why quarrel? Business interests have intertwined in many cases. Too many politicians dream of taking on the Communists in the runoff.

“Today the main political watershed lies between Ukrainian fundamentalism and Ukrainian modernization. Fundamentalism Ukrainian style is by all accounts the forces represented by Viktor Yushchenko. I do understand the meaning of his saying that he is Leonid Kuchma’s son. However, I would say that in this case he is more the son of Ivan Pliushch, for what contributed not to the least extent to Mr. Kuchma’s success in the 1994 elections was the fact that Eastern Ukraine voted for him as a representative of a high- tech industry. He symbolized the hopes for modernization of this country... As to Ukrainian fundamentalism, I agree with Dmitry Kiseliov who thinks that Ukraine faces the task of modernizing the Ukrainian character. Clearly, this is a difficult job, but not as hopeless as pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp, as Baron Muenchhausen did.”

“Strong chess players keep the game situation under control several moves ahead. Using chess terminology, what is your vision of newspaper journalism in general and The Day in particular in, say, five years?”

“I’m afraid of appearing idealistic, but I want intellectual journalism to be in demand. I believe changes are inevitable in Ukraine. We are pessimistic and depressed by our nature, a boring thing indeed. As Accounting Chamber Director Valentyn Symonenko, who addresses a huge number of problems and thus acquires many enemies, says, ‘Isn’t it time to stop being afraid?’ There must be such an atmosphere in society that people would want to like one another, that they would not be indifferent to what newspapers and television say about them.”

“A newspaper is, in principle, a conveyer belt product. Yet, The Day also prints what can be called works of art. Why does this worry you? After all, a host of publications are content with being average, while a piece of art is a onetime product. What is your idea of a conveyer belt in art and in a newspaper?”

“My idea is to adorn an event with as many different opinions and judgments as possible. While earlier we lived under the conditions of monologue, now we must learn to hear each other. Therefore, the interviews of Desiateryk, Ryliov, Malimon, Ryzhkov and our mass chasing our prey here in this conference hall show that we can get answers totally untypical for our situation. Both in journalism and in public life, we are going through the period of a Chinese market which offers low-cost and low-quality goods. It seems to me we have somehow provoked a certain level of readers’ demand because no intelligence will grow with substandard media. It is gratifying to note that we are not alone here. A few interesting names have appeared and established themselves on ICTV and 1+1 respectively, Donetsk journalist Serhiy Harmash is in the public focus. In spite of a high degree of dirt, the Internet has shown a number of media projects and authors who impress readers not only with their speed but also with their fine style. All this engenders joy because nobody will be able to simply rest on his laurels.”